Ep 254 - Love’s Labour’s Lost

[Cameron H. 23786]

Paul, June, and Jason discuss the 2000 adaptation of the comic play Love’s Labour’s Lost by William Shakespeare directed and starring Kenneth Branagh. They talk about the basic dancing, dead eyes, the panicked and broad performances, and much more.
 
Get tix for upcoming live-streamed shows and listen to the Transformers For Charity episode over at https://www.hdtgminfo.com/
Subscribe to Unspooled with Paul Scheer and Amy Nicholson here: http://www.earwolf.com/show/unspooled/
Check out The Jane Club over at www.janeclub.com
Check out new HDTGM merch over at https://www.teepubli…wdidthisgetmade
Where to Find Jason, June & Paul:
@PaulScheer on Instagram & Twitter
@Junediane on IG and @MsJuneDiane on Twitter
Jason is Not on Twitter

[Cameron H. 23786]

Me trying to enjoy this episode as they criticize a film I genuinely enjoy:

[DrGuts1003 462]

Roger Ebert said in his review of this movie, “It's so escapist it escapes even from itself.”  That’s pretty much how I felt about it, so there’s not really much to pick apart or examine with the film.

However I did want to add one correction...when Paul was listing the films they’ve done that beat this at the box office, he included Godzilla.  However Godzilla came out in 1998, not 2000.

[Cameron H. 23786]

I actually didn't re-watch the movie for this episode as I've watched it numerous time, and I'm pretty well-versed in it.

For me, Love's Labour's Lost makes sense in the overall scope of what Branagh was doing at the time. It was mentioned in the episode, that Branagh thought of himself as "the guy" to update Shakespeare for this generation. The idea was to make Shakespeare's plays more accessible to your average viewer, that they weren't just dusty old words in a text book, but vibrant stories that encapsulated a full range of genres. Branagh was pointing out that Shakespeare wasn't writing for the educated elite, but for the commoners. He was making commercial entertainment for the masses that had more in common with Michael Bay, Nora Ephron, and Mel Brooks than Ingmar Bergman.

Branagh's illustrates this throughout his career. He started out making Henry V, an action movie. He then moved on to Much Ado About Nothing, a Rom-Com. Afterward, he did a grand, historical epic with Hamlet. Love's Labour's Lost is Branagh showing Shakespeare doing screwball comedy. It's supposed to be closer to Bringing Up Baby, than Macbeth. It's not meant to have much of a plot. It's pure farce. There's no deeper meaning to it.        

[nthurkettle 148]

Okay, I'm a hopeless Shakespeare nerd plus I manage a small Shakespeare troupe, so there is SO much to say about this movie. I love Branagh's three previous Shakespeare films and I think that the play "Love's Labour's Lost" has some wonderful stuff in it; BUT it is one of the hardest plays to even attempt, and it feels as though every choice Branagh made here just made this disaster more inevitable. 

First, in any Shakespeare script, there is a LOT of wordplay - puns, dirty innuendo, words with double meanings. But as the meaning and the pronunciation of words have changed over 400+ years (for example, the words "good" and "blood" used to rhyme!,) many of the verbal jokes become incomprehensible to modern audiences. Any Shakespeare play is a challenge because of this but ESPECIALLY "Love's Labour's" - it's one of Shakespeare's earliest and much more dependent on wordplay than nearly every other play - there's very little plot, and the principal entertainment is meant to be the flirty banter between the four couples.

Second - as Tall John mentioned, the play ends on an abrupt, MASSIVE bummer with the death of the King of France, and there is evidence to suggest there was a sequel, referred to as "Love's Labour's Won", in which the lovers reunite and their courtship comes to a happy conclusion. This play might be completely lost, but there is a theory that audiences liked the sequel better on its own, and that Shakespeare kept revising it until it became "Much Ado About Nothing". (This may help explain why Branagh cast himself as Berowne, as the dynamic between Berowne and Rosaline strongly parallels the Benedick/Beatrice romance in "Much Ado".) 

So the play is difficult enough to even try, but to give such difficult text to Shakespeare novices, then ditch HUGE chunks of plot and dialogue to make room for musical numbers, and then to add an entire WAR that doesn't even exist in the play; just begs the question of why even try this play to begin with?

I have one final theory - Miramax released this film, and they were notorious for forcing directors to drastically cut the running time of films that they were afraid weren't turning out well. Some of the newsreel footage suggests that some of the funniest scenes and subplots in the play were actually filmed, then cut in the frantic effort to get the movie down to 90 minutes. And I am not trying to start a hashtag-release-the-Branagh-cut campaign, but those smaller roles were being played by actors well-versed in Shakespeare, and may have turned out quite enjoyably even within the incredibly flawed overall idea he had for this adaptation. 

But clearly, he didn't learn any lessons, because in his next Shakespeare film, "As You Like It", he added ninjas and sumo wrestling.

[Cameron H. 23786]

The gang derided this movie, and other Shakespeare adaptations set out of their historical context, but lauded Branagh's Hamlet. I just wanted to point out that Branagh's version of Hamlet also updated the time period of the play from some time in the Middle Ages to the 19th Century -- so it wasn't exactly period appropriate either. And while I didn't have a problem with Branagh's age in this movie, I would point out that my Film Lit Professor hated Branagh's Hamlet specifically because he felt like Branagh was too old for the role -- which I don't necessarily disagree with.

Also, Kevin Kline has done two Shakespeare film adaptations: A Midsummer's Night Dream and As You Like It. I'm not sure which movie Jason was thinking of as both are comedies. A Midsummer's Night Dream came out around the time as Much Ado, but As You Like It was directed by Branagh.   

[Cameron H. 23786]

15 minutes ago, nthurkettle said:

I have one final theory - Miramax released this film, and they were notorious for forcing directors to drastically cut the running time of films that they were afraid weren't turning out well. Some of the newsreel footage suggests that some of the funniest scenes and subplots in the play were actually filmed, then cut in the frantic effort to get the movie down to 90 minutes. And I am not trying to start a hashtag-release-the-Branagh-cut campaign, but those smaller roles were being played by actors well-versed in Shakespeare, and may have turned out quite enjoyably even within the incredibly flawed overall idea he had for this adaptation. 

I remember that on the DVD release of this there was a deleted scene explaining the mistaken identity scene, so this is quite possible.

[Elektra Boogaloo 3371]

One thing I think about whenever Kenneth Branagh is mentioned is one of my college professors (English major) said he just played himself in “Harry Potter.” Gilderoy Lockhart steals other people’s work to become famous and is totally full of himself. While I think he does have some good adaptations of Shakespeare, and he is a talented actor. I do think there is an element of hubris to his body of work that is Lockhartian. 

 

[nthurkettle 148]

14 minutes ago, Elektra Boogaloo said:

One thing I think about whenever Kenneth Branagh is mentioned is one of my college professors (English major) said he just played himself in “Harry Potter.” Gilderoy Lockhart steals other people’s work to become famous and is totally full of himself. While I think he does have some good adaptations of Shakespeare, and he is a talented actor. I do think there is an element of hubris to his body of work that is Lockhartian. 

 

Kenneth Branagh is 100% a talented and multi-faceted artist and also 100% a giant ego with tendencies towards hubris and cheeseball-ness. These qualities can absolutely co-exist. 

[willycliffton 10]

Sooooo Love's Labor's Lost...

1. How DARE this awful awful motion picture hijack all of my favorite american songbook standards (i'll never not tear up when someone does "they can't take that away from me")

2. Can anyone explain the "Martin Scorsese present" at the beginning?

3. Nathan lane makes everything he's in just a bit better. he's so awesome

[Bridget R 4]

2 hours ago, willycliffton said:

How DARE this awful awful motion picture hijack all of my favorite american songbook standards

Word - frightfully boring interpretations!

I owned a copy of this film on VHS when I was a preteen or young teenager - bought it for $0.99 (CAD) at a flea market. I didn't remember much about it, which tells me I didn't watch it very often. Unusual for me for movies I owned. Even when I rented movies, I'd watch them the night I rented and again the next morning before returning. Watching it again this evening, I understand why my teenaged self didn't like it. Adult me still doesn't like it. Of the main characters (king, princess, lords, and ladies), the one to me that was far and away the best at the song-and-dance part was Adrian Lester. Wish more of the other main seven characters had been like him. (Seriously, if you're calling something a musical, why not hire actual singers and dancers that can act? Look at Broadway and West End - there are tons of them out there.)

I organized my Christmas playlists on my phone while I watched, so I don't feel as bad about taking the 90 minutes to view this movie.

[Bridget R 4]

5 hours ago, Elektra Boogaloo said:

One thing I think about whenever Kenneth Branagh is mentioned is one of my college professors (English major) said he just played himself in “Harry Potter.” Gilderoy Lockhart steals other people’s work to become famous and is totally full of himself. While I think he does have some good adaptations of Shakespeare, and he is a talented actor. I do think there is an element of hubris to his body of work that is Lockhartian. 

 

I watched a DVD version and looked at the behind-the-scenes featurette afterward. In it, Brannagh says (I'm paraphrasing) that he decided to be in the cast so that the other actors would agree to be in it. Hubris, indeed. 

On the whole, I do like his work - just not in this film.

[Elektra Boogaloo 3371]

6 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

For me, Love's Labour's Lost makes sense in the overall scope of what Branagh was doing at the time. It was mentioned in the episode, that Branagh thought of himself as "the guy" to update Shakespeare for this generation. The idea was to make Shakespeare's plays more accessible to your average viewer, that they weren't just dusty old words in a text book, but vibrant stories that encapsulated a full range of genres. Branagh was pointing out that Shakespeare wasn't writing for the educated elite, but for the commoners. He was making commercial entertainment for the masses that had more in common with Michael Bay, Nora Ephron, and Mel Brooks than Ingmar Bergman.

Ha this was the thesis of my paper on Shakespearean adaptations from college. But I didn’t use this one. I think the fact that you accept Branagh in this role is why you are forum Paul. You are the trusting one. Your brain made it work. The rest of us are more skeptical.

Because I find it upsetting. 

I mean, it’s not the worst movie done on this show. I think this writer guy, Shakespier?, seems pretty talented. 

[Elektra Boogaloo 3371]

26 minutes ago, Bridget R said:

I watched a DVD version and looked at the behind-the-scenes featurette afterward. In it, Brannagh says (I'm paraphrasing) that he decided to be in the cast so that the other actors would agree to be in it. Hubris, indeed. 

On the whole, I do like his work - just not in this film.

Amazing. I totally get why he would want to be in the movie and even Miramax wanting him in the movie. 

But the idea that he had to be THIS PART for the actors to agree to it? He already was directing it. He thinks Matthew Lillard would’ve been like, “nah, dawg, I get Shakespeare offers all the time, bro... OH I GET TO PRETEND TO BE YOUR BRO? Sign me up!l”

[Cameron H. 23786]

17 minutes ago, Elektra Boogaloo said:

Ha this was the thesis of my paper on Shakespearean adaptations from college. But I didn’t use this one. I think the fact that you accept Branagh in this role is why you are forum Paul. You are the trusting one. Your brain made it work. The rest of us are more skeptical.

Because I find it upsetting. 

[Elektra Boogaloo 3371]

Ps while we are on the subject of Shakespeare being for common folk, I think maybe one thing that doesn’t work for me about this is that he’s comparing it to great musicals and great movies. Not that Shakespeare isn’t great. But show love to “low brow” popcorn movies instead. I would’ve preferred less Casablanca and more Marx Brothers, I think? 

