rishi

 

With a Pedro Almodovarfilm, we expect voluptuous sexual perversion, devious plot twists, a snaky interweaving of past and present, all painted on a canvas of bright colors with bold art and clothing. His latest film, “The Skin I Live In,” does not disappoint. Though I usually take pleasure in Almodovar’s sexy darkness, this film induces queasiness.

What it provides is a glossy, smooth, luxurious version of the sorts of unspeakable things that occupied classified classic horror films involving mad scientists, body parts, twisted revenge, personal captives and hidden revenge. Usually such films are stylistically elevated enough that there’s an irony involved, a camp humor.

Although camp is not unknown to Almodovar, here he maintains an emotional intensity showing that his bizarre story must be taken seriously. Yes, there is a mad scientist: the driven, brilliant Dr. Robert Ledgard, played by Antonio Banderas with rare intensity. Robert is driven by his science to try to repair tears in his heart. To do this, he assumes he has the godlike right to use the bodies and minds of other people: Their sacrifices are necessary to heal his pain.

As the film opens, he holds the beautiful Vera (Elena Anaya) captive in his huge mansion in the Spanish city of Toledo. She has every luxury except freedom. She is dressed from toes to chin in a flesh-colored costume that looks like a compression suit. She has a stack of books, a routine of yoga, around-the-clock service, everything but her freedom. She is not his patient but his prisoner, and perhaps she believes there are only two ways to free herself: suicide, or forcing the doctor to fall in love with her. She is narcissistic enough to know how beautiful she is, and seduction is a challenge to her.

We learn pieces of the back story. Robert’s young wife was horribly burned in a car accident. His specialty has become face transplants. (“I have performed three of the nine in history, and nothing has given me more satisfaction.”) I briefly thought Vera was his wife, but no, she’s dead, and Vera was kidnapped. He watches her on closed-circuit TV like an artwork and seems intent on using plastic surgery to create an ideal woman who will be, to put it plainly, fireproof.

There’s much clinical detail involving laboratory work, cloning, the blood of living pigs and sheets of newly grown skin. Some sequences could come from a documentary. This program of surgery is embedded in a plot so devious that the audience knows more than Robert ever does — for example, the identity of his mother and his brother. That’s Almodovar for you: It makes no difference who those people are, or whether Robert knows it. Pedro is just thickening the soup.

There is also a rape the nature of which Robert misunderstands. And the faithful older housekeeper Marilia (Marisa Paredes), who all mad scientists are required to have on staff. And Zeca (Roberto Alamo), a man dressed as a tiger, who comes to the house and explains to Marilia that he is a wanted man, and must be given sanctuary; only during Carnival can he move through the city disguised as a tiger. And Vicente (Jan Cornet), who Robert kidnaps for mistaken reasons and holds captive in the basement. You see how this film could have starred Vincent Price.

It looks so silky. Few directors have used colors, especially red, as joyfully as Almodovar. Every scene vibrates. There is passion, but not chemistry; although we believe Vera actually does hope to seduce the doctor, his feelings for her seem psychopathic, not sexual. He wants to prove something. The full depth of his depravity is revealed in the unexpected final sequence, when we discover that Robert’s emotional engine is fueled not by lust, jealousy or anger, but by a need to treat others as his scientific playthings.

Robert is an unwholesome character. The feelings of others mean nothing to him. That he expresses them on the rich canvas of Almodovar lends them a superficial beauty, but he is rotten to the core. This film must be credited with expressing exactly what Almodovar wanted to say, but I am not sure I wanted to hear it. The three-star rating is a compromise between admiration for the craftsmanship and the acting, and disquiet about the story.

 

Serge Gainsbourg was one of the great performing artists of France from the 1960s until his death in 1991, but despite the title of “Gainsbourg: A Heroic Life,” I am not sure he was heroic, and I don’t believe this film does, either.

