Titus Andronicus

Oh wow. I had to watch this in my Theatre arts class because we were studying Shakespeare. Not only was it extremely difficult to follow, it contained a lot of violence and overall was a snoozer--I found myself sleeping through most of it. First thing that flew out of my mouth when it was over was "What the heck was he smoking when he wrote that?" No one sane would be capable of writing something this horrible. It's hard enough with the language to be able to follow it, on top of the plot that is just all over the place.

I would not recommend this if you have youngsters or have trouble following plots and/or Shakespeare language.

I bought this movie on VHS (It's not too hard to find the website or the major internet retailer that has it) and my family and I have since nearly worn it out. The original Shakepearean play is an intense indulgence in the repercussions of negative karma, revenge building upon revenge until all the players are immersed. This film adaptation is more true to the story than most treatments, but it has a true cult film twist in its handling of the over-the-top violence. The actors (who are all quirky but quite competent) play the roles straight, yet the director camps it up with overdone screaming, squirting blood, growling and Shatner-esque reaction shots. Just brilliant. The costumes and scenery are on a par with a 1950's era sword-and-sandal epic. No computer generated magic, but who cares? This thing is wild and chock full of subtle gems... and the not-so-sublte forest Lavinia scene, the Martius/Quintus scene, the Midwife Cornelia scene, the clown messenger scene, the whacko banquet, etc., etc. A Shakespeare movie to watch in a darkened room with cult movie friends and plenty of beer and chips. Some people don't really "get it", and that's too bad. This movie is that rare combo of treasure and trash at its deepest and shallowest, a mixture of "Ben Hur" with "Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls"... perfectly suited for a story about an intensely persecuted hero who goes off the deep end in as big a way as possible. A triumph of cult indie filmmaking.

Imagine, if you will, a Shakespeare play performed by pro wrestlers, washed-up porn stars and the Rural Kentucky Trailer Park Players.

This is the film of that play. There is so much to tell about this inept production: the producers seem to have thought that "Moor" means "having a glass eye"; the director belongs to the school that holds that you can convey more meaning as an actor by waggling your eyebrows a lot; the music is provided by a cello, a bottom-of-the-line keyboard and a recording of a buzzing insect and appears to be unrelated to the action; the director seeks to set up an atmosphere of horror by having the actors laugh maniacally at apparently random moments and by having a pregnant pause after every line, even the ones without hope of pregnancy. The credits reveal that the production team consists of the actors, including the costume credit to the lead actress, a sure sign of the quality and sophistication of the production. The credit to the guy providing the gallons of fake blood ("Slaughterhouse gore courtesy of Tom Holley") is also telling (and hilarious).

Yes, folks, the fake blood is a major player in this production. There is nothing like the draw of heads and arms and ears being chopped off and blood spurting from the wounds, of people being stabbed repeatedly, and babies' heads being bashed in to gain you a faithful audience. If done realistically, this could be at least nauseating, if not horrifying, but alas there was no budget to make these effects look real so you can clearly see that the severed limbs and heads are rubber and the baby is a doll.

Mind you, they did work out a way to show a guy having his face flayed off while alive, which is pretty horrific. They were so proud of this effect they used it in their cover art. This is the culmination and climax of the blood and gore and so naturally, in order to give it maximum effect, the director put it in the first ten minutes of the film, so everything was downhill from there.

If what you demand of a film is lots of blood and over-the-top acting, you'll love this. You have the same sensibility as the groundlings who made this play, and Kyd's Spanish Tragedy, and the works of Webster hugely popular in Shakespeare's day and after. Shakespeare wrote this one for you, guys. And this production, ridiculous and inept as it is, is true to what he intended and who he intended it for.

OK, let's get something out of the way: this is a very faithful adaptation of Shakespeare's play. The only problem is, that's not a good thing. "Titus Andronicus" is, to my mind, Shakespeare's second-worst play, surpassed in awfulness only by "King John." The plot is ludicrous, the characters almost completely two-dimensional (especially the Moor Aaron, who is far more troubling from a racial standpoint than Shylock ever was), the dialogue perfunctory and awkward.

To be sure, Shakespeare on his worst day is better than the very best work of most other writers, but with so many superior Shakespeare plays to pick from, anyone who chooses to do an adaptation of "Titus" had better bring something interesting to the table. Julie Taymor's more widely-seen adaptation followed in the footsteps of Ingmar Bergman's stage production of "Hamlet" with its fusion of different time periods, in this case ancient Rome and contemporary Western civilization, to make a point about the anesthetization of violence in modern society.

But because this version is far more faithful to the text, it doesn't have any such aspirations; Shakespeare wrote the play simply because it was what the public wanted. Thus, this "Titus" is completely shallow, and to top it off, it's not even good from an aesthetic viewpoint. The film was obviously made on a limited budget, which shows in practically every frame: the costumes and sets are some of the worst I've seen since "Man of La Mancha," the acting is terrible (the dialogue would be better served by street mimes), and the gore effects -- which, if done right, could've made this at least mildly amusing -- Low-budget Bard isn't automatically bad -- see Welles' daring interpretation of "Othello" -- but the filmmakers here blow it at every opportunity. Naturally, this movie is destined to become a cult favorite, but definitely not for its quality.

I saw this American movie in Spain last year, and at first I didn't know what to make of it. The audience around me either were "getting" it, or were really not "getting" it at all, and some were going nuts loudly laughing and cheering. At first I thought it was one thing, then as I stayed with it I realized it was playing out on different levels, BOTH deep AND freaky. The heroes (actually anti-heroes) and the villains are strangely believeable and engaging. This is definitely an original take on this kind of Shakespearean drama, masculine and not an "artsy" or fanciful treatment. It's set in the ancient past, but not a familiar look. Excellent styling... gritty, sweaty, very bloody and totally weird.