_Love's_Labour's_Lost_ (PG) ** (out of ****)
In blending the poetry of Shakespearean text with the timeless sounds of pop standards from the 1930s, Kenneth Branagh--a proven hand at handling the Bard and an avowed fan of the old MGM musicals--should theoretically have little problem casting a bewitching romantic spell with _Love's_Labour's_Lost_. And that's exactly what he achieves in one sublime moment where new lovers bid each other a reluctant adieu with a solemn rendition of "They Can't Take That Away from Me." The scene is sweet yet genuinely sad, but not without a knowing sense of humor about itself (Branagh makes no bones about lifting _Casablanca_ wholesale). In short, it's the exact type of natural, persuasive emotion that Branagh is going after with the whole of this ambitious project--and, more often than not, ends up falling short of success.
_Love's_Labour's_Lost_ is one of Shakespeare's more obscure works, and on a basic plot level, it's not difficult to see why. The King of Navarre (Alessandro Nivola) and his three closest friends--Berowne (Branagh), Dumaine (Adrian Lester), and Longaville (Matthew Lillard)--have made an oath to devote three years entirely to study, meaning no "vain delights" such as romance. However, their vow is almost immediately challenged when the Princess of France (Alicia Silverstone) and her fetching ladies in waiting--Rosaline (Natascha McElhone), Maria (Carmen Ejogo), and Katherine (Emily Mortimer)--arrive to hammer out a financial agreement between the kingdoms. Complications predictably ensue as the four men neglect their oath and pursue true love.
Given such a thin story, Branagh's decision to recast the play in the year 1939 and expand the material with songs of the era is an inspired one. And from a technical standpoint, he knows exactly what he's doing. Everything looks and sounds right: the overlit, soundstagy sets; the insanely elaborate choreography; the free-flying camera angles; the distinct disregard to realism once the music swells. The cast underwent a crash course in dance before filming began, and everyone acquits themselves fairly well, even in the singing department. There are a couple of standouts: on the male end, Lester's fancy footwork puts everyone else's to shame; among the women, McElhone's sultry moves and song stylings lead the pack.
All the competent staging and performance is of little use, however, if the very presence and intent of the musical numbers are questionable. With relatively few exceptions (such as a simple and charming "The Way You Look Tonight" crooned by two of the King's tutors, played by Geraldine McEwan and Richard Briers), Branagh does a clunky job of meshing the music with the story. The first few numbers are especially dreadful in this respect. For example, a collective "Huh?" could be sensed in the audience once the King and his buddies abruptly broke into "I'd Rather Charleston" right before they signed their oath; and for all its amusing aping of the classically excessive Busby Berkeley style, the women's pool-set "No Strings (Fancy Free)" simply serves no apparent purpose other than to have a big Busby Berkeley-style number.
_Love's_Labour's_Lost_ is also meant to be a comedy, and it is in this area that Branagh stumbles the most. His apparent direction to all the cast is to play the material as broadly as possible, hence any real acting is lost behind some insufferable mugging, particularly in the case of the designated comic relief characters played by Timothy Spall and Nathan Lane. To be fair, though, Branagh's script doesn't offer much opportunity for many to attempt any real acting. There are eight core characters, but only half of them (the King, the Princess, Berowne, and Rosaline) are allowed to exhibit some personality; the other four are more like background chorus members.
Also, some given the chance to act drop the ball--or, rather, one. I'm referring, of course, to Branagh's most controversial casting choice, Silverstone. Any chance the _Clueless_ starlet had to silence critics starts to creep out the window the instant she opens her mouth, then comes crashing down below earth during a couple of climactic speeches. She tries her best; the problem is that her effort is much too apparent. The constantly strained look on her face suggests that she's either (1) struggling to remember her lines or (2) struggling to remember how to pronounce them.
Her performance is indicative of the larger problem that plagues _Love's_Labour's_Lost_. The film's heart is definitely in the right place, intending to show how easy and natural it is to be consumed by the magic of love. Unfortunately, Branagh's well-meaning but mechanical execution makes falling in love seem like an uncommonly laborious task.
Michael Dequina twotrey@juno.com | michael_jordan@geocities.com | jordan_host@sportsmail.com | mrbrown@iname.com Mr. Brown's Movie Site: http://welcome.to/mrbrown CinemaReview Magazine: http://www.CinemaReview.com on ICQ: #25289934 | on AOL Instant Messenger: MrBrown23
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews