“Coriolanus has grown from
man to dragon.”
Coriolanus
(2011) 123 minutes
Directed by Ralph Fiennes
Screenplay by John Logan based upon the play by William
Shakespeare
Starring: Ralph Fiennes, Gerard Butler, Brian Cox and
Vanessa Redgrave
“Oh mother what have you done to me? You have saved Rome, but you have
ruined your son.” – Caius Marcius Coriolanus
Caius Marcius (527—490 BCE), later given the name Coriolanus
in honor of his heroism at the Battle of Corioli, was a patrician general from
the earliest days of the Roman Republic.
Indeed, his first heroic exploits, for which he won the Civic Crown,
were at the Battle of Lake Regillus, where the victorious Romans ended once and
for all the efforts of their former king, Tarquin the Proud, to regain his
throne.
Hailed as a hero, Coriolanus embodied those martial virtues
that all Romans aspired to while at the same time he exuded the particularly
Patrician arrogance that the Roman people despised. Like Scipio Africanus, who outfought every opponent in
battle but was constantly out maneuvered by his political enemies in the
Senate, so too Coriolanus had no skill for politics. To say he lacked ‘the common touch’ is an understatement. His disdain for the people coupled with
his rigid inflexibility allowed Coriolanus to be easily ambushed by his
opponents, the newly created Tribunes of the People, who contrived to have him
exiled from the city.
Unlike Scipio, also forced into exile by his political foes,
Coriolanus did not “go quietly into this good night.” Instead he joined with Rome’s enemies, the Volscian tribes,
leading them from victory to victory until they stood before the very gates of
Rome. The Romans sent numerous
embassies to treat with Coriolanus, but he rebuffed them all. It was not until the women of Rome,
lead by his mother and his wife, came to the Volscian Camp and prostrated
themselves before him, that Coriolanus relented. Moved by this show of humility and sacrifice, Coriolanus
withdrew his army.
Some stories say the Volscians assassinated Coriolanus for this change of heart, while others tell us that he lived out his life in solitary exile, a broken man.
From this story Shakespeare shaped his play, and although
Coriolanus may be more fiction than fact, he was accepted as real by the Romans
and considered an integral part of their history. His story speaks to the early struggles between the
Patricians and the plebs to find the balance that would allow the Roman
Republic to not only survive but to thrive, and indeed flourish into the Empire
so well known today.
In an earlier review I commented that, sometimes, dramatic
writing trumps historical accuracy.
This was never truer than with the plays of William Shakespeare. A poet who often plumbed the depths of
history for his plots, Shakespeare was never one to let history get in the way
of drama. In this he is very much
like the film producer Darryl Zanuck who once opined, “There is nothing duller
on the screen than being accurate but not dramatic.” Indeed, Shakespeare has proven to be so dramatic and durable
a playwright that his works have endured an endless parade of adaptations,
re-interpretations and translations into new languages, cultures and
media. Some of these have worked
better than others.1
Hollywood has always approached Shakespeare with some
trepidation, for despite their critical acclaim, these films rarely make any
money.2 (The one noteworthy exception being Shakespeare In Love which won the Oscar for Best Film against very stiff
competition.) So it is a testament
to the persuasive powers of Ralph Fiennes that he was able to find funding for
his film of Shakespeare’s Coriolanus.
Written late in Shakespeare’s career, long after his more
famous plays, Coriolanus shares some of
the same themes found in those earlier works: ambition, hubris, betrayal and
manipulation by loved ones both subtle or not. Where it differs, and significantly so, is in the conception
of Coriolanus himself. Unlike say Hamlet,
or Richard III, Coriolanus is not given any long soliloquy in which he reveals
his musings and motivations. We
have no ‘window into his soul’ and so Coriolanus remains something of an
enigma.
T.S. Elliot thought Coriolanus superior to Hamlet or Macbeth
for the very reason that he is not dissected and laid out for us, but rather
remains opaque and difficult to pin down with any certainty. Coriolanus is a slippery customer, in
more ways than one, so it comes as no surprise that so many actors have sought
to play this character on stage.3 Interestingly, Ralph Fiennes is
one of the first to attempt a feature film of this particular play.
Lawrence Olivier as
Coriolanus. His
1937 performance, and 1956
reprise are
still considered by many
critics to be the
definitive portrayal of this
character.
In deciding to both direct and star in this film, Ralph
Fiennes has taken on a momentous challenge, that, I am happy to say, he meets
with great success, for the most part.
