Coriolanus

at first sigh, translation of Shakespeare's play in contemporary formulas. in fact, high performances, fresh spirit of original, Rome in a credible and strange images who remands wars and crisis, politic errors and hypocrisy. a film who explores roots, solutions, emotions, fake options . a film about heroes and their failure. about contemporary politic life because the laws, tricks are the same. result - a kind of House of Cards. not very different essence. only forms who reminds art of theater, an ambiguous genius , actors who gives proofs of admirable manner to resurrect a text and its substance. a provocative film. because it is not exactly adaptation of a play on screen. but a provocative portrait of power, duty and force of fundamental decisions.

Finally, after over 50 film versions of Hamlet, someone ventures into new Shakespearean territory, bringing the Bard's last tragedy, Coriolanus, to the big screen for the first time. Some may complain it's a lesser work- as if they want more of the same, and showing the audacity to pan Shakespeare- and specifically the play TS Eliot considered the Man from Stratford's greatest! In truth, Coriolanus is a perfect play for times of political turmoil, probably simpler than Hamlet but rich in its conflict, with international war tied up in domestic politics. We have a protagonist who heroically serves his country, but his tragic flaw is his anti-social nature and smugness that makes him unpopular at home.

We can see the decision was made to recast the play, based in ancient Rome, to the modern era. It's a device we've seen before with Romeo and Juliet (1996) and Hamlet (2000), and while it would seem appropriate to place the first Coriolanus film in its own time, the story translates to an age of media and modern warfare relatively well. Slate magazine considered the argument that placing Coriolanus in a new setting and making it work proves it is Shakespeare's greatest play. However, the magazine rejected that argument, noting Hamlet has been placed in every setting imaginable. Certainly, Macbeth as well has been adaptable- Orson Welles transported it to the 19th century Caribbean, while Akira Kurosawa brought it to feudal Japan. While this film may not prove Coriolanus is the best of Shakespeare's plays, it nevertheless reflects that the neglected play is brilliant.

Fiennes' film has a strong look and helps the viewer feel some of the intense conflict, though it's not a great film. Reading the play for the first time this week, I felt the politics were a lot more gripping than what was brought to the film. Ideally, Fiennes' film might encourage other filmmakers to make their attempts at more successfully adapting Coriolanus, or bring it back to its original setting. Alas, the poor box office performance of this film will likely discourage that- but I still salute Fiennes for his effort.

First, this is Shakespeare and it uses his original dialogue, so anyone that doesn't appreciate the rich language shouldn't be watching this, never-mind reviewing it. I find it sad that so many negative reviews here revolve around the difficult (wonderful) language. If anything, too much of Shakespeare's writing was cut out in order to make the movie shorter, and some scenes and characters suffer because of it.

Second, it is transported to a modern setting despite the language, in order to demonstrate its universal themes. Sometimes this works quite well (see Richard III with Loncraine/McKellen). Here, the result is a mixed bag. The modern settings with news-rooms, tanks and trucks work very well, but the war-action scenes sometimes feel shoe-horned in just to try to make Shakespeare more thrilling and pander to audiences, and a key plot element that involves the Roman practice of a hero showing the people his physical wounds in order to gain their trust, doesn't work anymore.

The acting is generally good, although the wide range of accents are too distracting, and Azabal chews the scenery and ruins her scenes. The direction is passable.

As mentioned, some scenes suffer from too much cutting of dialogue. I found the key scene involving the turning of the crowd against Coriolanus, too awkwardly staccato. Where the original writing had speeches that sway people's emotions, this has abrupt statements and declarations, and many of the characters lose their dimensions as a result.

But all these can be overlooked and the movie enjoyed despite these flaws. The one flaw I was not able to overcome is Fiennes characterization of Coriolanus. He portrays him as way too contemptuous and angry, a spiteful man beyond sympathy that basically brought the tragedy on himself. Whereas my impression while reading the play was of a socially awkward, hard, but basically honorable and good man led astray by politics and pressure. Including more of Shakespeare's colorful dialogue and soliloquies could have helped.

I couldn't disagree more with the review that slates Shakespeare's text as 'too wordy for modern audiences'. Viewers may find it challenging, but even those who haven't read his work should appreciate his superb capacity for character, metaphor and sheer innovation. To reduce the play to just the plot with some poor, clichéd and genuinely meaningless Hollywood script is to deprive it of its value, and to do a great disservice to its literary status. The responsibility for understanding the language (which I staunchly believe has a timeless relevance), lies with those who struggle to do so, not with the text itself. I cannot disagree strongly enough with the implication that we should dumb-down Shakespeare.

I had the pleasure of seeing Ralph Fiennes's "Coriolanus" at the St. Louis International Film Festival, on Nov 11th, 2011. I was on the edge of my seat through the entire film. Needless to say, the filming, production values, etc., were fantastic; but it was the relevance of the film that kept me glued to the screen.

Ralph Fiennes captured the timeless concepts that Shakespeare expressed in his play brilliantly - so much so that I feel there will be strong/visceral audience reaction to the film's depiction of themes that reflect in today's front page stories.

The theme of a military officer's political role resonated with me as a retired Navy Officer. The theme of the contrast between "high society" and the proletariat resonates in the "Occupy XXX" protests occurring today. The conflict between liberal and conservative (dare I say Democrat vs. Republican) ideals played very loudly in this film. Even the issues in European politics reflected themes we see in today's news.

The acting by Ralph Fiennes, Vanessa Redgrave & Gerard Butler propelled the story and kept it moving swiftly. Some have panned the use of Shakespeare's original language. I, for one, had no trouble following the language. This film ranks with Kenneth Brannagh's "Henry V" and Baz Luhrmann's "William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet" for making a film in Shakespearean English accessible by 21st Century Man.

I've always believed that some folks in the U.S. malign William Shakespeare's writings today, because they were forced to read his plays in a cold classroom setting in their youth. Shakespeare didn't intend his works to be read. He meant them to be performed and watched. This film proves the power of a good telling of a Shakespeare tale.