If you love Shakespeare, you should see this film. I was not aware this film existed until today. That's the tragedy.
The film is done as a "war movie," and was promoted as such, but anyone looking for the usual action film will be disappointed in this film. This is not a war movie or an action film, any more than "Macbeth" would be.
This is an adaptation of Shakespeare's play. The setting is modern, but the words are all Shakespeare. I had not encountered Coriolanus since my college days decades ago, when we studied the text. I had never seen a performance of it, and it was considered one of Shakespeare's "lesser" plays--not much poetry, not much audience appeal.
This film was evidently released in this country in early 2012, at the time of year when "problem" films are usually dumped on the market after the rush of Oscar-worthy movies. I don't recall it being released locally--maybe it played at a local art house. Maybe for a week.
I think the film is a triumph for all concerned. The major achievement is making Coriolanus (the character AND the play) cinematically interesting. The script did an excellent job of pruning the text. Purists may recoil, but let's face it, a scene performed in front of military tanks not what Shakespeare would have imagined. Further, the script did not attempt to call attention to the cleverness of the adaptation, such as how a modern legislative chamber is used in place of the Roman senate. Instead, the script focused on the enduring issues, such as whether a public servant is chosen to execute the will of the people, or whether the servant is intended to exercise those personal qualities which caused him to be chosen. Or the question of whether there should be a separation between elected officials and the military.
With respect to the cast, I have nothing but praise, and astonishment. Ralph Fiennes did a remarkable job, showing a restraint which was sometimes absent from earlier films which he did not also direct. Vanessa Redgrave was just incredibly perfect. She has had many recent, excellent bits in very low-key roles (e.g., Atonement). But here, she is given an opportunity to show what she can do, and the effect is heart-wrenching.
Jessica Chastain did a fine job in what was basically a bit part. And Gerard Butler was (for me) the major surprise. Maybe he was offered the role because an "action film" actor was needed to boost box-office appeal. Regardless, he was allowed to perform without regard to affecting a British accent (or any other accent). The choice to allow him to focus on emotion rather than sound was a major plus. (Side note: Butler's first theatrical offering was in a production of Coriolanus. See Wikipedia.) Brian Cox is a grossly under-appreciated supporting actor. His final scene (with dialogue) is the best of the film.
I can't believe I missed this when it was released. I am so glad I found it today.
The film is done as a "war movie," and was promoted as such, but anyone looking for the usual action film will be disappointed in this film. This is not a war movie or an action film, any more than "Macbeth" would be.
This is an adaptation of Shakespeare's play. The setting is modern, but the words are all Shakespeare. I had not encountered Coriolanus since my college days decades ago, when we studied the text. I had never seen a performance of it, and it was considered one of Shakespeare's "lesser" plays--not much poetry, not much audience appeal.
This film was evidently released in this country in early 2012, at the time of year when "problem" films are usually dumped on the market after the rush of Oscar-worthy movies. I don't recall it being released locally--maybe it played at a local art house. Maybe for a week.
I think the film is a triumph for all concerned. The major achievement is making Coriolanus (the character AND the play) cinematically interesting. The script did an excellent job of pruning the text. Purists may recoil, but let's face it, a scene performed in front of military tanks not what Shakespeare would have imagined. Further, the script did not attempt to call attention to the cleverness of the adaptation, such as how a modern legislative chamber is used in place of the Roman senate. Instead, the script focused on the enduring issues, such as whether a public servant is chosen to execute the will of the people, or whether the servant is intended to exercise those personal qualities which caused him to be chosen. Or the question of whether there should be a separation between elected officials and the military.
With respect to the cast, I have nothing but praise, and astonishment. Ralph Fiennes did a remarkable job, showing a restraint which was sometimes absent from earlier films which he did not also direct. Vanessa Redgrave was just incredibly perfect. She has had many recent, excellent bits in very low-key roles (e.g., Atonement). But here, she is given an opportunity to show what she can do, and the effect is heart-wrenching.
Jessica Chastain did a fine job in what was basically a bit part. And Gerard Butler was (for me) the major surprise. Maybe he was offered the role because an "action film" actor was needed to boost box-office appeal. Regardless, he was allowed to perform without regard to affecting a British accent (or any other accent). The choice to allow him to focus on emotion rather than sound was a major plus. (Side note: Butler's first theatrical offering was in a production of Coriolanus. See Wikipedia.) Brian Cox is a grossly under-appreciated supporting actor. His final scene (with dialogue) is the best of the film.
I can't believe I missed this when it was released. I am so glad I found it today.