Come vi piace

An overthrown local monarch takes to the woods with a handful of loyal followers. His daughter also flees also, at a different time, following her true love (but dressed as a man). Only in Shakespeare do fathers/brothers/lovers not recognize each other because they're in different clothes.

Kenneth Branagh is good. He's very good. In fact, he's darn good. But he's not as good as he thinks.

He made a slight shift in locations for "Much Ado About Nothing" and it worked better than he could have hoped. He set Hamlet in a Ruritanian Denmark. Fine. I enjoyed it (helped along, I think, by the fact that I was just coming down with flu in 1996 and during the movie show my temperature shot up to 103).

But setting "As You Like It" in Japan was a risk. It also may be the only version some people ever see, which is a perversion. Whether it works is, of course, subjective. The movie's not bad but downbeat for a comedy. See it and make up your own mind.

(Fortunately, in "The Shakespeare Plays," comedies came out best, and the more conventional "As You Like It" with Helen Mirren is still wonderful, as is the Jacobean-set "Twelfth Night" with Felicity Kendall and the "Much Ado" with Cherie Lunghi; so anyone wanting more Shakespearean interpretations of these Shakespeare plays have those to fall back on. Get a region-free dvd/blu-ray player, if necessary.)

This version has Branagh's typical mix of his stock company (Brian Blessed, Richard Briars) and currently popular stars given a chance to display their acting chops. Some work better than others. In previous efforts Denzell Washington and Charlton Heston came off well; Keenu Reeves and Jack Lemmon, less so.

Shakespeare grew up near the forest of Arden and no doubt played there (as I did in a huge woods I grew up adjacent to) and remembered it in his manhood as a mystical place (as I do mine). He embued it with wonder, so much so the eggheads insist it's not that forest of Arden where "As You Like It" took place but in another of the same name. What was I saying about fathers and lovers not recognizing loved ones in different clothes? It's the same sort of thing.

I wished Branagh had made more Shakespeare in the 1990s when it was popular; but now I'm not so sure. Of course, funding is always a problem.

This version of "As You Like It" has one serious lack: Branagh himself. I like seeing him around but he remains behind the camera. I never wanted "Henry V," "Much Ado," and "Hamlet" to end. I watched the clock on this one.

But this version has a nice surprise ending. Stick around.

On the whole, I agree with the many reviewers before me who praise Kenneth Branagh in general and "As You Like It" in specific. So, I don't have to reiterate their comments here. I am writing to rebut the review by teacher_tom516 who completely misunderstands the movie, the play and the term "suspension of disbelief." Starting with the last, Samuel Taylor Coleridge called it "the willful suspension of disbelief," the tacit agreement made by the audience to leave reality at the door of the theater and accept the production's conceit as a temporary new reality. All theater, with the exception of the mercifully brief 19th century flirtation with "Realism/Naturalism", recognizes that it is an illusion to try to present "reality" on stage. Shakespeare certainly knew that and even tells his audience this in several of his plays (Henry V, Hamlet, The Tempest, A Midsummer Night's Dream, etc etc). His comedies are allegorical -- more subtly, so are his tragedies and even histories. His audiences accepted the premise without caviling over clocks striking in "Julius Caesar" and wild animals from different continents nonchalantly coexist. Shakespeare's Forest of Arden wasn't named for the Belgian Ardennes but taken from Lodge's romance "Rosalynde," from which Shakespeare cribbed his plot and characters. It is a magical place not found on maps -- it is the "Bitter Wood" of Medieval legend, the place where humans must face themselves, with or without Yoda. Arden was also Shakespeare's mother's family name. The writer plays the name game with the characters, seemingly unaware that Shakespeare's names are often chosen for their metaphoric associations. Falstaff is a "false staff" to Prince Hal. Why Orlando? Not because it's an Italian courtier's name, but because it's the Italian translation of Roland, the name of one of two legendary brothers-in-arms in the reign of Charlemagne, immortalized in "The Song of Roland." The other brother-knight's name was... Oliver! Also, It's Jaques, not Jacques, and may have been pronounced "Jakes", Brit slang for bathroom, which might be taken as ironic since he is such a pessimist, unlike his opposite, Touchstone, whose name might be taken as the iconic test of Truth. Do the hodge-podge of names in Hamlet disturb teacher_tom516? Claudius? Polonius? Laertes? Rosencrantz and Guildenstern!?

His biggest complaint is about the Japanese setting. Obviously, he didn't read the opening on-screen explanation Mr. Branagh thoughtfully provided for the edification of anyone interested in it. Is the Meiji Japan of the imagination be any less exotic than the locale of "A Winter's Tale" -- "the coast of Bohemia."? Bohemia doesn't have a coast -- it's completely landlocked. Oh yes, how absurd a scrawny kid could throw a Sumo wrestler? That's the whole point. Ever hear of Jack the Giant-killer? Beware people who confuse the truths of fairy tales with the factoids of spreadsheets. Yes, Shakespeare plays fast and loose with facts - so do creative directors interpreting his plays. As Miguel de Cervantes said, "One should never let facts get in the way of Truth." He also said, "Facts are the enemy of Truth."

Kenneth Branagh, aside from being a gifted actor with an enormous range of creative character abilities, has once again brought Shakespeare to life on the screen. His previous excursions into the bard's repertoire have included 'Much Ado About Nothing', 'Henry V', 'Love's Labours Lost', 'Hamlet', and 'Othello', and now he adds one of the bard's most successful comedies AS YOU LIKE IT to his list of successes. Branagh has the gift of making the visual aspects of Shakespeare's stories enhance the language and in doing so he makes Shakespeare sound like brilliant conversation (which it of course is) instead of stilted and brittle old English.

