PHS Vagabond Players

January 6, 2010

Kenneth Branagh is the most prolific movie director of the Bard's plays. He has tackled such projects as Henry V, Much Ado About Nothing, and an uncut 4-hour Hamlet. All of which I have enjoyed immensely, and as of such, have come to give a great deal of respect to Mr. Branagh. It is reluctantly that I am brought to say that his production of As You Like It was not as I liked it.

First and foremost, Japan. Already Branagh is off to a shaky start with his choice of setting that seems to add nothing to the theme, the action, or anything to do with the original play. If he was trying to draw a tie between a focus on nature in the play, and a focus on nature in any kind of ancient Japanese "Zen," the mark is missed, and it isn't slight. It comes across as more of a joke that went too far. As if Kenneth were sitting around a table with some friends and said, "Wouldn't it be funny if Charles the Wrestler did Sumo?"

However, a bad choice of setting isn't the end of the world. But Branagh has unintentionally now put pressure on the rest of the film to be entertaining enough to distract from the first blunder. Sadly, Shakespeare's pastoral comedy comes across as completely un-funny. It's a very uncomfortable feeling, watching actor's deliver jokes, that are obviously displayed in the text, completely devoid of any humor. Branagh's Hamlet, THE GREAT English tragedy, was funnier than this. Knowing that both the writer and the director are completely capable of hilarious shtick, leaves me to lay fault wit he actors.

On a rare positive note, I was pleasantly surprised by Alfred Molina's portrayal of Touchstone. (I had known Molina only as Doctor Octopus in Spiderman 3) Whether intentional or no, the fool was the only character that seemed to realize that this play is a comedy, and as such, should be funny. Rosalind (Bryce Dallas Howard) had all the energy and charisma to pull off the lead role, but was also one of he main perpetrators of allowing chances for comedy to pass by unexploited.

I suppose my main problem with Jaques is one of definition. Melancholia is difficult to explain outside of paradoxes, but one thing it isn't is depression. Outside of merely restating an entry out of Webster's, I don't know how else to get the distinction across. I will merely state that melancholy works in comedy, whereas depression does not.

Take the "all the world's a stage" speech. If it were stemmed out of depression, a man would not work his way through 6 stages of life just to get to the "mere oblivion" part. If a depressed man were to talk about the stages of life, he would merely describe suffering, perhaps interspersed with glimpses of of deluded joy, followed by the grave. But a melancholic man understands the beauty of the first 6 ages. Being in the nursemaid's arms, the beaming morning face, the sighing like a furnace, the jealousy in honor, the good capon lined, and the childish treble that all occur before death. Sure, it all leads to the sad grave, but isn't it a spectacular way to go? That's melancholia, and that's what this Jaques was missing. Mr. Kline's "all the word's a stage" was more fit for a tragedy than a comedy.

In Mr. Branagh's defense, I'm predisposed to dislike "As You Like It." The plot has several glaring issues, the characters have questionable motives, and the ending is the most blatant use of dues ex machina I have yet to encounter.

But the solution to all of these problems is, "Don't let the audience stop laughing!" If the audience is laughing, then they aren't questioning. Throw physical humor into it, throw in gags that aren't necessarily in the script, do anything and everything you can to make the movie as funny as it can be. And no one will care why Rosalind keeps her assumed identity up, or why Orlando never figures it out, or who Jaques de Boys is.