Much Ado About Nothing
When watching the Branagh version of Much Ado About Nothing, I tended to
realize
lines had been omitted from the movie. I then got further into the
movie and
some of the lines that were ones that foreshadow what had happened
in the text.
The purpose of this paper will show that lines left out of
the movie were in
some way essential to character development and aided in
the movie's plot
confusion. The analysis took several watchings to create a
vivid view of what
lines were missing and why. So, as I was watching the
movie I marked which lines
were not spoken. This approximated to 1329. Wow!
1329 out of 2712 (give or take
a few lines) were missing. Now I asked myself
how is anyone going to get the
full feel for this play, if there is 49%
missing. Half an answer would be that
the choices to leave out certain parts
were to down play a character's attitude
or behavior. Or I could be way off
base, and producers could have wanted to just
save time and money in
producing, editing, etc. It is the first choice I would
like to consider.
When reviewing the lines left out, the first big chunk is in
act 1 scene 1.
Beatrice is describing Bene*censored*, "In our last con-/
flict four of his
five wits went halting off, and now/ is the whole man governed
with one;"
(1.1,62). Which creates a dynamic that gives you a precursor to
the rest of
the play. This precursor being that Beatrice and Bene*censored*
fight
constantly, not like old friends, but old foes. The word choice
that
Beatrice gives in the opening of this play gives us that overall
feeling that
the two just do not see eye to eye. Hence, when they spar for
the first time, 60
lines later, Beatrice seems a little more outspoken than
is perceived, due to
the omission of the lines. Bene*censored* comes off like
a prince trying to
defend himself. The lines make the sense of two friends
giving each other a hard
time, but the text gives them a sting. The omitted
lines that help characterize
the strength of words are needed for the sting
to be apparent, which just lacks
in the movie. The Branagh version showed
lots of areas where Bene*censored* was
coming off as doing nothing to spite
anyone, which allowed Branagh to make Bene*censored*
a better character than
is portrayed in the text. The next major spot in the
text that is omitted
from the movie is all of act 1 scene 2. This was an unusual
choice, because
this is where Leonato is shown to know that his daughter has a
suitor. The
wrong name is given, but still is an edited moment of comedy that
allows a
reader to know what is going on in the text, and who knows what and
how. The
movie did not let you know that Leonato was indeed aware of a suitor
until he
says "Daughter, remember what I told you. If the/ Prince do
solicit you in
that kind, you know your/ answer."(2.1,65). When reading the
text, this wrong
information about the Prince being the suitor instead of
Claudio being
the suitor (the Prince just acting in Claudio's name), is revealed
in the
scene that is mentioned earlier. It would help to make the comic nature
of
these lines unfold, instead of the confusion that comes about when the
movie
has the viewer confused to the textual facts of what is happening. Also
it is
the first time that somebody overhears (notes) a conversation and gives
out
wrong information, but this is also omitted in the prior mentioned
scene.
Consequently when people start to spy, it looks uncommon for the
movie, but the
text gives the notions of spying from the start. The next
major sets of lines
that are not used in the movie are ones that foreshadow
what is to happen in the
rest of the play. Borachio has a set of lines in
act2 scene3 that tell all about
having Margaret in a chamber window having
sex with Borachio using the name of
Hero. The movie omitting these lines,
makes Don John's plot of ruining the
marriage unknown to all until later, but
the deed doesn't come into full light
on who was the perpetrator of this
scheme till the conviction at the end of the
play. This shows the confusion
on who is involved with what. It also does not
give the full picture the way
the text does, maybe to give added suspense, but
it actually just makes more
confusion. The beginning of act 3 omits the first 35
lines of text that Hero
and Ursula speak to one another. These lines are the
ones that reveal about
the trick they are playing on Beatrice to make her fall
in love with
Bene*censored*. When they first speak in the movie it seems like
Beatrice
is walking into a normal conversation, not a planned set of words that
are
going to change her opinions of a man she loathes. Also with the omission
of
the first lines, and others, about her feelings toward Signior
Bene*censored*,
she is shown in the movie to be easily swayed away from the
realm of hate for
this man. In the text these trickery lines seem cunning
because they are played
on her emotions and doubts. Therefore omitted lines
again create a blur about
character development. This development being
Beatrice being easily fooled in
the movie, versus the careful planning that
actually takes place in the text for
this transformation to occur. Next, the
friar even gets cut off in the movie,
when it comes to having lines omitted
in act 4. This wise man who helps make
things right again, gives short simple
speeches in the movie. This could be to
help in the understanding of what is
going on in his philosophical words, but it
does not give the full view of
the friar's worldly educated nature. The friar
claims Hero's innocence in his
first speech which is not there in the movie, and
makes all seem right and
fair, in just 12 on his 100 lines. These lines that
have been omitted overall
were some unusual choices. These aforementioned are
just some examples of
what was different from the text, versus the movie in
question. Some of the
omissions created confusion, others made characterization
seem lacking. There
is a spot however, in the movie that makes a positive change
to text, and
that is the confusion Dogberry gives off when speaking, Branagh
tries to
clear matters up with omission and changing lines around. Put things in
a
more logical sense, and understanding. This realm of work actually worked
if
the goal was to try and understand what Dogberry had to say, but again
that
ruins the confusing character that Shakespeare had created. Which in
turn lacks
developed characterization. I feel that the movie was not an
accurate
representation of the text, and that with half the text missing, how
could it
be? This play was wonderful the way it was written, and Branagh has
done
wonderful work with other Shakespeare plays. I expected more out of
this, I
guess. Also I would have to say that the interesting choice Branagh
made in
omitting so many lines, important lines, aides in what I feel to be a
half done
job of script
writing.