Twelfth Night, or What You Will

This production has two major failings: first, and foremost, the tone is somber and the pacing is leaden (especially at the end). It is sometimes interesting but never funny--hardly a ringing endorsement of a comedy.

The bigger failing, though, is the whole production is constantly, and blatantly, artificial. The three groups of characters are racially segregated--Orsino and his court are black, Olivia and her court are white, and Viola/Sebastian are Indian. Why? Is the director exploring the theme that black men always want white women? Is Viola-as-Caesario having trouble fitting in in Orsino's court because she is the only non-black? Indians are always in need of assistance? All Indians look alike? The answer to all these is obviously no: there is absolutely no deeper meaning to the casting than the desire to do something different.

There are also many sequences of fast cuts, and flashbacks, that get in the way of the story.

The acting is decent, but lacking subtlety.

Definitely not the best Twelfth Night out there.

Normally, modern adaptations of Shakespeare tend to be clunky and forced; Baz Luhrmann's "Romeo + Juliet" and Michael Almereyda's "Hamlet" are perfect testament to this. Even Richard Loncraine's "Richard III" falls on dull devices trying to place the action of that play in the imagined setting of World War Two. Perhaps it is that the tragedies and histories do not lend themselves well to being updated or embellished (see Julie Taymore's "Titus") and would best be left as they are.

This adaptation of Twelfth Night, however, benefits greatly from the liberties Andrew Bannerman and Tim Supple take with it. Not only is the story better for the adaptation, but the songs are beautifully rendered and the acting and stage direction is superb.

Also incredible is how much they accomplished with so little. This is quite obviously a low budget television adaptation with only a dozen or so sets and very few frills, but what the producers and directors manage to achieve with so little is startling. Whatever Bannerman and Supple made this for could not have exceeded the cost of a luxury car, but the film is a far better ride.

I have always liked Shakespeare's Twelfth Night - it's my favourite play. As such, I have seen many versions of it, both on film and in the theatre. With a play as old as Shakespeare's are, that's performed as much as this one is, it's difficult to get an adaptation that's new. I think this version managed to do that without taking it so far out of context that it didn't make any sense. I really enjoyed this version, as it was completely different to any I've ever seen before. I thought the leading cast members were all very good, especially Parminder Nagra who plays Viola. I loved the setting and agree with the decision to leave the Shakespearean language, as I think modernising language in Shakespeare never works - I have never seen one that does. The language is as much a part of the play as the plot. Overall, I don't think it was quite as good as the 1996 film directed by Trevor Nunn, but that's setting an impossible standard.

First, the acting in this production is excellent, with each actor finding new aspects of the characters in ways you wouldn't have thought of before. Second, the staging is novel and invigorating without being coy and silly in the way some modernized stagings of Shakespeare can be. The multi-ethnic casting adds another dimension of tension and sensuality to the story. If you are familiar with this play, what is intriguing is how this production renders all the lines faithfully, but the text becomes a melancholic, philosophical reflection on life and love--very sweet and moving without being cute. However, if you are watching this instead of reading Cliff Notes, yes, you'll probably have trouble writing your term paper. You will have to pay attention as much as you'd have to pay to actually reading the play. The only real criticism I'd make is that some attempts to be arty with the camera (and editing) don't always succeed.

I find this an almost impeccable film version of this very subtle Shakespearean comedy, far transcending my former favorite, the 1996 film version by Trevor Nunn, which now pales in comparison. Shakespeare's TWELFTH NIGHT was probably written shortly after HAMLET, around 1601 or 1602, and thus embodies all the complexity of thought and feeling that dominated Shakespeare's greatest period of dramatic productivity. This is not COMEDY OF ERRORS or even MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM. This is a hilarious comedy tinged with darkness, with Shakespeare probably finally processing the death of his only son, Hamnet, in 1596. This film version of the play captures all that complexity. It is outrageously funny in its dark way, deeply thoughtful, and very powerful in its emotional resonance. This film elucidates characters, character relationships, and situations as no other production I have ever seen. Even the usually, nearly invisible Fabian becomes an important figure in the play. I am especially thrilled by the fresh line readings, many of which have opened new doors for me after nearly 40 years and dozens of experiences with this text. However, many people will be put off by this version's style, which is liberated and far from what people expect from Shakespeare. If one can open one's mind and heart to what is actually here and accept the film's style as a legitimate artistic choice, the appropriateness and power of the camera work and soundtrack become part of this film's strongest features. It is a version that can move those inexperienced with Shakespeare and those who know the text intimately.