One of the first challenges that confronts any artist
approaching Shakespeare is the language. How do you make the play accessible,
understandable and dramatic to a modern audience? Do you keep the setting and language intact (ala Joseph
Manckiewicz’s Julius Caesar) or drop
both while retaining the basic plot (Robert Wise’s Westside Story) or some combination there of?
For Fiennes, the language was key. In an interview with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, Fiennes noted that he was first attracted to acting
by the beauty and rhythm in Shakespeare’s language, so for him there was no
question but that it would remain intact.4 Of course, the text has been
edited, Coriolanus being one of Shakespeare’s longest plays, but on the whole
the language is as Shakespeare wrote it.
The other major challenge is setting, and here Fiennes has
shown a deft imagination.
A subtitle early in the film tells us that we are in “A
place that calls itself Rome.” This one simple sentence is the perfect
preamble and makes the meshing of ancient and modern much less jarring than it
otherwise might be.
Fiennes has opted for a contemporary setting and in doing so
he has eliminated many problems that plague films set in Ancient Rome. Instead of armor and shields,
Coriolanus and his legionaries wear 21st Century ‘digital’
camouflage, ride armored IFV’s and wield assault rifles and RPG’s rather than
gladius and pilum.
This design sensibility extends to the civilian characters
as well, with tribunes and senators in business suits rather than togas, and
the plebs in standard work-a-day clothing. For the Romans, dress uniforms are the order of the day for
soldiers not on the battlefield while the Volscians favor a potpourri of
different camouflage patterns, on and off the battlefield, as seen in many newly
formed armies and militias in the world today.
Consistent with this concept, Fiennes has assembled a first
rate cast that is as racially and ethnically diverse as the population one
might find in almost any city today.
Many of the actors are well known and, generally speaking, they all acquit
themselves admirably.
Of special note is Vanessa Redgrave as Volumnia, the mother
of Coriolanus. Either in her be-medaled uniform, or simple civilian attire, it is clear Volumnia is a women to
be reckoned with. When she
physically assaults the Tribunes on the steps of the Senate, even though their
persons are inviolate, no one dares to stop her. Even the Tribunes themselves seem feeble next to her. It is no wonder then that Coriolanus is
no match for his mother’s manipulations of him. She is in fact as driven by Patrician pride as is
Coriolanus, and it is only at the end, when Coriolanus tells her, “O my mother,
You have won a happy victory to Rome; But for your son …” that she realizes the
true cost of her ambition.
Throughout the film Fiennes uses several styles of
cinematography, including hand-held ‘you are there’ shaky-cam (thankfully kept
to a minimum), faux news footage, and more traditional shots. To his credit, Fiennes eschews the
rapid fire quick cut editing found in so many films today. Instead, he allows scenes to build and
develop over time, and while some might find this pacing to be too slow, I
found it a refreshing and welcome change.
Not surprisingly, the color palate is subdued, with the only
really bright colors being those of the Roman dress uniforms festooned with
ribbons and medals.
Of course, as Shakespeare tells us, ‘the play’s the thing’
and here we have a mixed result.
At its best, the film is riveting. This is not surprising in the combat scenes, all of which are
well choreographed and expertly shot.
Clearly Fiennes and his cinematographer, Barry Ackroyd, have been paying
attention to current events.
At its worst, character motivations are unclear and
confusing. This may be due in part
to the editorial decisions Fiennes made with the original text. However, in this case the problem is
often due, most annoyingly, to lines being lost either in the hurly-burly of
the scene or simply delivered too naturalistically, resulting in their being
neither distinct or, in some cases, even heard. In their film adaptations Oliver, McKellen and Branagh took
care to insure that all lines were delivered and heard clearly and crisply.5
This is not always so in Coriolanus, and while this may be more of a
technical issue than one of acting, clearly the issue rests at the feet of the
director.
However, in all other aspects Fiennes does an excellent job
as both actor and director.
One scene merits special attention. It is a scene not found in the play,
but rather one devised by Fiennes and his screenwriter John Logan, and it
serves to tell us much about Coriolanus the man.6
Now exiled, sporting shoulder length hair and unkempt beard,
Coriolanus has traveled to the Volscain capital, looking for his rival,
Aufidius (Gerard Butler). He spies
the enemy general walking down the street with a few bodyguards. As he strolls with casual ease the
people greet Aufidius warmly and though clearly on his way somewhere, he takes
time to return their greetings and to make small talk with diners at an outdoor
café.
