Coriolanus

I do not normally write Amazon reviews, but am doing so now in part in response to a previous reviewer's complaint, and in hopes that my comments may be helpful to a prospective viewer.This film is a modern take on Shakespeare's Coriolanus, with Ralph Fiennes in the title role. While the play, and the real world events upon which it is based, took place in the ancient Roman Republic, the film takes place sometime in the early 2000s. There are cars, machine guns, cell phones, (I noted the flip phones, which is why I place it around 2006 or so), electric lights, and, yes, black people, including in positions of authority, in this depiction of the Roman-Republic-made-modern. Whether one takes this, as one reviewer did, to be "blackwashing" or, as I did, simply as part of the film's attempt to set the play in the modern world, seems to me to depend on how comfortable one is living in said modern world, where we indeed have plenty of distinguished public servants of various complexions. If you resist this aspect of modern life, then this film is not for you, as, again, it is set in the modern world, with all its internal combustion engines, television screens, and elites of not necessarily ("purely"??) European background. However, it strikes me as peculiar to complain about this one aspect of this film's modern setting, while accepting the rest. Alas, it is not a "blackwashing" of the past that occurred, but a "whitewashing" of the present that is sought. As for the work itself, I imagine prospective viewers fall into three categories: those who have read/seen the play, those who have heard of it but not read/seen it, and those who have no idea whatsoever about the play or the events it depicts. While those in the first group may be able to detect where the Bard's original words have been edited or adapted, I was not able to, as I fall into the second category. As a fan of Shakespeare, and a student of the ancient world and Western Canon, I merely sought more edifying entertainment than the usual streamed movie offers during lunch. It met this low bar, and although I am not in a place to judge entirely, I suspect the film's adaption of the original play was faithful enough that the literary qualities of Shakespeare's words and narration are fairly depicted. Upon my first viewing, I would not put the play in the same great heights of Hamlet, Romeo & Juliet, King Lear, Macbeth, etc. However, I would not put it far below, either. There are several complex and ambiguous characters and situations which raise the eternal questions about life and society in the way that only Shakespeare can. Nonetheless, I found myself reaching for a pen to jot down quotations far less than while recently watching Julius Caesar (a Royal Shakespeare Company setting in contemporary Africa is fantastic and free for Prime subscribers) and Richard II (also free for Prime subscribers, I think by the BBC). As for the film's adaption, I thought it was mostly done well, although there were a few scenes that felt clumsy or cheesey, for example, in attempting to dress a Roman bread riot in the garb of a modern street protest. Similarly, for a person such as myself who is primarily interested in Shakespeare's work, the whole thing could've probably been 20 minutes shorter by dispensing with the cinematography, scene shots, etc. which of course were not part of the play. Nevertheless, the adaption is well-done overall, and the scenes of violent discord in the Senate may be discomfortingly familiar to viewers in the post-Trump, post-Jan. 6 United States.Finally, for those in the third group, who have stumbled completely unknowingly upon this film, a brief description of the story: Coriolanus was a general in the early years of the Roman Republic who defended the city against non-Roman invaders, then attempted to translate this military success into political success by campaigning to be consul. Although he impresses the city's aristocratic elites, he is disdainful of the common people, who in turn not only deny him the consulship, but banish him from Rome for his insults. He turns traitor, joins his former foes on the outskirts of Rome, and would have pillaged the city were it not for the appeals of his mother, wife, and child. Having called off the slaughter and negotiated peace with Rome, Coriolanus is then done in by his non-Roman foes-turned-allies-turned-foes-again. It is perhaps more political and more ambiguous than many of Shakespeare's plays --there are no heroes here, and Coriolanus' stubbornness is matched by the fickleness of the masses. As with all great literature, we are left with more questions than answers, regarding duty to one's country, loyalty to one's family, and the motivations that make us all tick.2 hours well spent.

I actually liked most of Shakespeare's plays, but this was not one of them. Evidently this was not one of his better works, as I had never heard of this one. In fact, I was not expecting a Shakespearean play when I chose to watch this, and I probably would not have watched it had I known in advance. I don't read "the critics" before watching a movie - I like to make up my own mind.Not all old plays update well to modern settings, and this is one that does not. (If you're going to talk about swords at least someone on the set should have one, not machine guns!) This is not a "full" update but only a "partial" update as the most important part - the dialogue - was not updated, only the costumes and props. Guns, cars, televisions, and cell phones were not around in Shakespeare's time and do not belong in a Shakespearean play. Similarly, the language used may have been appropriate in Shakespeare's time (I doubt it) but certainly is not in the 21st century. As a result of this partial modernization, this work is no longer a tragic play, nor is it an action drama, but is instead a poorly written science fiction mashup.I did get a good laugh during one scene where Coriolanus (Fiennes) is addressing his "troops" and after a modest-length diatribe his men are crouching around, and all of them have looks on their faces that say "What in the hell is he talking about?" Appropriate as their looks matched my own wonder. I'm surprised that Mr. Fiennes's ego allowed this to go into the finished product.