He was a star more because of his insouciant, defiant personality than for the quality of his voice, and a genius in getting himself into scrapes. His most notable controversy involved his reggae version of “La Marseillaise,” the French national anthem. For Americans who loved Jimi Hendrix’s guitar version of “The Star-Spangled Banner” that doesn’t seem like much of a transgression, but the French right-wing didn’t get the joke.

Gainsbourg’s music was consistently popular, he had international hits, and he had celebrated affairs with Brigitte Bardot and Jane Birkin, with whom he fathered the fearless actress Charlotte Gainsbourg (“Antichrist”). With Birkin, he recorded the notorious “Je t’aime … moi non plus,” which apparently included the sound of a woman’s orgasm and was denounced by no less than the Vatican. But he never seemed fully respectful of his talent, and in later years, enjoyed notoriety on talk shows as a cut-up who sometimes went on drunk and lashed out at other guests.

Yes, he drank. But his overarching vice was smoking. Starting in this film as a child, he continues apparently nonstop, even in bed and the bath, until his probably inevitable heart attack at 61. His brand of choice was Gitanes, the French cigarettes that scented all of Paris until the success of Marlboros. Someone, it may have been Art Buchwald, said Gitanes were made out of old socks and belly-button lint. I point to Gainsbourg’s smoking not to be censorious, but to suggest that when someone endlessly does something harmful, there may be an aura of self-hate involved.

With Gainsbourg, it may have been connected with anti-Semitism — not because he objected to being Jewish, but out of defiance. That helped shape his personality at an early age. This eccentric biopic, directed by Joann Sfar from his own graphic novel, shows his attitude in an early scene: After the Nazis require all French Jews to wear yellow stars, the little Serge butts into the head of the line because, he explains, he wants his first. In a visual device that may have worked better on the page than on the screen, Sfar has him imagining an anti-Semitic face with a huge hatchet nose, atop a small body in the form of a caricature. This fantasy often follows him on the street and goads him into rebellious behavior.

The movie unreels his musical biography with an unending series of tastes of songs and performances. You may be surprised by how many you recognize. Along the way, he was often outrageous not because he wanted to offend people, but because in a twisted way, he simply didn’t care.

The actors resemble those originals I know; Eric Elmosnino is the Gainsbourg I see in videos; Lucy Gordon resembles Jane Birkin’s waifish look, and Laetitia Casta needs no dialogue to identify herself as Bardot. The affair with BB has an amusing payoff; Gainsbourg’s father was a piano player who was a strict taskmaster in teaching his son the instrument, and disapproved when his boy began to hammer away in dives and bistros. What did Serge finally do to win his father’s admiration? He brought home Bardot, which turned the old man into a fanboy.

Why was Gainsbourg a hero? The film leaves the question hanging. I am afraid it was only because, like Sinatra, he did it his way. Which no one can deny.

 

In the spring and summer of their senior year in high school, three best friends in Charleston, S.C. deal with their religious beliefs and sexuality. What kind of a film does that make you imagine? Possibly some kind of a melodrama, with big scenes of confrontation and truth-telling. Nothing could be more different than Stephen Cone’s “The Wise Kids,” which is honest, observant, and subtle.

The film will be the opening night presentation of the 30th annual Reeling Gay and Lesbian Film Festival, and will play Nov. 3 at the Music Box. The festival will also play at five other venues.

I’ve only seen this single festival film, but I can predict that in many of the entries, homosexuality will be treated in a matter-of-fact way, as the norm in the lives on its characters. Last Friday, for example, a sweet musical comedy named “Jamie and Jessie Are Not Together” opened at the Siskel Center, in which every woman in Chicago was apparently gay. Movies often create fantasy worlds. In the real world, everyone is not gay, and coming out can be difficult and painful.

“The Wise Kids” takes a refreshing approach to that reality. All of its characters are members of a Baptist church, but none of them is a religious zealot, and the most devout character is probably Tim (Tyler Ross), who during this summer will deal with the fact that he is gay. This will happen not with dramatic, pumped-up dialogue, but with understated, tentative conversations among friends, often on porch steps, walking down a street in the moonlight, or at back yard parties. Cone is adept at body language, eye contact, nuance, and suggesting people’s instinctive sympathy.