As he watches this transpire, we see Coriolanus hit bottom
as he realizes how truly miserable his fate is. Here is Aufidius, loved by the people even though he has
lost many battles, while he, Coriolanus, who has brought the Romans victory
after victory is hated and despised by his fellow Romans. It is then that
Coriolanus resolves to join with Aufidius, and avenge himself on the Romans, or
to let Aufidius take his life and so end this wretched exile.
The scene works perfectly because Fiennes has the confidence
to let the images speak for themselves, and they speak volumes.
In contrast, the final scene, when Aufidius kills
Coriolanus, does not work as well.
Although this scene is in the play, in the film the motivations of the
various characters do not seem clear, particularly Aufidius’s several changes
of heart. Again I think this more
a problem with Fiennes’ concept of the scene rather than Butler’s performance. In fact, I wish Fiennes had, once
again, strayed a little more from the text and instead given us a final shot of
Coriolanus, sitting by himself, staring into space. Much like Michael Corleone at the end of the Godfather, we would see Coriolanus as a victim of his own
success – victorious and defeated all at the same time.
All in all, Coriolanus
is well worth making the effort to see and in fact may work even better on
television, giving it a more visceral reality.
Coriolanus is now
available on Blu-ray and DVD.
Notes:
1 In several interviews Fiennes has
related how he was inspired to take on the challenge of Coriolanus by Baz Luhrman’s film adaptation of Romeo
And Juliet. Likewise, working with directors like Anthony Mingehlla (The
English Patient) and Steven Spielberg (Schindler’s
List) built in him a desire to direct.
Of course there have been many feature films adapted from
Shakespeare and everyone has their favorites. Wikipedia has a long, but by no means complete, list of
screen adaptations. For me, the
best are those by Olivier, Branagh, McKellen and Kurosawa, to which I would
also add Forbidden Planet, a Sci-Fi
reworking of The Tempest, and Shakespeare
In Love.
2 The production budget for Coriolanus was
reported to be $10 million. To date, the worldwide box office is just over $1
million. Sales of Blu-ray and DVD
as well as to Broadcast and Cable Television might bring in another million or
so. Clearly this is a case of a
film made for the sake of art, not profit.
One side note: With a production cost of $40 million (on an
original budget of $25 million) Shakespeare In Love has grossed over $300 million (including both box
office and ancillary markets like DVD and Cable TV).
3 “The most famous Coriolanus in history
is Laurence
Olivier, who first played the part triumphantly at the Old
Vic Theatre in 1937 and returned to it to even greater
acclaim at the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre in 1959. In
that production, he famously performed Coriolanus' death scene by dropping
backwards from a high platform and being suspended upside-down (without the aid
of wires), a death reminiscent of Mussolini's. In 1971 the play returned to the
Old Vic in a National Theatre production directed by Manfred Wekwerth and Joachim Tenschert
with stage design by Karl
von Appen. Anthony
Hopkins played Coriolanus, with Constance Cummings as Volumnia and Anna
Carteret as Virgilia.
Another notable Coriolanus of the twentieth century
was Richard
Burton, who also recorded the complete play for Caedmon
Records.
Other famous performances of Coriolanus include Paul
Scofield, Ian McKellen,
Toby
Stephens, Robert Ryan,
Christopher
Walken, Morgan
Freeman, Colm Feore,
and Ralph
Fiennes. Alan Howard
played Coriolanus in the 1984 BBC production.”
--from: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolanus
4 The Jon Stewart interview on
December 7, 2011
5 Reportedly, Olivier purposely
spoke his first few lines slowly and distinctly to give the audience time to
adjust to the rhythm and cadence of the language. Fiennes notes too that it takes a few moments to adjust
one’s ear from modern language to the poetry of Shakespeare.
Likewise, with the possible exception of Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet, every director edits Shakespeare’s text, usually to
meet contractual obligations for a film less than two hours in length. Some edit for reasons of focus or
pacing, but generally the main narrative thrust remains intact as it does with Coriolanus.
6 John Logan’s screenwriting
credits include: Gladiator, The Last Samurai, Rango, Hugo and the new James Bond film Skyfall.
This Review was first posted on the Ancient Warfare Magazine web site June, 2012
(c) 2012 David L Reinke
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment