Have you seen the trailer for The Tempest?
First, let me get this off my chest: what’s with this “visionary director” thing? And what’s the next superlative, "God-like"? Okay, moving on.
I’m not a Shakespeare purist by any means. I’m one of the few people I know who loved Michael Almereyda's Hamlet. I’ve even written a screenplay adaptation of 12th Night. (For the record, I wrote it long before She’s the Man came out.) If Julie Taymor wants to cast Helen Mirren as "Prospera," more power to her. Why not? (There's one good reason why not, because Shakespeare intended it to be a male character, but let’s put that aside, I’m not a purist, I’m not a purist, I’m not a purist….)
But what’s with all the CGI? Does The Tempest really invite all that gimmickry?
This reminds me of two film versions of The Importance of Being Earnest.
The 1952 version with Michael Redgrave is a modest affair; mostly it takes place in a couple of drawing rooms, but that’s not to say it feels “stagey.” Its brilliance is in letting Wilde’s language and one-liners and the fine actors do all the work. It’s one Wilde zinger after another, and just when you’ve wrapped your head around one, another follows, and it’s a pure delight. The 2002 version stars fine actors, too, but the director decided to take the play out of the drawing rooms and add all sorts of white linen locations—establishing shots of the manor, the garden, etc. In an effort to open up the play, the director has completely diluted it. Instead of your head spinning from the fast-paced dialog, you're left thinking something like this: Ooooh, that Oscar Wilde, he’s hysterical! Oh, look at that vase. Oh, and now Rupert Evert is dressing up as a dandy. Those buttons look authentic. What remarkable lengths these film people go to achieve an authentic sense of period... I don't know why the 2002 film took this route, I'm not privy to that information, but I suspect it was because the parties responsible wanted to corral a certain demographic that likes its films "refined," with pretty actors in pretty costumes sitting in pretty locations.
So, this brings us back to The Tempest. Are all the smoke and mirrors an attempt to lure a non-Shakespeare-appreciating audience into the seats? Is that a sound strategy, you think? I mean, look, it’s Shakespeare, if you’re going to use his language, you’re going to alienate a lot of people and you’re going to lure some people. Will all that CGI convert non-Shakespeare people? Will the throngs who went to see 300 rush out to see this when it's released in December? I find that highly unlikely. Will it turn off the Shakespeare people?
Turns me off. Shame too, because The Tempest, you know, it's a pretty good play.
What do you think?
