Finding Genre Films: Addendum update.

I originally wrote most of this a few years ago... and I have a few new thoughts to add and it was something on my mind recently.

Rant On!!!

When I was young, the local television networks offered a strong variety of kung fu, horror, and sci-fi feature films for Saturday and Sunday matinee and late night viewings. It was my gateway to cult movies, the world of monsters and aliens and chop-socky action. When my life seemed rough, I could always look forward to Saturday afternoons or late night weekend features where people ran around in rubber costumes and beautiful women fainted at the sight of the latest creature to come stalking their way. It was a warm comfort to find a safe outlet for my fears, my angers, and my hurt. In an odd sort of way, it helped me feel less lonely on some levels. There were other people who wanted to watch the same stuff, and I became friends with some and found a sense of camaraderie in the world of The Strange. And, as I got older and video stores began to stock my favorite titles… I moved on to the next big scare, the next gross out, the next hollow drop from the center of my stomach. My world seemed a lot simpler when I imagined myself as a Great Vampire Hunter or the Slayer of Demons. I grew up with an introduction to the genre, caught by chance while skimming channels for something to while away the day and spend an afternoon escaping the madness of a fairly rough childhood.

With the advent of DVD I’m able to own almost all of my favorite child-hood titles and purchase the new ones with very little investment of real cash value. So I can watch Army of Darkness with the press of a button, throw on Curse of Frankenstein, sit down for The Curse of the Werewolf, or check out the newest Eli Roth gore fest any time I want. It’s nice to have this kind of technology at my fingertips, but it’s also a bit of a shame in some ways. What had been a treasured discovery for me is all but lost to the next generation of fans to the genre.

Flipping through channels on a Saturday afternoon or late in the wee hours of the night results in an endless stream of reality based programs and infomercials. Celebrities talk about their hair, their love lives, their pets, cars, houses, and scandals in an endless bleating of self-importance. Stupid kids attempt to emulate the moronic stunts they see on various MTV programs where some kid runs around and slaps his Uncles fat stomach, builds a skate ramp in his mothers’ house, and laughs at his friends when they suffer one injury after another attempting to one up each other with an bizarre string of stupid antics. Singing competitions, dance contests, wives in one county after another, and criminals doing bad things while families crumble for the sake of entertainment. It will always be cheaper to put these people on the air for a major network, so the executives have no concerns about story or substance or even the cultural value of presenting classic genre work to a younger audience.

The Horror Host Underground continues their own proud traditions by investing their time and resources into providing a gateway for many fans, young and old. Using the technology made available through cable television, Horror Hosts use public access channels to broadcast the genre gems that have fallen through the cracks to the Public Domain. It’s a labor of love for many of these heroes and they support one another through a network of websites and tape trading. The Local Access availability was a measure passed by congress and the Senate many years ago, created to help local people present their own artistic visions in a format where the bottom line wasn’t a commercial profit. Too many people ignore their public access television access and the shows available. In Monterey County, Local Access allows Remo D to present the Manor of Mayhem on a weekly basis with a Friday and Saturday night screening. Like many hosts, he also uses his allotted time to feature shared programs from other hosts. I’ve appeared on his show a number of times and I continue to support the show and I absolutely love the genre he chooses to present in his slot. It offers me hope that somewhere there’s a young kid watching another host, laughing and getting scared in the comfort of their home and finding a means of escape from the dreary reality we all find ourselves.

My roku box gives me access to a number of "genre" channels offering a sort of broadcast.... films in the public domain, rare indie films, and other such stuff. There's also a bunch of snarky reviewers I found through www.thatguywiththeglasses.com who introduce people to varioius films, with reviews and synopsis riffing and so on so forth. My favorite reviewer is The Cinema Snob, played by Brad Jones- an independent film maker and radio personality. Fantastic stuff right here with that guy, as he brings a number of interesting films to a new life and provides plenty of comedy to fans of the original material. My big suggestion for people who enjoy his work is that they also follow up a review by maybe looking for the source material of his projects and give it a view of their own.