Tim’s best friends are Brea (Molly Kunz), the red-tressed, open-minded preacher’s daughter, and Laura (Allison Torem), who is fundamentalist and shocked by what she begins to realize about Tim. “It’s wrong,” he tells him. “I can quote you the verses from the Bible.” But this is not in an argument, and Tim says he “prays on it,” and now will pray for Laura. Brea, on the other hand, has a crisis of her own: She is beginning to question the foundations of her faith and contradictions in the Bible.

The film is cleanly, simply constructed of moments of communication. The word “gay” is hardly used. A fraught subplot involves Austin (Cone), the church musical director, and Elizabeth (Sadieh Rafai), his wife of eight years. He begins to realize he is gay, and Elizabeth perhaps realizes this sooner than he does. She observes that he’s attracted to Tim, and there’s a carefully written and photographed scene at a party where Austin and Tim share a moment of truth neither one of them expected.

Does Elizabeth scream at her husband? The movie spares us any such scenes, and we don’t believe they’re going on off-screen, either, The unusual quality of “The Wise Kids” is that the movie takes the faith of the characters seriously, and doesn’t set anyone up as a caricature or a sitting duck. The moment I saw Tim’s father (Matt Decaro), for example, I thought he’d become a target: He’s a good old boy with a beer belly. But he is also a loving parent, and note his tact and love in the conversation he has with Tim the first time the boy comes home for a visit after leaving to school. With a few words, he tells us of a lifetime.

There are no bad people in this movie. Only those who sincerely care for and about each other, and come to accept that, no matter what you think about it, some people are gay, and always have been gay, and that’s the way they are, and you can still love them. “The Wise Kids” may perhaps be one of the more unusual films in the festival.

 

Jamie and Jessie Are Not Together” is a sweet, appealing musical comedy about two lesbian roommates, who, as they keep telling everyone, are “not together.” Just friends. In fact, Jamie is two weeks away from leaving Chicago and moving to New York, where she plans a career on the stage.

The way Jessie takes that news (“Two … weeks?”) tells us what we need to know. She has a secret crush on Jamie. She walks out, goes to her job in an East Rogers Park coffee shop, confides in her understanding boss, and then, standing behind the espresso machine, begins singing a lament. Everyone in the shop joins in singing and dancing, including two men with Smith Brothers beards who pop up all during the movie and are never explained.

This scene is so charming, I wish there were more like it. The movie technically is a musical, but doesn’t have much music. Still, it’s lighthearted, as we meet the social circle of the two girls. Jamie is dating Rhonda (Fawzia Mirza), and the first time we see her, Jamie walks in the door, and they begin a torrid love scene. At this point, I was still under the impression that Jamie (Jacqui Jackson) and Jessie (Jessica London-Shields) were together, and was a little disappointed in Jamie’s promiscuity. But no, she and Rhonda are an item, and Jessie knows about them but keeps her feelings to herself.

“Come into my office,” says Dawn, the coffee shop manager, and sits Jessie down at a window tale for a talking-to. She senses Jessie’s feelings for Jamie, tells her there’s no future there and advises her to try some blind dates. We see bits of these, not successful, and then someone steals a wheel from her bike, and Elizabeth (Marika Engelhardt) happens along and offers to help her walk it home. In front of Jessie’s house, they kiss, they plan a date, and now it’s Jamie who is none too pleased.

And that’s about it, although this simple plot is charmingly written and acted, and as a low-budget indie, makes splendid use of the Lake Michigan beach and lakefront. Admirably avoiding postcard shots, writer-director Wendy Jo Carlton and cinematographer Gretchen Warthen make practical use of these locations. The setting is always waiting, the lighting is always natural, and there are so few extras wandering around that there can be a little skinny-dipping. It’s an alternative to conversations in apartments and the coffee shop, and it makes sense that if the roommates live in walking distance of the lake, they’d have an agreed-upon beach rendezvous place.

The movie, let it be said, has a number of sex scenes, and although you can never be entirely certain who is doing what to whom, something is certainly being done. This is in no sense a sex film, but I suppose it will be marketed as soft-core eroticism for the appropriate audience, and where’s the harm there?

 

Starting in the 1940s and continuing until as recently as 1967, hundreds of thousands of British children, some as young as 4 years old, were separated from poor families and single mothers and shipped to Australia, where in church institutions they were used as child labor and sometimes abused and raped. Their parents were assured they had been sent to “a loving family,” and given no other information. This treatment was licensed by the social-work norms of the time.

The story was never made public. In 1986, in Nottingham, a social worker named Margaret Humphreys (Emily Watson) was told by an adult woman named Charlotte (Federay Holmes), “I want to know who I am.” She had grown up being fed conflicting stories about her mother, many of them suggesting she was dead. She was in fact still alive, and Humphreys, in bringing them together, realized she had stumbled over an outrage of monstrous proportions.

Another woman, Nicky (Lorraine Ashbourne), is seeking her brother Jack (played by Hugo Weaving), who was deported. Together they go to Australia and find him. He introduces Humphreys to others who came out from the U.K., apparently orphans, and they visit the remote Christian Brothers school where he was raised and abused. There is an electric, painful scene in which she approaches the brothers at tea and asks if any of them care to discuss the past. They stare silently at their cups and plates of cake, none stirring or meeting her eyes. Some of them are young. The older ones must have known this day was coming.

This is all true. When Margaret Humphreys went on TV in Australia to tell the story, she drew crowds of adults who knew they came from the U.K. but had never believed the stories they had been told. If their parents were dead, did they have brothers or sisters? Grandparents? Anyone who could tell them about themselves? As the scandal grows, Humphrey establishes an organization and raises a fund for it, and finally, in 2009, there were formal apologies by the British and Australian governments to the victims.

Emily Watson, a delicate English rose, has never seemed more sturdy than here. In this movie directed by Jim Loach (the son of filmmaker Ken), she doesn’t play a fiery, charismatic heroine, but a quietly stubborn force of nature, who persists in a cause no one else cared to fight. Often, she and her helpers, especially Jack and another deportee, Len (David Wenham), are unfunded and seem to be drifting from one remote clue to another in the vast land. Sometimes she is made to feel in physical danger. She carries on.

One question is not addressed by the movie: Why were the children deported in the first place? Yes, we know the “reasons,” but what were the motives? If hundreds of thousands of children without parents are arriving in Australia, why are there those eager to receive them? They must be fed, sheltered and educated for years. Where’s the money? Are they needed for something as dismaying as to provide a reason for church institutions and jobs for clergy? Are they a growth industry? Does the government pay a subsidy that is welcomed? Are the children simply a pretext for the flow of funds?

The movie doesn’t say. A crime was committed, it has been exposed, and presumably many family members have been reunited. We move on.

 

Here’s another movie about a young vigilante hero, like “Super” or Kick-Ass,” but darker, more brooding and without the easy payoffs. “Boy Wonder” takes itself more seriously and plays more like a psychological thriller about a young man driven to extremes. Any connection between the title and Batman’s sidekick is purely ironic.

The most essential element is the performance by Caleb Steinmeyer, as Sean, a quiet high school student who was traumatized as a child by witnessing his mother being murdered by a car jacker. He lives in a truce with his father (Bill Sage), a recovering alcoholic, who sometimes beat Sean’s mother while the boy was watching. His dad has changed and apologized, but the damage has been done.

Sean gets straight As in school and is capable, in some scenes, of startling us by the depth of his unexpected knowledge. He is introverted, withdrawn, bottled up. After school, he sneaks away to a shabby boxing gym and works out.

He doesn’t become a vigilante because he reads comic books, or for any other facile reason. Although the movie premiered at Chicago’s Comic Con, it has no connection with comic books, except probably for writer-director Michael Morrissey’s noir lighting and framing, dramatized in the style of dark graphic novels. Because of its marketing, the movie has drawn reviews mostly from the comics-oriented websites, which find it lacking in a comic fan-orientation but don’t seem to pick up on the deeper currents. I started watching it with moderate expectations and was surprised by how quickly I was drawn in; the movie works insistently on an emotional level. I don’t care how plausible Sean or his actions are; for the length of the film, I was involved in how things would play out.

Sean’s revenge for his mother’s death and father’s abuse takes the form of sudden violence against abusive characters he meets while prowling the meaner streets of Manhattan, and even at a teen party (his father is gratified that his loner kid is even going to a party). The pattern is: He sees someone being violently abusive, he challenges the behavior, the other guy attacks him, he absorbs enough pain to demonstrate the other person’s savagery, and then he beats him to a pulp or worse. He gets no satisfaction in his victories; there’s more the aura of the masochistic performance of duty.

Lending this framework a great deal of interest is the story of Sean’s interaction with his local police precinct. The cops know of his tragic childhood. They let him hang around the station, looking at mug shots in which he has long since lost hope of finding his mother’s killer. A new detective named Teresa, played with warmth and energy by Zulay Henao, takes an interest in him at the same time she begins to investigate the series of vigilante incidents. She and her partner Gary (Daniel Stewart Sherman, quickly likable) discuss him. Slowly, her instincts about Sean suggest something is not quite right.

In a genre populated with formulas and dreck, “Boy Wonder” is an ambitious exception, well-made, drawing us in. It is particularly notable how Caleb Steinmeyer, a relative newcomer, calmly embodies his character and never cranks Sean up to much. This is a suffering boy, and his actions are more a duty than a satisfaction.

 

We are all of us engaged in the trade of buying and selling time. When we stop smoking, we hope we are buying years. When we drink and drive, we are willing to sell a few years. But those are gambles with the odds. “In Time” is a science-fiction movie in which time is a fungible commodity. Are you willing to pay for 10 minutes of sex with an hour of your life?

The premise is damnably intriguing. Written and directed by Andrew Niccol, maker of such original sci-fi movies as “Gattaca” (1997) and “S1mOne” (2002), it involves once again people whose lives depend on an overarching technology. In this case, they can buy, sell and gamble with the remaining years they have to live.

The market in time is everywhere. On this imaginary Earth, humans have a Day-Glo digital clock on their forearms, clicking off the years, months, days and hours. It’s like a population clock, except that it always grows smaller. By grasping hands and interfacing, I can upload and download time with you.

Justin Timberlake stars as Will Salas, a citizen of some unexplained future or parallel world (the settings and costumes are relatively contemporary), who finds himself on the run from the law. In this world, genetic engineering has been used to switch off everyone’s body clock at age 25. At that point, they have one more year to live, but can work or make deals for more — or commit crimes. The 25-year limit had the curious effect of making everyone more or less the same age, which explains the sexy Olivia Wilde as Will’s mother.

One day, Will has a conversation with a morose man named Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer), who explains he is 100 years old and has another century in the bank. He’s tired of living. Their conversation drags on into philosophical depths, until both fall asleep. Will awakens with an extra century on his clock and looks out the window to see Henry preparing to jump from a bridge. He runs out to stop him, is too late and is caught by a security camera, making him a suspect in the man’s death.

The plot now interweaves Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried), daughter of the richest man alive, Philippe Weis (Vincent Kartheiser), who has untold centuries on his clock and is essentially immortal. But enough about the plot.

The movie I suppose is an allegory in which time is money in a brutally direct way. For some of these people, time burns a hole in their pockets. For me, the most suspenseful scene involves a high-stakes poker game. Think about it. An opponent bets his whole pot: his life. Do you see him, or do you fold? If you lose, you’re not broke, you’re dead.