Branagh picked brilliant movies. Brilliant songs. And was like together this will all be brilliant! But WHY

[RyanSz 3140]

6 hours ago, Elektra Boogaloo said:

One thing I think about whenever Kenneth Branagh is mentioned is one of my college professors (English major) said he just played himself in “Harry Potter.” Gilderoy Lockhart steals other people’s work to become famous and is totally full of himself. While I think he does have some good adaptations of Shakespeare, and he is a talented actor. I do think there is an element of hubris to his body of work that is Lockhartian. 

 

As an English major who is not a fan of the Shakespeare's comedies (I'm a tragedies fan), I've definitely had my fill of the guys plays, but apparently not Branagh who I honestly think wishes he was born in Shakespeare's time just so that he could have had a chance to work with the guy. That's not to say the work he puts out is bad, but he's very much the actor that Alan Rickman was lampooning in Galaxy Quest, who would do a mainstream series like Harry Potter or Jack Ryan, all while bemoaning the fact that he was doing so given that he was a classically trained actor. The fact that he's now apparently moved onto Agatha Christie's bibliography, I can only imagine the ideas he has running through his head in order to keep that mustache and accent going.

[nthurkettle 148]

2 minutes ago, RyanSz said:

As an English major who is not a fan of the Shakespeare's comedies (I'm a tragedies fan), I've definitely had my fill of the guys plays, but apparently not Branagh who I honestly think wishes he was born in Shakespeare's time just so that he could have had a chance to work with the guy. That's not to say the work he puts out is bad, but he's very much the actor that Alan Rickman was lampooning in Galaxy Quest, who would do a mainstream series like Harry Potter or Jack Ryan, all while bemoaning the fact that he was doing so given that he was a classically trained actor. The fact that he's now apparently moved onto Agatha Christie's bibliography, I can only imagine the ideas he has running through his head in order to keep that mustache and accent going.

I think this podcast would have a grand time with the version of "Frankenstein" he directed/starred in, where he films himself as a shirtless, glistening, golden-maned SEX GOD. 

 

[Elektra Boogaloo 3371]

14 minutes ago, RyanSz said:

As an English major who is not a fan of the Shakespeare's comedies (I'm a tragedies fan), I've definitely had my fill of the guys plays, but apparently not Branagh who I honestly think wishes he was born in Shakespeare's time just so that he could have had a chance to work with the guy. That's not to say the work he puts out is bad, but he's very much the actor that Alan Rickman was lampooning in Galaxy Quest, who would do a mainstream series like Harry Potter or Jack Ryan, all while bemoaning the fact that he was doing so given that he was a classically trained actor. The fact that he's now apparently moved onto Agatha Christie's bibliography, I can only imagine the ideas he has running through his head in order to keep that mustache and accent going.

I am history plays girl. 

In defense of Branagh (and again I am team Emma Thompson. He cheated on her), he has done commercial blockbuster stuff. Not just Potter, but directing “Thor, “ “Cinderella,” and “Artemis Fowl.” What is interesting is that he didn’t put himself as an actor in those movies, although he does a voice in AVENGERS INFINITY WAR,

 

eta: oh wait I think that is the point you we’re making. He directed jack ryan too??? I didn’t know that. I read this too fast.  Move along. 

[nthurkettle 148]

1 minute ago, Elektra Boogaloo said:

I am history plays girl. 

In defense of Branagh (and again I am team Emma Thompson. He cheated on her), he has done commercial blockbuster stuff. Not just Potter, but directing “Thor, “ “Cinderella,” and “Artemis Fowl.” What is interesting is that he didn’t put himself as an actor in those movies, although he does a voice in AVENGERS INFINITY WAR,

I'm razzing the guy but he is primarily responsible for my becoming a Shakespeare junkie in high school with his "Henry V" and "Much Ado". And his directing "Thor" means he cast Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston and those are gifts that just keep on giving. I even think his "Cinderella" is pretty terrific; but man, when he whiffs, he whiffs HUGE. 