So yeah... finding Genre films and bizarre shit: It ain't always easy, but there are going to be people out there willing to share what they find. And there are blogs like this one... one little voice in the world wide web willing to talk about random shit and blather on with these bits and pieces. 

The Golden Mile: The Worlds' End rant.

The World's End:

 

Gary King was the Man amongst his friends. Brimming with charisma, arrogance, and a devil-may-care charm he would lead the charge on one venture after another, from one conquest to the next, from one pub to the next, until his friends were unable to keep up and they were left behind. The penultimate moment of his existence lies in a single night, graduating night from school, when he led his friends on the “Golden Mile” pub crawl through their hometown and utterly failed to reach the conclusion. His entire life is wrapped in this one night and he’s on a quest now, in his forties, to recapture the glory of that one night and finish the quest he once started with the four mates he grew up with. The problem is, the mates didn’t just fall behind and each of them have moved on with their lives- careers, families, responsibilities, and a few burned bridges stand between Gary and his quest to bring the old band back together. But if anyone’s seen the previews, you already know this much happens- and you already know that this isn’t just a simple pub crawl, that there’s an alien invasion to fight, and that there are hijinks afoot.

What you don’t know is that wrapped in this outlandish genre film is a brutal look at midlife crisis, relationships between men, bonds of friendship, and a much deeper look into the human condition than you’re likely to see in most Oscar Bait films. If you were to ask me to tell you what movie this reminded me of, you might expect me to throw out “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” or maybe something a little zany or wacky or maybe some goofy B-Movie hilarity. My answer would be; The Deer Hunter. Because this is about men who are coping with age, coping with the past, and while we don’t see the jungles of Vietnam we do see these men struggling with their own issues beneath the façade of a sparkly “invasion” film.

Edgar Wright is an amazing film maker, and the collaborations between him, Pegg, and Frost have resulted in some of the best genre-bending films ever made. IF you think Sean of the Dead is just a zombie film, then you didn’t watch the movie or you’re an idiot. If you think that Hot Fuzz is just a buddy cop movie with secret conspiracies thrown about all willy-nilly, you need to give that film a rewatch. The three Coranado (Sp?) delivered in the conclusion to their trilogy, raised the bar, and blew my mind. This film may not just be one of the films I’ve seen all year, it may be one of the best films I’ve ever seen.

 

5 out of 5. 

And now : RANT ON!!! 

 Who was I supposed to be twenty years ago? 18 years old, graduating High School, struggling to keep my head above water, and I didn't know jack shit- I wasn't going to learn jack shit for a couple of years, but here's the basic gist: I hated the world and the world didn't fancy me all that much. Let me be clear; graduation for me was pure bullshit- got a call from a friend of mine who heard them call my name at the ceremony but I wasn't there. I didn't belong in the school I graduated from and that was crystal clear from the moment I stepped in, but I went through the last two years and pulled it off and I was done. I had no prospects, either... no college for me, I had no money and no means to get there. What I did do was I got myself dumped, I got myself tossed into the street a couple of times, and I felt my life spinning around the shitter for a good many years... 

And I got drunk. Whoah boy, did I get drunk- not often, but when I did drink it was one down after another and another until I couldn't see straight and I was critiquing the pornographic photos friends were showing me based on airbrushing techniques and shading. And I don't look back at that time as my glory days- but there are times I do look back on with a fondness. Driving NORTH on a spur of the moment, nights at random diners, a friend projectile vomitting in the parking lot, running around the neighborhood buck ass naked and then hiding beneath a children's pool in the backyard when the police came looking for me. Yeah, they make me laugh now- yeah I miss some of those moments. And that's what this movie is all about- looking back at those fond memories that you maybe regret, but there's also more than a bit of nostalgia and fondness for all those moments. 

What's more, this movie is designed for my generation- the marketing blank slate that the studios start ignoring because they just expect us to toss our money away. We're not using much in the way of disposable income so we're in this big blank spot... and there are few films that tackle the late thirties and forties with any real effort. This is that film. So yeah, I loved this movie... loved it and I highly recommend it.

10 Lovecraftian Horror Movies not based on an adaptation!

10 films based in Lovecraftian Horror:

The mission: Come up with a list of ten movies with a decidedly Lovecraftian feel while keeping away from any direct adaptations. HP Lovecraft, as a writer, developed a mythos and style that he encouraged others amongst his contemporaries to explore which resulted in fantastic stories from Robert Bloch, Robert E. Howard, and August Derleth. Later writers would also explore elements of Lovecraft, including Cliver Barker, Edward Lee, and Stephen King. But his influence on the medium of film has also been absolute, despite his total disdain for the art in general. Actually, Lovecraft as a creator is an amazing visionary but I don’t exactly look to the man as a source for inspiration on how to live my life.

Anyway, so my project this week has been to build a list of Lovecraft films to recommend to others… films that are NOT based on Lovecraft’s writings, but rather just films that carry a feel or style reminiscent to HP Lovecraft in some way or another. If there are others you think should be added, feel free to comment below. I think the more people know about and share with others, the better the market will become and the wider the influence will be.

1.      Lucio Fulci’s “Gothic” trilogy:

Okay, technically I’m cheating here by throwing a total of 3 movies into one pick… but it’s my list and I’ll do it again later on. Get over it!

There are three movies that act as a sort of trilogy from director Lucio Fulci, though none of the three movies have a connecting storyline of any real sort. There are a couple of interesting little tidbits scattered about, most often in reference to the doors through hell… basically portals scattered across the globe, connecting our world to that of a desolate hell. All three films have a strange atmosphere of fear, dread, and a number of confusing plot threads that dangle with uncertainty. They also include aspects that find a strong connection with the writing of H.P. Lovecraft including cults, books, inter-dimensional portals, and sanity-breaking revelations.

Including all three on the list with separate numbers seems a little redundant. So if you have a chance you should check “House At the End of the Cemetary”, “The Beyond”, and most assuredly my favorite in the series “City of the Living Dead”.

2.      The Descent:

A group of women descend into a deep cavern, get lost, and ultimately find long-twisted humanoid monsters in the deep dark. This movie (director Neil Marshal is excellent!) has a number of connections to Lovecraft, including a strong similarity to “The Beast in the Cave”, “Rats in the Walls”, and of course “The Lurking Fear”. The movie also features a fantastic cast of women, and shows that much of this may simply be crawling through the head of a character broken by an earlier trauma and trapped beneath the earth by the friends who are trying to help.

3.      In The Mouth of Madness: and other John Carpenter works.

Have you read Sutter Kane? The story of a detective on the trail of a writer whose works may have become more than just fiction is like something you’d imagine Lovecraft stories to be. John Carpenter has long been influenced by several of Lovecrafts writings, which becomes obvious with his vision for “The Thing” and even with the unstoppable and unrelenting nature of Michael Myers in “Halloween”. Carpenter preceded “Mouth” with another story that people often overlook, and that film is  “Prince of Darkness”… check that one out sometime, you won’t regret it.

4.      Cloverfield:

A giant monster of unknown origin rises from the deep sea and there is just flat out nothing the story’s main protagonist can really do about it. That’s as Lovecraftian as it gets… that’s cosmic horror right there. There is nothing to do, you are helpless in the face of the terrible horror, and it really has nothing personal against you but you may just wind up in its path. That’s horrifying. I wish I was more of a fan of the film technique or that they had decided to not shoot the film in “first person”, but the story is still really well done.

5.      Paranormal Activity: (most of the films in the series)

I’m hoping enough people have seen this entry so that what I write isn’t so much a spoiler, but this is not just some random ghost story. This is a family specifically targeted because of their familial connection to something darker and far more evil than they understand. Now when I was thinking of movies with a Lovecraftian “feel” to it, I had to debate myself on this one because I don’t really like the film. I think it’s largely a lazy effort, but it tells a solid story and it does so in a manner that is very reminiscent of Lovecraft.