That said, a great deal of this film has been assembled from standard elements. Narrow your eyes to focus on them: Will Salas has the Identikit look of modern young action heroes: shaved head, facial stubble. For contrived reasons, he is paired with a beautiful young beauty and must drag her along with him as they’re pursued by gunfire. The rich man moves nobly through a setting of opulence. The villain (Cillian Murphy) is androgynous and elegant, mannered in his cruelty. There are chases and so on. The only original element is the idea of timekeeping as a framework for these off-the-shelf parts. The only character of personal interest is Henry Hamilton.

Unanswered questions abound. The cars look like customized luxury boats from the 1970s; there’s a Lincoln Continental with the slab sides but no nameplate. The time is said to be “the near future,” yet Henry has already lived a century. Don’t even think to ask about the mechanism of the timekeeping, or how human life is stored up in what look curiously like VHS cassette cases. And what of etiquette? Is allowing people to see your forearm as vulgar as flashing a big roll of cash?

Justin Timberlake continues to demonstrate that he is a real actor, with screen presence. But after the precise timing and intelligence he brought to “The Social Network,” it’s a little disappointing to find him in a role that requires less. He has a future in the movies.

 

Very few commoners of his time are as well-documented as William Shakespeare. There seems little good reason to doubt that he wrote the plays performed under his name. If he had been an ordinary playwright, there would be no controversy over their authorship. But he was the greatest of all writers in English, in some ways the engine for the language’s spread around the world, and one of the supreme artists of the human race.

There have long been those not content with his breeding. He was the son of an illiterate, provincial glover, an itinerant actor in a disreputable profession with no connections to royalty. Surely such an ordinary man could not have written these masterpieces. There is a restlessness to reassign them, and over the years, theories have sprung up claiming the real author of the plays was the Earl of Oxford, Sir Francis Bacon, the 6th Earl of Derby or Christopher Marlowe. “Anonymous” argues the case for Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford.

You perhaps know little enough about Shakespeare and next to nothing about the other candidates. That’s no reason to avoid this marvelous historical film, which I believe to be profoundly mistaken. Because of the ingenious screenplay by John Orloff, precise direction by Roland Emmerich and the casting of memorable British actors, you can walk into the theater as a blank slate, follow and enjoy the story, and leave convinced — if of nothing else — that Shakespeare was a figure of compelling interest.

This movie cruelly stacks the deck against him. The character of Shakespeare (Rafe Spall) is drawn a notch of two above the village idiot. Witless and graceless, there is no whiff of brilliance about him, and indeed the wonder is not that this man could have written the plays but that he could articulate clearly enough to even act in some of them (about which there seems to be no doubt).

Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford (Rhys Ifans), however, seems the very template of genius. His manner, his bearing, his authority, his ease in the court of Elizabeth all conspire to make him a qualified candidate. He was so well-connected with the crown in fact that the movie speculates he may have been the lover of the young Elizabeth (Joely Richardson) or the son of the older Elizabeth (Vanessa Redgrave). Not both, I pray ye.

The film also plunges us into the rich intrigue of the first Elizabethan age, including the activities of the Earl of Essex (Sam Reid), whose plot to overthrow the queen led to the inconvenience of beheading. Incredibly, for a film shot mostly on German soundstages, “Anonymous” richly evokes the London of its time, when the splendor of the court lived in a metropolis of appalling poverty and the streets were ankle-deep in mud. It creates a realistic, convincing Globe Theater, which establishes how intimate it really was. The groundlings could almost reach out and touch the players, and in the box seats, such as Oxford himself could witness the power of his work, which was credited to the nonentity Shakespeare.

All of that makes “Anonymous” a splendid experience: the dialogue, the acting, the depiction of London, the lust, jealousy and intrigue. But I must tiresomely insist that Edward de Vere did not write Shakespeare’s plays. Apparently Roland Emmerich sincerely believes he did. Well, when he directed “2012,” Emmerich thought there might be something to the Mayan calendar.

In a New York Times article, the Shakespeare scholar James Shapiro has cited a few technicalities: (a) de Vere writes and stars in “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” when he was 9 years old, and (b) “he died in 1604, before 10 or so of Shakespeare’s plays were written.”

