Como Você Quiser

I have to admit that I don't really care for most of Shakespeare's comedies, which involve huge casts, pairs of lovers, and a lot of talking at chance meetings. So it is with AS YOU LIKE IT, which I suspect for most people will only be really enjoyable as a lot of scattered scenes performed by some really good actors. That said, it's been going on 20 years (!) since Branagh first started directing these Shakespeare extravaganzas, so what point has he gotten to? First, the bad points, then the good points.

After almost 20 years, it's clear that Branagh has almost no new ideas when it comes to moving the camera around. A lot of the shots and gimmicks have been ripped straight from HENRY V and MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING. Sometimes they're simple and effective and the right choices; other times, the recycling is just embarrassing.

Second, Branagh continues to bite off more than he can chew by attempting novel or gimmicky stagings of these venerable old plays as films, a trend that he began with HAMLET (Four Hour Hamlet! No Lines Cut!), carried through to LOVE'S LABOURS LOST (an ambitious failure, but still a failure with a Capital F) and now here with an AS YOU LIKE IT set in Japan, a choice comprehensible only because Branagh explains it to the audience with several title cards. Which means, it's an incomprehensible choice because he has to explain it so much. This is the sort of adventurous staging that works OK on the London stage, where there are 100 Shakespeare stagings a year and this sort of transposition is expected in order to keep things fresh. But on film, it is mostly confusing (although very pretty).

Now for the good things, and they are very much worth noting as hopeful signs for the future of Branagh's grand Shakespearean experiment.

The casting in this film is almost uniformly excellent. Branagh has (mercifully) abandoned showy stunt casting in favor of assembling a diverse cast that actually can act and actually has Shakespearean experience. Kevin Kline, David Oyewelo, the lovely Bryce Dallas Howard, Adrian Lester, Alfred Molina, Romola Garai (a real surprise)... you're in good hands with all these performers, which is not something you could say of a Branagh Shakespeare film since HENRY V. Furthermore, Branagh has stopped the nonsense where anyone can just show up on these films sporting whatever accents they like, regardless of the film's time or place setting (which was tolerable in MUCH ADO, but silly in HAMLET and excruciating in LOVE'S LABOURS LOST). This film is about English characters: so everyone's got an English accent, even the Americans. Thank God. Branagh has also managed a way to cast fine actors of color without trying to make us believe that a black actor and white actor are siblings (MUCH ADO, again).

Bryce Dallas Howard -- dare I say it -- it a better actress and more luminously beautiful and commanding a screen presence than Emma Thompson was in MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING.

Even more surprisingly, Branagh has also given his faithful old company of secondary players from the old Renaissance Theatre Company -- you'll recognize them from his previous films -- room to actually act like the professionals they are. Brian Blessed doesn't quite pull it off in a dual role, and well, Richard Briers is ubiquitous in Branagh's films, but Richard Clifford, Jimmy Yuill, Gerard Horan and Patrick Doyle are given a little bit more to do and it's a real asset to the film. These performers assist in giving AS YOU LIKE IT -- dare I say it (dare I even hope it) -- the earthy, humanistic feel that made his HENRY V so very memorable. Which leads one to wonder: WHY did Branagh go for all this flash and glitter with Hollywood stars (starting with MUCH ADO) in the first place, eventually leading to the train wreck that was LOVE's LABOURS LOST? Why didn't he just stick with the approach that worked so brilliantly with HENRY V - still one of the greatest Shakespeare films of all time? For God's sake... BRING BACK THE RENAISSANCE THEATRE COMPANY!!!!

If Branagh has not really grown as a director, this film shows that his creative team -- cinematographer Roger Lanser, production designer Tim Harvey, and composer Patrick Doyle -- continue to do him just as good service as ever, and even seem to kick it up a notch.

The verdict? A problematic film, one that might not appeal to everyone, and decidedly less showy or fun than his popular MUCH ADO... but all in all, a definite step forward for the great Branagh Shakespeare film project. He should get another chance from HBO Films to do another one.

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.

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."

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.

Kenneth Branagh takes the Bard to Japanese setting the time being the late 19th century.As You Like It (2006) tells about Rosalind, the daughter of banished duke.She is raised by his younger brother Frederick, who took over dukedom.She falls for a young man named Orlando, but also she is soon banished by Frederick.Her cousin Celia leaves with her.They go to the forest of Arden, and they take the fool Touchtone with them.And also, Rosalind is disguised as a boy, and she goes by the name of Ganymede, while Celia goes by the name of Aliena.Also Orlando happens to be in the same forest, fleeing the wrath of his older brother.William Shakespeare wrote the original, pastoral comedy, around 1599 or 1600.I read it some time ago.Shakespeare sure knew how to write of love, and it is all well adapted to the screen here.And there are also mighty fine players in this play.Let's start with Bryce Dallas Howard, whose work as a boy is almost as good as her work as a girl.Romola Garai is a real treat as Celia.Brian Blessed is great both as Duke Frederick as he is as Duke Senior.David Oyelowo is terrific as Orlando De Boys.Adrian Lester is very good as his brother Oliver.Richard Briers gives a very fine performance of Adam.Alfred Molina is superb as Touchtone.And so is Janet McTeer as his love interest Audrey.Kevin Kline is brilliant as Jaques.Jade Jefferies is marvelous as Phebe.This may not be the funniest thing I've ever seen, nor was the play the funniest thing I've ever read.Maybe I'm too modern and should think more medievally.But it all works because of the words, and the grand feelings it has to offer.And sure I found myself slightly amused when Phebe went head over heels for Rosalind/Ganymede.Branagh shows us that Shakespeare works also in a new environment, in a new era.