6.      Evil Dead: Series

Sam Raimi has discussed his influence from Lovecraft when it came to developing the script for the original film. The sequel went a little more for the humor, and the third movie just threw the whole Lovecraftian formula out the window… but the recent remake brought the Lovecraft right on back into the project and delivered the goods. I also happen to think that the first Evil Dead may have come the closest to expressing the soul-wrenching insanity of Lovecrafts work without being based on anything in particular.

7.      Phantasm:

Often surreal and dreamlike, Phantasm isn’t exactly known for being “Lovecraftian” in nature. But here’s the thing… a mysterious force is snatching the bodies of the dead, shrinking them, and sending them across the galaxy to an unknown planet where they are forced into slave labor. We learn, throughout the series, that the floating spheres contain the still living brains of people forced into slavery by “The Tall Man”… there’s a very “Mi-go” feel to some of the revelations within the film and I think the atmosphere is very Lovecraftian when you really think about it.

8.      The Ruins

Based on a novel of the same name, there are still a number of elements that are very Lovecraftian in nature… a somewhat benign seeming element hiding an unknown horror, ancient ruins, a lost civilization trying to protect the world from the looming threat. The sense of dread as everything the characters do only makes their situation worse.

9.      Bug

This one may be the one that gets the most head shaking from Dear Faceless Readers, but allow me to explain: Much of Lovecrafts’ horror came from the minds inability to cope with the horrors of a persons’ reality. In some cases, the narrator may not really be the most reliable of story-tellers and these are often their reasons for committing some heinous acts. Bug is a drug-fueled nightmare of suspense with self-immolation, fear of “secret societies”, and it delivers a downward spiral through the nightmare perceptions of its two leads. HP Lovecrafts’ horror didn’t depend on a man in the rubber suit, it was always about the reaction and I think Bug fits the bill to a “t”.

10.   Alien : (I’m going to include Prometheus in this one)

Absolutely the BEST film to capture the feel and flow of Lovecraft, and I firmly believe that the story for this film and the recent “Prometheus” prequel are strongly based on “At The Mountains of Madness”. I’m not sure if this really violates the “adaptation” rule I’ve set for myself, which is why I’ve held off on discussing it. Alien features a lost ruin in a desolate backdrop, a crew of people who discover the ancient mummified corpses of long dead alien creatures, and then they also discover another life form that proceeds to attack and infects one of the crew before the film turns into a basic horror trope… Prometheus addressed some of the issues a little more deeply by showing us that the “Aliens” were the result of an experiment from an “Engineer” race. It’s actually even more strongly related to the Lovecraft story by having the crew be explorers and scientists who can examine the corpses in a manner similar to the exploration crew in the story.

Honorable Mention:

The antagonist monsters from the Hellboy movie are very “cthullhu-esque”, but I didn’t include the film because it lacked many of the elements that make Lovecraft stories so terrifying. First, the lead protagonist is fully capable of tackling the many tentacle monster beasts he faces and his sanity is never really at risk. Most of the characters are unfazed by the horrors they face and the only threat is that of the physical realm. Even the “secret cult” isn’t really seen as much of a threat, it’s more like the “bad guys of the week” sort of feel and they’re not really all that secret. Now don’t get me wrong, I absolutely LOVE the Hellboy series and I think there’s a strong influence from HP Lovecraft but I don’t really find the movie “Lovecraftian” itself.

She Kills Monster! (Reviewing an unseen play that I read. New Challenge.)

“She Kills Monsters” by Qui Nguyen

Reviewing a play that you read rather than one you actually see is a new challenge for me. I’ve never really tried to do this before, but this title just sort of screamed out to me and the synopsis pretty much guaranteed my interest from the get-go. Monsters, demons, Dungenons & Dragons, and a woman attempting to come to terms with the loss of her teenage sister kind of appealed to a number of my senses, so I put in an order with the gift-certificate and sat down to the material. I laughed very hard, felt a few kicks to the gut, and generally found this play to be everything I would look for in my entertainment.

Tilly is a socially awkward teenage girl who, along with her parents, recently died in a car accident. This leave her schoolteacher sister, Agnes, alone to griever over her losses. While cleaning out her sisters room, the woman comes across a “Dungeons and Dragons” module written by her sister, an adventure written specifically for a very small group of beginners in a world created by Tilly. Agnes recruits help from a local teen gamer (Chuck) to explore her sisters’ story in an attempt to connect with the geeky teen she barely knew.  She gets more than she bargained for as she fights with wise-cracking slacker demons, evil cheerleader succubi, doppelgangers, and a five headed dragon in her quest to free her sisters soul.

The play is easily accessible for those who don’t understand Dungeons & Dragons, utilizing the game itself as a mechanic to tell the story on the stage. There is plenty of stage combat, visual gags, and references to the geek culture that Agnes struggles to understand. Not all of her obstacles come in the game, either… her snobbish best friend (Vera) doesn’t entirely approve of her new hobby, her long-term boyfriend (Myles) is confused by the situation (with some very hilarious results), and she starts to come face to face with the real life inspirations to Tilly’s private world. There are definitely a few shocks in store for Agnes, some emotional upheaval, and the whole story comes to an end in an exciting and tearful climax.

“She Kills Monsters” is designed for a young cast of mid-teens to early twenties and has strong profanity, multiple dance numbers, and graphically violent stage combat. It tackles themes of loss, teen angst, sexuality, roles of gender, and the nature of relationships between people. This is definitely something I would go to see, wish I could be involved with, and enjoy.

4 out of 5.

HI HO, HI HO... Silver AWAYYYY!!!! (The Lone Ranger) AKA: Not Part of Shakespeare Month

Jerry Bruckheimer brings on Gore Verbinsky, Johnny Depp, and Disney Pictures to try and reignite the magic of “The Lone Ranger” in a long list of summer blockbuster “remakes”… or reimagining, or just flat out update on familiar material? I don’t know, but I did get a chance to check it out and have a lot to get off my mind regarding this particular film. Firstly, the reviews came in and they were largely negative… to be honest, they were downright horrendous. The high and mighty took every opportunity they could to blast Depp for his Tonto, to mock Verbinsky for attempting to catch lightning in a bottle once more with his Pirates of the Caribbean star, and to smack every aspect of the production that they could. Few probably saw the movie as a fan of the Lone Ranger itself, and fewer still could find the good that was scattered abundantly throughout the film.

I, however, am a fan of the Lone Ranger. Let me be honest… as harsh as my taste in film may be, as violent as my interests may lie, as sick and as disturbed as my mind may occasionally get there is still a part of me that is the same idealistic 6 year old who waved the red, white, and blue and swore allegiance to that same flag with absolute fervor every morning at assembly. As cynical as I’ve become, most of that same cynicism is actually born from the shattered hopes of that little boy who wanted to believe that good would always triumph over evil and that good people far outnumbered the bad. So the tenets of men like the Lone Ranger or Captain America or Spiderman tend to ring true with me to this day… and while many current hero stories are born in the darkness of shattered lives, there are still those who should refuse to become the monsters they profess to fight. The Lone Ranger has always been one of “those guys” for me… I’m one of the few people I know who understands why he uses the silver bullet, who understands the values he represented, and I wanted more than anything to see those values represented on the screen especially in light of the recent rush of “hero” films featuring dark people doing dark deeds and being unapologetic when it came time to do those terrible deeds. And based on the desires of a fan, I’m going to judge this film based on the merits I was looking for…

So the movie decides to start with the Lone Ranger robbing a bank. And yes, I had a fanboy moment of such horrible embarrassment I might as well never hold out hope of ever getting a “cool guy” teeshirt and matching hat when I exclaimed in the middle of a theater “NO!!! THE LONE RANGER WOULD NEVER ROB A BANK!!! WHAT THE FUCK?!?!?!” and got the dagger eyes from my own kid. Yeah, I shit you not. I did that. And I sat with my mouth shut and watched the rest of the movie… and I’m glad that I did.

It’s not perfect, it’s not entirely without flaws, but the Lone Ranger is far better than many have thus far given it credit for being. The Ranger himself was everything he should have been and maybe a little more, and I was actually very impressed with Armie Hammer’s portrayal of the title character. It’s not hard to see how he managed to win the role, with a deep bass voice and athletic build, Hammer also retains a sense of shy uncertainty of a hero about to begin his quest. He’s an idealist placed in a dark situation, and the actions of others do not yank him from his path… even when all hope is lost, when the “good” guys are absolutely outnumbered by the “bad” and revenge seems to be the only answer, the Ranger continues to fight for Justice above all else and continues to place value on even the lives of his enemies. Maybe someone would roll their eyes on such a thing in this day and age, but it made me happy. The aforementioned bank-robbery seemed like just the sort of moment a film-maker looks forward to utilizing to wake up the fanbase and get their blood boiling, and then offering an explanation that does entirely make sense with the character they’d long ago come to love. It’s a slap on the back with a wink, “did you really think we’d screw it up THAT badly?” comment on the side. Okay, I get it.

The movie is fun. There’s no doubt about it… there are some terrific sequences and the chemistry between Hammer and Depp is pretty good, and doesn’t feel so much shoe-horned like some have expected. I don’t feel like I wasted my money and my fan-boy zeal was satisfied so far as it goes.

So where does the film go wrong? We have a long-running series of moments that my son refers to as the “poo-poo” scenes. It is also the big conceit of the movie itself, that all of this is being told from the point of view of a CGI-transformed Johnny Depp as an older Tonto regales a young boy with the story of a hero. We are taken from the 1930’s San Francisco and plunged back another forty or fifty years ( I admit, I didn’t take a note here) to the time of the Ranger and it doesn’t work. It tags about twenty minutes or so onto a film that is already too long by about 15 minutes without these scenes of Hammy Depp acting like a goof for the sake of screen time. And this is kind of indicative to where the film goes wrong in various points… Johnny Depp is the “Hollywood” name, I know… but people would see the film even if they shaved a few moments of Deppy-goof in order to tighten the story itself a bit more. Also… the “twist” about half way through the film isn’t really much of one as things become fairly obvious very early. In fact, Tonto’s back story almost seems comical in and of itself because the stakes are already high enough without adding his personal vendetta to the mix. We like him better before the story takes away some of the glamour of a character we enjoy getting to know.

The film isn’t an absolute MUST SEE… but it’s fun if you have the time and the inclination.

3.5 out of 5.

The Tragedy of Macbeth

My first experience with Macbeth came during my senior year of High School. Unlike some, I usually enjoyed my required reading assignments and I had only just recently discovered an affection for the Bard at that point. I’d seen “Much Ado About Nothing”, I’d read “Romeo and Juliet”, and I’d also read a number of sonnets in passing at the local library. I had also seen the Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor version of “The Taming of the Shrew” only a few short months prior, in class, as sort of a warm up to the upcoming reading assignment. None of my prior experience really prepared me for what I’d find in The Scottish Play; witchcraft, murder, betrayal, paranoia, prophecies, and terror. Macbeth quickly rose to become one of my favorites, so I was incredibly excited when Paperwing Theatre announced that production would soon be underway and I sincerely hoped to be a part of it. Real life stepped in, I stepped out, but my wife and a good number of friends held on and went for a ride that opened to a standing ovation.

I will roll my eyes a little here, because I’m sure you already noticed I said that my wife and several friends were involved with the production. In the interest of full disclosure… yadda blah, yammer blah, etc. etc. and on and on. If you think it’s going to be a big deal, then whatever… but if you want to keep reading, go right ahead.

The play opens in explosive fashion, with the last skirmish of a great war where Thane Macbeth has established a reputation through acts of valour and a ferocious skill with the sword. Director Jourdain Barton utilizes a ferocious gothic-punk soundtrack to establish the dark fantasy elements of the show and blends modern styles with history. Patrick Golden tackles the title role with a fever, establishing a steady decline of moral and mental faculties throughout the performance. Macbeth betrays and murders the King in order to fulfill a prophecy delivered by three “weird” sisters met upon the road. The witches promise the lord titles beyond his own, a kingship, and a great future. Golden is a strong presence on the stage, demanding attention with near every gesture and reacting to the story around him with an intensifying madness. He draws the audience in with sardonic humor, intensifying the tragic events by letting us see him as both the assailant and the victim in a series of terrible events. He is a hero, he is a monster, he is a villain, he is a tyrant, he is a madman, and he is a victim of the events that play out. To put it far too simply and without proper justice, Patrick Golden IS Macbeth.

Lady Macbeth is played by Penelope Morgan. I’m struggling right now to describe this performance and offer justice in my own words. She was amazing, but that doesn’t touch the elements of her performance… brilliant, horrifying, sympathetic… all of them are small adjectives that manage to capture small pieces of the performance, but none of them do her justice. She eagerly pushes her husband toward his vile deed, but the guilt begins to gnaw at her… revulsion, disgust, fear, and horror begin to drag her mind toward a dark and terrible place, but none of that description really truly captures it. It has to be seen. It has to be felt. It has to be experienced. Penelope Morgan has always been one of my favorite actresses to watch on the Central Coast, but she manages to broil in this production and serves a justice to Shakespeare that simply has to be admired.

And then there’s Jesse Juarez in the role of Macduff, the reluctant hero and prophesied enemy to the show’s title character. Macduff is the reverse image of our villain, a man driven by loyalty and inspired by his own duty to take a stand against the tyrant. The cost is high, and Juarez delivers an emotionally brutal performance when he is informed to those costs. The audience feels his pain, and old Shakespeares’ language is taken, devoured, absorbed, and released with passion and clear understanding by Macduff. The difficult language comes easy from his lips, the audience understands every word and intent and we are engaged the moment he draws his sword.

Other performances continue to highlight this production, including a number of turns from stalwart performer Jodi Gilmore . He shines as the Porter, he slithers as the first Murderer, and each role continues to solidify the reliability and versatility of this performer who may be one of the hardest working men I’ve had the pleasure of knowing in the theater. Shane Dallmann’s Ross is a selfish snake, but to reveal any more about the character would betray several surprises the story has for a potential audience. Taylor Young takes a number of turns as well, playing a midwife, Lady Macduff, and a small number of other women seen throughout the show. Her scene with Dustin Moore is cleverly played, a too brief moment of innocent teasing between mother and son. Timothy Samaniego captures the audience with his portrayal of Banquo, but a discussion of his character is another spoiler for those who may not know the story.

Macbeth is playing at the Paper Wing Theatre in Monterey, off Lighthouse Avenue. The company has done a terrific job of making the language accessible to young audiences with their performance, though none of it has been “dumbed” down or modified. The actions simply speak volumes to the words of the Great Bard. There are some bloody moments, some acts of cruelty, and I would say the show is accessible to a PG-13 rating… so if parents would like to introduce their teens to classic literature, this is an excellent opportunity to do so. If teens feel the heavy weight of an impending study on Shakespeare, this is the kind of performance to soak the dryness in blood. If you’re a fan of the material, like me, this is definitely the show to see on the Central Coast.

SHAKESPEARE MONTH!!!! Joss Whedon's "Much Ado About Nothing"

So… I’ve decided to sort of do something a little different this month. My wife is going to be appearing in the local production of Macbeth, Joss Whedon released his anticipated adaptation of “Much Ado About Nothing”, and I’m a little bit bored out of my mind. So I’m going to focus this months reviews in the realm of the Bard himself, William Shakespeare.

Much Ado About Nothing

Kenneth Branaghs’ “Much Ado About Nothing” was my first positive experience with Shakespeare, the first time I remember truly enjoying a movie based on the Bard’s work and it provided me with a very deep love for classic literature to this day. What makes it so special, for me, is that it’s completely unlike anything people would normally associate with my taste… there’s really no violent conflict, there’s no blood, there’s no guts, there’s no horror… it’s just a frivolous love story between two very different couples; the young, hopeful, and largely innocent Claudio with his Hero and the cynical, barbed tongue battle of wits between Benedick and Beatrice. The latter couple carry much of the shows drama and comedy as they are both manipulated by their friends and family into exposing their true feelings for one another. It’s my favorite of the Shakespeare comedies, followed by The Tempest and The Taming of the Shrew (Macbeth being my favorite tragedy, followed by Romeo and Juliet).  With that said…

Joss Whedon is responsible for some of my favorite recent “genre” films, which include the sci-fi masterpiece of Firefly and the motion picture conclusion, Serenity. I largely enjoyed “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”, though I’m not a huge fan like some other friends of mine. I thought his take on The Avengers was spot on and represented the idea of people who do not get along eventually coming together for a common purpose. It carried a much more dramatic flair than he was given credit for. “Cabin in the Woods” was brilliantly written and has his fingerprints all over the production, though another director takes the credit for execution. I’m not a fan of Dollhouse. Sue me.

Now, color me a little excited to see a new adaptation of “Much Ado About Nothing” with Joss Whedon at the helm. It’s been awhile since I’ve seen an adaptation of this particular play… let’s be honest, here, it’s not one of the plays I see getting advertised at any local or anywhere nearby theaters.  I can go back and watch the 1992 version whenever I want, but I would like to see some new spins on a few of the performances.  I usually find it hard to sympathize with Claudio regarding some modern sensibilities, so a new take on various characters would be nice to see. I also enjoyed the story of how the film came about, too… about a week of filming during a break in shooting The Avengers, mostly with friends and a skeleton crew and little preparation? Whedon would have parties where he and a group of friends would just sit around and do a read through on Shakespeare… cool, huh? That kind of appeals to my “low budget, independent” sensibilities. Managing to find a babysitter was a little rough, but I eventually made my way to the local “art house” theater in Monterey and caught a little screening with a soda in one hand and chocolate covered raisins in the other.

Whedon takes a somewhat “modern” approach to the material, setting the story in a sort of contemporary time while maintaining the feudal lord aspect of the story itself. We’re asked to sort of suspend disbelief here and Whedon takes another bold approach by filming entirely without color. Despite these small changes, the story largely remains the same as the visiting Prince Don Pedro attends the home of his good friend, Leonato. He’s accompanied by his right and left hand men, the youthful Claudio and the cynical Benedick. All three are accompanied by the far less willing Don Jon, rebellious brother to the Pedro, and his two companions, Conrade and Boracio, all of whom are just brimming with terrible intentions.

Alex Denisof and Amy Acker manage to gather brilliant chemistry and deliver stellar performances as Benedick and Beatrice. Their barbed tongue fly with cynical wit, cutting one another brilliantly. Whedon stalwart regular, Nathan Fillion, turns in a brilliantly comedic performance as the bumbling master of the watch, Dogberry. But, and I would rarely say this regarding this particular story, it’s Fran Kranz’s “Claudio” who absolutely steals the movie with his affection for Hero. Why would I rarely say this? Because Claudio is largely a huge dripping wang whose regard for Hero seems far less than genuine in most adaptations of the work. Whedon takes a chance here and offers some physical direction not seen in the text, his manner much more the heartbroken cuckold than the petulant child seen in Branagh’s version. In fact, I usually found myself cheering for Benedick during their confrontation and hoping to see these two duel whenever I saw the ’92 version… in this, I see two men driven by their affections for loved ones and Claudio is so shattered and torn apart that he’s looking to take it out on anyone. He’s not the hesitant coward as he’s so often been described, but a heartbroken fool in mourning. It’s a different take on the character than I’m used to and one that both Kranz and Whedon made work without changing the actual text.

If Whedon’s version has any drawback, it’s where some characters are combined or completely dismissed in favor of the narrative as it stands. This is only a drawback to Shakespeare “die hards” who maybe wanted to see a much more complete version, but Whedons’ is a little more streamlined within the limits set by budget and shooting schedule. This didn’t in any way affect my enjoyment of the film, but I want to at least offer a complete view and anticipate where some may feel the movie falls short.

Shakespeare is not exactly my usual forte’ in writing reviews, it’s not the usual kind of show I seem to attend, so my faceless readers may feel this particular review jumps the shark. To them I offer only this; get over it. I write about what I experience, what I like to write about, and that’s all there is to it.