I have a personal theory. The most detailed and valuable record of life in London at that time is the diary of Samuel Pepys, who attended plays in court and in town, and as Secretary of the Navy, was an inveterate gossip, well-wired for information. He wrote his diary in a cipher, not intending it to be read. If he had knowledge of the true authorship of the plays, I don’t believe he could have suppressed it.

 

Screen shot 2011 10 24 at 10.02.49 AM 620x479 News : Joss Whedon Gives Details About Secret Shakespeare Feature ‘Much Ado’Earlier today we revealed news of an elusive new project from the modern-day god of fanboys & fangirls everywhere, Joss Whedon. The above image sent shock waves of speculation across the blogosphere. Was this an actual film that Whedon somehow managed to shoot in the midst of making the big budget action extravaganza The Avengers? Or was this just another prank from the winsome Nathan Fillion? Well, Whedon himself has since deigned to comment, sending a press release to Deadline. So, here’s what we now know about Much Ado About Nothing:

This black-and-white adaptation of William Shakespeare’s classic comedy was shot in 12 days “entirely on location in exotic Santa Monica,” and produced by Bellwether Films, a small production company co-founded by Whedon and his wife Kai Cole to produce stories in various forms of media “embracing a DIY ethos and newer technologies for, in this particular case, a somewhat older story.” Whedon’s approach to his adaptation includes a contemporary stylization as well as a cast that features a number of performers who’ve appeared in previous Whedon works, like Amy Acker and Alexis Denisofwho — as I surmised this morning — play the warring would-be lovers Beatrice and Benedick. Firefly‘s Fillion is the bumbling constable Dogberry, which delights me to no end as Fillion has a sharp ability with comedy in general, and playing confident oafs in particular. Clark Gregg portrays Leonato, father of Hero, while Fran Kranz (pictured above) and Reed Diamond of Dollhouse play Claudio and Prince Don Pedro respectively. Other cast members include: Sean Maher, Ashley Johnson, Brian McElhaney, Jillian Morgese, Nick Kocher, Paul M. Meston, Emma Bates, Tom Lenk, Romy Rosemont, Spencer Treat Clark, Riki Lindhome, and Joshua Zar.

AcjfBqMCIAAvmmy News : Joss Whedon Gives Details About Secret Shakespeare Feature ‘Much Ado’

Shot for a micro-budget, Whedon stresses that this “love letter, to the text, to the cast, even to the house it’s shot in,” was a true labor of love, saying, “all [involved are] dedicated to the idea that this story bears retelling, that this dialogue is as fresh and intoxicating as any being written, and that the joy of working on a passion project surrounded by dear friends, admired colleagues and an atmosphere of unabashed rapture far outweighs their hilariously miniature paychecks.”

Personally, I’m confident in Whedon’s ability to turn out compelling projects with a shoe-string budget and a short production schedule. Just look at the web series Dr. Horrible’s Sing-A-Long Blog. That superhero saga had action sequences, catchy musical numbers, quirky costumes and delectable performances, yet it was shot in only 6 days for $200,000. It became so wildly popular new accolades had to be invented to properly praise it! Combine Whedon’s skill set with Shakespeare’s witty text and some truly extraordinary cast members, and Much Ado should really be something special.

But unlike Dr. Horrible, this Whedon effort is not destined for web release. At least not right away. Once the film’s complete, Whedon aims to enter it on the coming year’s festival circuit, “because it is fancy.” Whether a theatrical release or a web-centered release will follow remains to be seen. But in the mean time, those hungering for a bit of Whedon-styled wonder have The Avengers to look forward.

 
kristen stewart chris hemsworth snow white a l News : Kristen Stewart Did Not Delay Snow White and the Huntsman Filming
Splash News

Despite reports of the contrary, The Hollywood Reporter has confirmed that filming has not been halted on Universal’s Snow White and the Huntsman despite news reports that the production was shut down until Friday.

 

© 2012 3D Movies Theatre Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha