# Kenneth Branagh



## Brian G Turner (Sep 11, 2004)

Just broken out an old CD: the soundtrack to Kenneth Branagh's "Much Ado About Nothing". 

 I remember the film as surprisingly pleasant, as Shakespearean farce doesn't necessarily lend itself to a modern audience, but the filming made it fair respectable, enjoyable - and comprehensible. 

  There was a little exageration - not Keanu Reeve's finest moment, and Brian Blessed was seemingly forced to laugh at _everything_. But otherwise a generally enjoyable film.

 What happened to Kenneth Branagh after, though? I remember Frankenstein wasn't great (a result of production cuts, perhaps?) - and afterwards I'm under the impression that he was supposed to have done a show-tune version of another Shakespeare farce set in 1930's New York?

  What about since, though?

  And _why_ did Ken and Em split up? And what is Emma Thompson doing right now (aside from maturing like wine  )?

  What happened to Branagh's bunch?


----------



## Foxbat (Sep 11, 2004)

Branagh is one of my favourite actors. After Frankenstein (one of his worst) he went on to redeem himself (in my eyes anyway) with the utterly fantastic and funny Love's Labours Lost. This was done in the form of a 1930s style musical. It's just bizarre watching a Shakespearean play and then finding the actors suddenly tap-dancing about the floor. 

He also did (for the first time on screen) the full 4 hour adaptation of Hamlet which, again, I thought was immense. Unfortunately, the viewing public disagreed. This film also provided one of Charlton Heston's last performances. Sadly, he is now suffering from Alzheimer's.

Haven't a clue what Emma's up to...sorry


----------



## LadyFel (Sep 11, 2004)

I like Kenneth Branagh...I saw him in the 2nd Harry Potter movie, he played that vain-as-***** professor for Defence Against the Dark Arts, Gilderoy Lockhart...I always enjoyed his films, they were my first contact with Shakespeare (Henry V if I remember correctly)...And he did a UK series about one of the failed polar explorers (but I can't remember who, in the time of Lloyd George, my memory's like a sieve these days)...

As for Emma Thompson, she was last in the 3rd Harry movie, playing the supposedly fraudulent Divination teacher, can't remember her name though...Off screen, she's living with or married to Greg Wise, her partner from Sense and Sensibility...they have a daughter, and I'm almost jealous (though not as jealous of Vanessa Paradis seeing as she hooked Johnny Depp...)


----------



## The Master™ (Sep 12, 2004)

Can't say I ever really liked Branagh, especially when he compared himself to Oliver!!! NO WAY, DUDE!!!

I think he is a vain egotist... But some of his films are upper crap!!


----------



## Princess Ivy (Sep 12, 2004)

I loved him as Lockhart, only thing about those movies I enjoy, sorry also the sound track. I also enjoyed Much ado about Nothing, although his Hamlet was so dull it left me aching for four hours of my life back!

BTW: Keeanu Reeves hasn't had a great moment since Bill and Ted. I felt terribly sorry for him in the Matrix, opposite such talent as Lawernce Fishburn's Morpheus.


----------



## ravenus (Sep 12, 2004)

*Mary Shalley's Frankenstein*, which Branagh directed and played lead, was one boring movie with very few redeeming bits. It had a nice goth look and a couple good scene but that's about it.

I'd recommend *Frankenstein must be destroyed*, Hammer's commercial compromises notwithstanding, since it much better handles the character of the perverse doctor and his tragic monster.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Sep 12, 2004)

I'm only a semi-Branagh fan, I suppose. I don't go seek out his films, but I've liked the ones I've seen that he has been in. I thought his portrayal of Iago in the 1995 "Othello" was the only intereting thing about that film. Then again, "Othello" is by far my least favorite of Shakespeare's plays. I also liked "Much Ado About Nothing" and "Henry V".

On the other hand, I thought his portrayal of Dr. Loveless in "Wild, Wild West" was just too over the top for words. A bad performance in a bad film.

Then again, my favorite of all Branagh's films that I've seen is "Peter's Friends", from 1992. Branagh directed and starred in this film that has been called a sort of British "Big Chill". It also stars Emma Thompson, Stephen Fry (who plays the title role), and Rita Rudner, an American comedian who also co-wrote the screenplay. The story is about a group of seven university friends who are called together by one of them after ten years in order to reveal a secret. It's a small film, very intimate, and I liked it very much.

Edit to add: Since Keanu Reeves's name has come up in this discussion, I have to say that he has had his moments on-screen.  My favorite of his performances are in "River's Edge" (1986), "My Own Private Idaho" (1991), and "The Replacements" (2000).  The first two are, I suppose "teenage" films, but quite serious examinations of serious issues and not "brat pack" type films, and the third was just plain funny.  I think Reeves did a good job in all three.


----------



## Foxbat (Sep 12, 2004)

One of his finest roles was in a made-for-TV movie. I can't remember the name of it but it was set around a table in a beautiful house in Poland in 1942. All the top Nazis had got together to decide how to rid the world of the Jews. Watching these men quaffing fine wines and eating rare meats whilst simultaneously discussing the elimination of millions of people was utterly chilling. Brannagh led them with style.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Sep 12, 2004)

I know which one you're talking about, Foxbat, but I can't remember the name of it.  I didn't get to see it; it was on HBO or Showtime or one of those that I don't have on my cable.  Oh, well.  When I win the lottery or something, I guess.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Sep 12, 2004)

Branagh's remake of Henry V was incredibly vain, obviously trying to follow Olivier - not least because it's a third part in a series, the first being one of my favourite history plays: Henry IV, Part 1, which would have made a far superior film.

 But aside from that, Branagh did a commendable job of making Shakespeare accessibile, when normally it can seem very remote and incomprehensible.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Sep 12, 2004)

I said:
			
		

> But aside from that, Branagh did a commendable job of making Shakespeare accessibile, when normally it can seem very remote and incomprehensible.


At least he makes an effort to get people into theatre seats or in front of their television screens, where they can hear Shakespeare spoken, as his plays were meant to be.  I have a terrible time getting any sense out of Shakespeare when I read him, but his work makes perfect sense when it is spoken.  Shakespeare wrote to be heard, not read.


----------



## Foxbat (Sep 12, 2004)

I had the privilege of watching Henry IV parts 1 and 2 at the Edinburgh Festival theatre a few years ago (over 2 nights). Timothy West played Falstaff whilst his son Simon played Prince Henry. 

You are right about Part 1 Brian - an excellent piece. Part 2, however, I found to be a bit of a drudge.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Sep 12, 2004)

Henry IV Part 1 is the first ever Shakespeare that I read - and also saw on stage, performed by the English Shakespeare Company, about 19 years ago (a year later I had a walk on part in on of the Richard's at the local theatre with them  ).

 Henry IV, Part 1, is a brilliant story, with plenty of character, humour and action. I mean, really - Falstaff and Hotspur?  Amazed not more has been made of it. And you're right - Part 2 is a big sad anti-climax.


----------



## ravenus (Sep 12, 2004)

littlemissattitude said:
			
		

> I have a terrible time getting any sense out of Shakespeare when I read him, but his work makes perfect sense when it is spoken. Shakespeare wrote to be heard, not read.


You have a point there...his words do sound more natural and go down like fine old wine when you hear them as opposed to reading them. And how well they're spoken is the challenge that separates the genuine thespian from the windbag orator who thinks he/she's an actor.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Sep 12, 2004)

ravenus said:
			
		

> You have a point there...his words do sound more natural and go down like fine old wine when you hear them as opposed to reading them. And how well they're spoken is the challenge that separates the genuine thespian from the windbag orator who thinks he/she's an actor.


 Quite rightly said.


----------



## Whitestar (Oct 23, 2004)

I said:
			
		

> Henry IV Part 1 is the first ever Shakespeare that I read - and also saw on stage, performed by the English Shakespeare Company, about 19 years ago (a year later I had a walk on part in on of the Richard's at the local theatre with them  ).
> 
> Henry IV, Part 1, is a brilliant story, with plenty of character, humour and action. I mean, really - Falstaff and Hotspur?  Amazed not more has been made of it. And you're right - Part 2 is a big sad anti-climax.


 
Really? Are you an actor by profession I, Brian?


Whitestar


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 23, 2004)

Afraid not - just played in a few amateur groups a few years back. The English Shakespeare Company took on local kids for small kids roles in the plays they performed, wherever they toured  - such as the pair of young princes in Richard III.


----------



## Whitestar (Nov 25, 2004)

I said:
			
		

> Afraid not - just played in a few amateur groups a few years back. The English Shakespeare Company took on local kids for small kids roles in the plays they performed, wherever they toured - such as the pair of young princes in Richard III.


Wow, that must have been a great experience, eh? I'm an aspiring writer/actor. What was it like performing on stage? Did you enjoy it?


Whitestar


----------



## Circus Cranium (Nov 25, 2004)

So true; reading it an seeing it on stage are two completely different things. I recently saw 'As You Like It'  at the theatre and it was so much fun. 

I thought they did a good job with Othello, the film version. Branagh was a kickin Evil Iago.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Nov 25, 2004)

Whitestar said:
			
		

> Wow, that must have been a great experience, eh? I'm an aspiring writer/actor. What was it like performing on stage? Did you enjoy it?
> 
> 
> Whitestar


Just the walk-on with the ESC was the biggest high I've ever experienced. 

I thoroughly enjoyed acting in a few plays - playing anyone slightly mad - but my acting ambitions died a bit. I might still go back at some point.


----------



## Foxbat (Nov 25, 2004)

> So true; reading it an seeing it on stage are two completely different things.



I agree. I never really got to grips with Hamlet until I saw it performed.  My favourite version was a blend of Hamlet and Kendo and - not only did it deliver - it was a magnificent spectacle.


----------



## LensmanZ313 (Nov 26, 2004)

I like his work; I thought his _Henry V_ was brilliant, breathing life and fire into the Bard's work; I've loved all of his Shakespearean films. My old hometown is Ashland, Oregon, home of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival . . . I've always enjoyed Shakespeare and Branagh revitalized him.

Ego? Oliver had a lot of ego and his mean-spirited treatment of fellow actors, like Richard Harris, is legendary.

I do, I must say, enjoy Sir Ian McKellan's _Richard III_ too.


----------