What's interesting is that, in each of the first three Shakespeare films he directed/starred in, he had played the same role (King Henry, Benedick, Hamlet) previously in a long-running, highly-acclaimed stage production directed by someone else. In essence, he got months to sculpt his own performance with a more experienced director before directing the film himself. 

[Cameron H. 23786]

15 minutes ago, Elektra Boogaloo said:

Ps while we are on the subject of Shakespeare being for common folk, I think maybe one thing that doesn’t work for me about this is that he’s comparing it to great musicals and great movies. Not that Shakespeare isn’t great. But show love to “low brow” popcorn movies instead. I would’ve preferred less Casablanca and more Marx Brothers, I think? 

Branagh picked brilliant movies. Brilliant songs. And was like together this will all be brilliant! But EHY

My feeling was that he was trying to showcase the timelessness of Shakespeare with the timelessness of the Great American Songbook. However, as much as I enjoy it, I don’t think the music holds up in quite the same way. So even though he modernized the play, the Busby Berkeley-ness of it all makes it feel oddly retrograde.

[RyanSz 3140]

1 minute ago, Elektra Boogaloo said:

I am history plays girl. 

In defense of Branagh (and again I am team Emma Thompson. He cheated on her), he has done commercial blockbuster stuff. Not just Potter, but directing “Thor, “ “Cinderella,” and “Artemis Fowl.” What is interesting is that he didn’t put himself as an actor in those movies, although he does a voice in AVENGERS INFINITY WAR,

Yeah his directing credits are weird in that he does these very dedicated adaptations, but then seems to be clearly wanting to add a new wing to his house by doing stuff like Artemis Fowl. With Thor at least he was working with characters based around Norse mythology which in my mind seems more in his wheelhouse of theatrical adaptations, unlike other directors who have tried to go out of their known comfort zone like Wes Craven directing Music of the Heart or Francis Ford Coppola doing Jack.

[ErinRene 50]

All of these posts are so thoughtful and well written. I’m bringing none of that. 
 

The tap dance in iambic pentameter to me felt like what they probably did on day 1 of their 3 week rehearsal so that Matthew Lillard could understand how to read and deliver the text. That was some real ta-ta-tee-tee-ta 3rd grade music class stuff right there. 

[Catfish 72]

This is the movie that  should be titled “Much Ado about Nothing” as it is like a Shakespeare version of a Seinfeld episode (about nothing).  In the set up it seems the movie will be about how the men must struggle to keep their signed and solemn vow to abstain from women for three years. But nope, they tear it up when they meet some pretty ladies.  Ah, but then there is a mix-up between a love letter and a declaration of treason that may have dire consequences.  Nah, just tear those up too.  Oh, but then the women hatch a scheme to trick the men by switching costumes.  It works?? I mean, I guess.  Pretty lame as far as ruses go.  Finally, the film “yada-yada-yada”s over the entirety of WWII, and then, close curtain.  I mean, what is the deal with these people?! 

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

I watched this movie around the time it came out, I think later on DVD (not in a theater, because it didn't last long there), and remember thinking it was okay but some things didn't work. On this rewatch I thought the same, but it did seem worse than I remembered. I don't hate it, because I like the kind of big swing Branagh takes here, but in practice it's more like you're going along and getting into the Shakespearean dialogue and then the whole thing stops so they can do a song. The songs don't emerge from the story, they stop it. That's probably not what you want out of a musical, unless it's Gene Kelly and the dance numbers are so good that you want to watch them on their own (spoiler: they aren't).

I would say that it would have been better if they'd just done a straight Shakespeare adaptation without the musical numbers, but the problem is that as a play Love's Labour's Lost is extremely similar to Much Ado About Nothing, which Branagh already did and is a much better movie. So I dunno, it's just a weird movie that does some weird stuff and doesn't quite hold together.

Also, yes, Gilderoy Lockart was pitch-perfect casting for Branagh.