As You Like It

source: As You Like It

Shakespeare, that is. I'm not necessarily averse to updating the time period - strangely no one ever moves them BACK in time - or making a point (Orson Welles' Julius Caesar, for example, produced in the thirties when Mussollini was the current dictator in Italy, or a recent RSC production of The Merchant Of Venice set against the London Stock Exchange) but here wunderkind (in his own mind at least) Branagh tampers just for the hell of it and after setting it in Japan shot the bulk of it in Sussex, England. Branagh clearly sees himself as the Jose Morinho of the Arts - oh, yes, I'm a special person, wrote my autobiography in the womb, don't you know - but has a tough time convincing me for one. Such is this guy's ego that he throws in an introductory paragraph explaining how Japan was opened up to trade in the 19th century (No doubt Shakespeare was grateful and applauded from the grave) and tops this with an entirely gratuitous section like something left over from a Run Run Shaw chop-socky effort from the 70s. He just about stops short of Title Cards informing us that the major characters are, in fact, mirror images of each other in case casting Brian Blessed as BOTH Dukes and two Black actors as the non-Royal brothers didn't get it over. On the plus side - and just about the ONLY thing there is the fine reading of Rosalind by Bryce Dallas Howard, yet another American actress who has mastered an English accent. Pity there was little or no chemistry between her and Orlando or that Kevin Klines' Jacques was a little down in the mouth rather than melancholy. Branagh has never had much success directing actors and does nothing here to prove me wrong. On the other hand it's almost always good to see Shakespeare on the big screen - unless you let some prat like Baz Lurhman near it - so give it a five out of ten and get out the DVD of Chimes At Midnight.

This is a very enjoyable movie but with other Branagh Shakespeare that I've seen it isn't perfect. There always seems to be "something" lacking. Much Ado was too fluffy - it has some serious themes that Branagh didn't seem to bring out as was concentrating on the "fun" (the BBC version is the best I've seen so far). Henry V was earthy and all the rest of it but for me it was pale beside the Olivier version. This is not because I dislike Branagh's realistic approach, it was good, but because I just don't think Branagh himself can act well enough for the part - but perhaps it is "personal taste". Love's Labour's Lost was a failure, a bit tedious, and weakly acted at times. I watched the Beeb version just after and learned that this actually is a very witty, very clever great play but I wouldn't have known it from the Branagh musical. I haven't seen the Hamlet yet. Branagh doesn't that I can see act in As You Like It? I was delighted with Kevin Kline's Jaques which he does far better than whoever in the BBC version and he's certainly the star of this play. I was a bit disappointed by Touchstone - wish he had been a more serious character as I think the clowns tend to be - Bolam did it better in the Beeb version. I didn't feel Brian Blessed was right for the banished Duke although OK for the villainous Duke. It was weird that the former looked like a Saxon king whilst the latter was a Japanese equivalent. The Japanese connection was entertaining at times but a bit strange as in spite of the info Branagh has to give at the start to explain the location - there weren't enough Japanese actors to make it work. However, it's a pleasant bit of fantasy with nice acting that should be accessible especially to those who aren't really Shakespeare fans whilst enjoyable if not perfect for those that are!

I was lucky enough to see this at my local film festival some time ago and was blown away by it. I'll admit it I'm a big Kenneth Branagh fan and I've seen most of his work on DVD, but this is the first time I've see any of his work on the big screen and it was quite a feast for the senses. The setting, (19th century Japan), is a luscious mix of reds, greens, browns and blues that fit really well with the mainly forest setting. The setting is neutral enough to allow the action to take centre stage, but is also textured enough to catch the attention when required. The acting is brilliant but particular mention must be given to four people:Bryce Dallas Howard as Rosalind, Alfred Molina as Touchstone, Jade Jefferies as Phebe and Romola Garai as Celia. Howard is perfect as Rosalind, displaying (sometimes in tandem) just the right amount of common sense and giddy cheek. She always has a twinkle in her eye that is never over or under played. The fainting, "I am not woman" and epilogue scenes are pieces of directorial genius from Branagh that have been ably executed by a very capable Howard. Molina is excellent as the resident funny man who has had his nose very much put out of joint. He can be funny and melancholic at the same time. Jefferies is the perfect mix fresh faced youth and old age sense. And finally Garai is pitch perfect as the supportive, yet flighty best friend. Branagh clearly loves what he's doing, it's just a shame it's behind the camera this time.**SPOILER ALERT**(we do get a sneaky shot or two of him near the end of the film)** END OF SPOILER** This love for the project has rubbed off onto the cast and crew and the result is a light hearted happy piece that will leave you feeling very warm inside long after the film has finished: THREE CHEERS FOR KENNETH BRANAGH!!

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."

Mediocre. Twee. Shallow. Smug. Superficial. Childish. Laughable. Because this is a 'comedy' of Shakespeare's does this mean it needn't be played with any depth of understanding? It should not. This production has had money thrown at it. Big name stars. Lush visual production values, etc. Shakespeare would be spinning in his grave... if he were petty enough to care what Brannagh and the BBC can get up to in their ignorance and lack of care. There isn't much more to be said. Look elsewhere for the rich heritage of already-filmed Shakespeare plays that are almost infinitely better than this.

Until seeing this recent Branagh adaptation of Shakespeare's As You Like It, I thought that I and my 8th-grade classmates years ago at a private girls' school had butchered this play as badly as possible. However, apparently, I was wrong. There is a lot that is seriously wrong with this film, despite some strong individual contributions from David Oyelowo, Adrien Lester, Richard Briers, and a couple others. However, overall, not only does this film border on incomprehensibility, but it also discourages one from ever wishing to read or see this play again. The worst aspect of this film by far is the patronizing, stereotypical "orientalisms" of the setting in Japan. Not for one moment is the story at all credible within this environment. Branagh does not seem to have spent any time at all understanding the time period into which he sets the play. What are English dukes doing setting up their fiefdoms in late 19th century Japan, let alone having private armies of ancient Japanese costume-clad soldiers? Every cliché that the least educated Westerner has about Japan is thrown into this shoddy blender. Why has Branagh set this story in Japan? I optimistically thought, at the outset, perhaps he's reverse-engineering the concept Kurosawa so brilliantly and successfully used in Ran, and Throne of Blood. And a truly imaginative and profound director could have made a good case for doing this. But Branagh does not attempt to place us in a setting which makes sense, so there is no explanation for why we are in Japan, other than that Branagh is desperate to call attention to himself, or that he wants an excuse to dress up all the lovers in kimonos at the end. The character of Touchstone looks clearly ridiculous, as if he had been air-lifted into the forest from some other planet. The character of Rosalind is seriously miscast, and appears to be less of a personage than Celia, also probably miscast in the overacting Romola Garai. In the play, Rosalind dazzles us with a driving intelligence wholly lacking here. And what are we to make of the casting choices of Oliver and Orlando? Although both parts are finely acted, in fact their contributions were the best parts of this film in my opinion, to imagine two black British lovers courting 19th century white women in the Japanese countryside, while everyone else there seems to be white, just seems totally anachronistic and jarring. Had the cast been totally mixed, it would have seemed less out of place, or had the setting not been filled with quaint Japanisms, it could have worked. Obviously, nothing needs to make sense in Branagh's brain. I'm not sure I would have been surprised had a couple of the characters shown up dressed as 9th century Vikings, or as Russian boyars. I also found the music annoying. Britain is full of divine singers: couldn't KB have found some better voices to do the singing? Couldn't he have found some less whiny music? And the music at the end sounds like an American musical comedy from the 1930s. Watching the red-haired Rosalind dressed up as a geisha in the ending scenes was just silly. In short, Mr. Branagh seems to have no real appreciation or understanding for the characters and the themes of the play, and stoops to the level of the comic-book in this film. If he has so little confidence in the merits of the play as it is written, why bother making a movie of it at all?

For me, Keneth Branagh's film adaptation of Shakespeare's As You Like It was a sublime experience. It was late at night, my wife out of town visiting her family, and me, nothing much to do but fall asleep on the couch. But I stumbled upon HBO's broadcast of As You Like It, and I am transported. The setting was not Elizabethan England, but 19th century Japan. Why? Frankly, I don't know, but it worked for me, as I was immediately pulled in to this mythical land of families divided between those of hearts hardened by war and those who courageously broke away from unhappy dysfunction seeking the pure promise of passion and love. I found the setting equally striking with the dark brown colors of the warlord's house contrasted with the lush, magical, green forest of those longing for their lovers. I found the acting exuberant and joyful, not at all overdone, but appropriate for the subjects at hand: love, passion, melancholy, and the tearful reconciliation between waring brothers. For me, this was a beautiful work of art, and Branagh deserves nothing but praise for it all.

I cannot make up my mind whether the play is bad (it's not Shakespeare's greatest) or the film is bad (it's definitely not Branagh's finest hour). I think it's a bit of both. I went in with high expectations (after Branagh's Henry V, Much Ado About Nothing, and Hamlet), but hated the whole enterprise from start to finish. The music was poor, Rosalind was mis-cast, and the whole Japan setting was a really bad idea that did not work. I hope this was just an aberration on Branagh's part and he can return to form. He is capable of excellent work with Shakespeare's plays, but this is a bad choice of play, badly done.

I no longer await Branagh's _King Lear_ with bated breath and, in fact, would stop it from happening at all had I the superpowers. I hadn't heard good things about _AYLI_, but I went into it with an open mind and enjoyed the first half hour sorta. Then it struck me how (again) how much I despise Branagh's taste in film music; then it struck me how much Alex Wyndham sounded like he was imitating or channelling Branagh; and then I was struck by Kevin Kline's ability to be misused in Shakespearean films (well, 2 outta 3). Unbelievably Branagh has almost ruined his _Much Ado about Nothing_, one of my favourite films ever, with this one. This was such a slavish imitation of his own style that he has permanently damaged my ability to enjoy the original. The odd setting seems to have no purpose and mostly detracts. The casting of Brian Blessed as brothers is not successful -- one is always still looking at Brian Blessed. There are a few nice moments, but they are mostly buried in Branagh-isms.