Coriolanus is one of Shakespeare's last plays and frankly one of the more complex. It was based upon one of the Plutarch tales and as such is consistent with the many uses Shakespeare made of classic events. As Plutarch observed:"It may be observed, in general, that when young men arrive early at fame and repute, if they are of a nature but slightly touched with emulation, this early attainment is apt to extinguish their thirst and satiate their appetite; whereas the first distinctions of more and solid and weighty characters do but stimulate and quicken them and take them away like a wind in the pursuit of honour; they look upon these marks and testimonies to their virtue not as a recompense received for what they have already done, but as a pledge given by themselves of what they will perform hereafter, ashamed now to forsake or underlive the credit they have won, or, rather, not to exceed and obscure all that is gone before by the lustre of their following actions. Marcius, having a spirit of this noble make, was ambitious always to surpass himself, and did nothing how extraordinary soever, but he thought he was bound to outdo it at the next occasion; and ever desiring to give continual fresh instances of prowess, he added one exploit to another, and heaped up trophies upon trophies, so as to make it matter of contest also among his commanders, the latter still vying with the earlier, which should pay him the greatest honour and speak highest in his commendation. Of all the numerous wars and conflicts in those days there was not one from which he returned without laurels and rewards. … But Marcius, believing himself bound to pay his mother Volumnia all that gratitude and duty which would have belonged to his father, had he also been alive, could never satiate himself in his tenderness and respect to her."From this did Shakespeare develop his character. The version Coriolanus by Ralph Fiennes presents the main character, Coriolanus, in a contemporary setting and presents him as an awkward savior of Rome which then through a manipulation of the masses turn on him which leads to his destruction. Coriolanus is a warrior, not a politician. The politicians manipulate the mob, yet within the mob there are other layers of manipulators. There are what have been called from time to time the "professional back stabbers". This is a group of what may be genetically oriented persons whose sole goal in life is to destroy others. Nothing personal, nothing for a desired end, just the process of personal destruction. Washington is a current day example of where they most congregate. Thus this class attacks Coriolanus who appears both clueless and disinterested. Fiennes does a splendid job at depicting this. The Corialanus of Fiennes is a military hero, thrust upon the political stage yet with a total dislike for politics and moreover the mob, albeit having been the savior of this very mob. The characterization of Coriolanus has changed from age to age, from the evil militarist to the errant soldier. Fiennes presents an interesting character development, with depth and by the end an appreciation for the man, even sympathy.The mob is a key element of Coriolanus. Yes, the mob can be manipulated. Yes, the results are tragic for all. But that is not why Shakespeare wrote this play. At the time the play was presented, James I was King. There was not major concern for the "mob" One may guess that the last time the "mob" revolted was the peasants revolution of 1381. Thus one does wonder from whence the dislike of the manipulated mob came.Shakespeare seems not to like the populous. As noted by some authors his use of the term popular, as understood to me in relation to the masses seemed always to end in some disaster. The masses can and could be manipulated. The manipulators often do so just for the process itself without any end in mind. The tragedy here is that Coriolanus was a good soldier who was thrown out of his ken, and at first accepted and then destroyed by the masses, to no benefit to them.But what most seem to miss about Coriolanus as a play and political metaphor is in the play the Tribunes manipulate the masses. In the current election cycle on the Republican side, this seems not to be the case. In fact the masses are rejecting the Tribunes. It is thus an interesting and telling drama. Can the masses be manipulated? All the time. We see it in every strategy. As one of the Democrat Tribunes states; never let a tragedy do to waste. As immoral as such a statement may be, it is echoed so many times.Thus I would rate the Fiennes presentation as a five star one! To do Shakespeare well, one must understand the underlying human tragedy, not try to make it some anti-politician statement. Done that way it becomes just an echo from the very mob itself, it is popular to paraphrase Shakespeare.

Se piace Shakespeare

Great movie

Ralph Fiennes' production of Shakespeare's Coriolanus is just about perfect.This is a hard, cruel play about men of war and about how war shapes individual men and whole cultures. This version sets the play in modern dress in an Eastern European theatre with ruined apartment buildings and damaged villages. This does real justice to Shakespeare's themes by showing us what the world looks like and feels like to a hardened general like Coriolanus; men fight with knives and machine guns, not glorious swords that can distract us with their glamour. There is no glamour here.Gerard Butler is perfect as the Enemy Leader,Coriolanus' equal and opponent. Vanessa Redgrave as Volumnia shows all the best of the British acting traditions. Fiennes himself seems simply to be this military man, hard-as-nails, passionate if not profound in his thoughts and feelings.Coriolanus has never been one of Shakespaere's greatest hits, but it is one of his best and truest. In it, he shared some of his darker thoughts about humanity and the true nature of heroism.

Heard about it via a friend but was not sure about that kind of adaptation.... Really was amazed by how it worked and came into place so well.. Big fan now... really well done, brilliant cast, beautifully acted... 10/10

No muy fiel adaptación sobre la obra homónima de Shakespeare, llevada a una sociedad más actual, aunque entretenida, no obstante.