The 'gimmick' used here by Branagh in adapting Shakespeare's play is placing the action in 19th century Japan, and while other less sensitive directors might have opted to insert parody here, Branagh instead makes the story seem all the more plausible - the two feuding brothers (one dark and one light) whose struggle over their estate opens the play before credits with an ingenious silent drama of black leather feudal costumed men invading a genteel house party of lovely people enjoying a Japanese dancer's performance. The original brother is banished with his clan to the Arden forest and there the magic begins. Love between several couples is played in all its manifestations with disguise, misconceptions, lust, and poetry until the play's rollicking end in a song of Hey Nonny Nonny! The lovers include the disguised Rosalind (Bryce Dallas Howard) and Orlando (David Oyelowo), Celia (Romola Garai) and Oliver (Adrian Lester), the court fool Touchstone (a brilliant Alfred Molina) and Audrey (Janet McTeer), and Sylvius (Alex Wyndham) and Phoebe (Jade Jefferies). Brian Blessed plays the roles of both feuding brothers with style and authority, and Kevin Kline offers a fully realized Jaques - the character who is given the most memorable soliloquies in the play. The settings and imagery (Tim Harvey) are artistic and beautiful and captured with style by cinematographer Roger Lanser, and as with all of Branagh's production the music score (here by Patrick Doyle) is letter perfect and atmospheric.

But in the end the kudos go to Kenneth Branagh for his consistent courage and conviction that Shakespeare's plays are timeless, and his devotion to bringing them to the contemporary audience is to be applauded. This is a fine film - one to own! Grady Harp

Here's one of the most intriguing challenges in all the lands of imagination.

Shakespeare invented much of what it means to be a modern human. But he did so in a very constrained way of communicating. The plays were all about language and geometry on how the come to us, and within that vessel he grew images. That sparseness was what allowed him to shape the language so finely, thus creating the poetic spins that find valence in us.

Okay. If you have seen Shakespeare done as it originally was, you'll know what I mean. The plays work well when read silently or aloud as well. But how to translate to cinema? How to take something that is not visual until it enters us, and make it visual before it enters us and make the same magic?

I love how people have tried. Most modern stage productions follow this cinematic challenge as well because now we are a visual society.

Jarman, Greenaway, Luhrman and Taymor have done marvelous things with this challenge. Branaugh is from a different stripe, a sideways approach to this problem. He sometimes moves into pure cinema (Kate's mirrored Ophelia rant, the horses in "Much Ado") but he's primarily worried about stagecraft as theatrically defined. Here he does something different, something so ambitious I'm trilled to be alive for it. Its so clever.

I did not see this at an appointed time, but stumbled on it after a discouraging day. In a sense, it saved my life. It really did. I watched the whole thing with one of those openmouthed grins.

Here's what he did. He transported the setting to Japan and adjusted everything accordingly. Simple idea.

No, its not just Shakespeare with different clothes. Its not just the plot fleshed out with some other setting. Its a translation to a visual expression. Japan has spent a few hundred years building, refining and constraining a visual grammar in much the same way that Northern Europeans did with language. We lose much of what we associate with the plays, that verbal poetry. What we get in its stead is something similar but visually rooted. To establish this of course you have to "show strong" in the beginning, and he does with a completely wordless intrusion, an invasion of guess what? A play!

This Rosalind is exquisite, someone who knows how to shape the space around her the way British actors carefully shape their words. She anchors the whole thing, including an amazing epilogue. Really, you should save this for when you need your life saved, when you need to stroke down melancholy burrs.

Though Branaugh ends with his familiar happydance, by then you will be ready for it, ready to fall in love all over again.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

As You Like It is my favorite Shakespearean comedy, and my high expectations of the new Branagh version were not put to shame. Set in a lush, beautiful forest in an imaginary old Japan, populated by people of all races, this version is an innovative and modern one rather than a conventional and classical one - and it works.

The female main characters, Rosalind, Celia, Phebe and Audrey, are all immensely good, effortlessly throwing around both unbridled enthusiasm and unwavering character acting. In fact, Celia is near to outshining Rosalind; only her obviously bleached hair detracts from her charm.

The male characters are, sadly, far less distinctive, with the exception of Alfred Molina's Touchstone, who's delightfully silly - almost too much so. Kevin Kline's Jacques is not bad either, but he doesn't really steal the limelight to any great extent, the way he perhaps should. In a production as colorful as this one, Jacques greyness gets a bit lost.

(Edit: I will say that this version gains from repeated viewings. It is a great modern adaptation of Shakespeare's perhaps most joyous comedy.)

I did feel that a lot of the original text was missing, and this, as is so often the case with Shakespeare movies, is this production's worst shortcoming. Not enough of the delightful Rosalind rhymes which almost define the play ("Winter garments must be lined / So must slender Rosalind") are included, which is a grave, grave error in disposition. If this play was often made into movies, that judgment might be justified, but since the play is adapted so rarely, it cannot be.

The overall filming and cinematography are excellent, however, with plentiful gentle camera movement and many close-ups, focusing admirably on the strong emotions exchanged between the characters, and the language is fluid as well as florid, spoken in a very modern, sometimes even casual, tone, as we have come to expect from Branagh's very accessible Shakespeare films.

We are many who wonder why this film has not received a wide cinematic release. It has been shown only on a few film festivals, and this January it will be out on DVD, at least in Italy. Is it going straight to DVD without a run in international theaters? Why?? Is it really seen to be so obscure and uncommercial that no distribution company will commit to it? If so, distributors should be ashamed.

My rating: 9 out of 10.