Coriolanus (2012)

"I sin in enying his nobility. And were I nothing but what I am, I would wish me only he"

Excellent. But I found that I had to use the English subtitles on the DVD.Stands head & shoulders over the usual Hollywood pap that is pumped out.Shakespeare's critique of democracy? 'Pressure Group' politics shown. Confusion about who should Lead, be the CEO.Warfare scenes in early part of movie seemed very realistic - urban battles, house to house. Also, a group similar to the modern 'Occupy Wall Street' movement seems to be portrayed demanding bread & confronting the army of General Martius.Also, General Martius has an Arch-Enemy, the leader of a nearby terrorist nation, who threatens the modern 'Rome' of the 21st century .Kept my interest (thanks to the help of the subtitles) all the way. IF YOU WANT TO SEE GOOD ACTING, i.e., EXCELLENT ACTORS AT WORK, SEE THIS.SPOILER ALERT: Shakespeare's tragedy could have been called 'From Hero to- Enemy of Rome - to Zero'

The fact that Shakespeare remains the most studied, influential, and produced playwright in the modern world is testament to the genius of his storytelling and it's transcendent, universal narratives. His plays remain timeless for this reason. Coriolanus, however, one of the last composed by Billy Shakes, is not one his more popular plays and consequently doesn't see the stage time of his other Histories. There are really four reasons for this. The title character is lacking the emotional range, depth, and just plain interestingness of say a Hamlet, Lear, or Macbeth. He is pretty much single minded and predictable. Reason two is there is no love interest to speak of, although he has a wife, she does not play a compelling influence on his life or events of the story. Reason three, the topicality emphasizes the political rather than humanistic. Reason four is it's an intense, humorless, dark play. In essence, Coriolanus is a heavily flawed man who doesn't know it and for many that makes him boring. There are no internal conflicts, only external. The play is really a commentary on the bearing of social class on the general welfare of any given nations citizenry and the toxicity of political privilege and hubris. Many theater goers, even in Shakespeare's time, were uneasy with the subject matter. Aristotle asserted that theater should serve two functions, entertain and instruct,but do so evenly. Coriolanus does more instruction where an escapist audience wanted to be entertained. Let's call Coriolanus, then, a Shakespearian political PSA. But...this re-imagining of Coriolanus is spectacular. Like many modern adaptations of Shakespeare it has been modernized to suit the times, making it more accessible to audiences unfamiliar with the Elizabethan English or even the story itself. There are no robes, tights, or rapiers. There are instead tanks, helmets, and helicopters. There are suits and ties and cars and televisions and a contemporary cultural backdrop that could be literally any one of thousands of locales in our present time. Ralph Fiennes direction really drives home that this could be you, which I thought worked exceptionally well. The use of modern media, such as television talk shows and news broadcasts to deliver dialogue originally intended for an ancillary character was both clever and useful in keeping the flow of the story as well as staying true to the spirit of the original work.Coriolanus is a general, a politically valued but socially inept political figurehead central to the corruption of the Roman government and the chief architect of that government's subversion of civil liberties and basic needs among it's population. For that reason he is despised by the people and feared by the politicians. Yet he is also a prized component of this society as a fearless, ruthless, and brilliant military commander. The built in irony for Coriolanus lay in his professional conduct as a soldier defending his nation, advancing it's interests through conquest, and all the while expressing utter disgust for that nation, the common man especially whom he regards as interloping rabble or a distraction to his ambitions. He is what we would call a megalomaniac. Serving only himself and those that can benefit him. Really, he functions as guardian of a status quo for himself, and no one but himself. As a side note, can't imagine that Coriolanus wasn't an influence for Aaron Sorkin when he crafted Colonel Nathan Jessup in A Few Good Men. One should familiarize themselves with the story before embarking on Coriolanus. It should be said more often that production value, costumes, and theme will never replace an audiences need to understand what is going on. Let's face it, there's a language barrier with Shakespeare and nothing will substitute for an audience member who doesn't know that musty superfluidity means weakness. And perhaps that's why Shakespeare on film doesn't have the reach it should. But I do love this effort and the attempt to advance a 400 year old tale of a dysfunctional system and make it real for anyone living it today. Nuts and bolts of the film. I loved the action sequences, the editing, and the brevity as much of the script was deleted to streamline the film. Gerald Butler was in his element as Aufidius, the foil to Coriolanus. Ralph Fiennes exploded as Coriolanus and gave him an unspoken internal dialogue; I hated this guy and then it occurred to me that I was supposed to, and when that happened I know they did it right. Some things I did not like. The overuse of shaky cam as if this were live footage was not all that convincing. Thought some of the combat scenes were pushing too hard. And at times, for reasons I can't really explain, felt the whole this is modern times and we are making a point of that fell flat. Maybe it was all the shots done in TV studios and board rooms. Overall an excellent film, and a very relevant story to modern times. Both entertaining and instructive. Evenly.

The people of Rome are starting to revolt, they're poor, starving and desperate for grain. The police force is merciless. The guy in charge is Martius. When the Volscians threaten to invade, it's again Martius who is in charge of the military unit that meets them at the city of Corolia where he near single-handedly defeats them, not before engaging in a knife duel that ends up in a wrestling match with his sworn enemy Aufidius.On his return to Rome Martius he's seen as a hero and made a senate consul with the approval of the senate. Next he has to reluctantly ask for the people's permission of sorts. They grant it only to take it back minutes later when two of their representatives who are anti-Martius convince them. These two are constantly scheming to get rid of Martius. In a meeting with these two and with the people, he flips out and starts cursing at the people. When he has to apologize to a live audience on TV again he loses it. That gets him banished from Rome much to the delight of the two schemers.He does what any reasonable person would do...join forces with the person he hates the most, Aufidius, to take over Rome by force. The Romans send some politician/family friend to convince Martius, who now is a leader among the Volscians, to reconsider, but he won't have any of it. Next they send his mother, wife, and son, to beg for mercy for Rome. He agrees to sign a peace treaty, but that doesn't win him any friends anywhere.Coriolanus starts out as a modern war/conflict movie with a social message. What initially looks like foreign actors speaking in broken English actually turns out to be Shakesperan English and the entire movie is spoken that way. I've never heard it, but it definitely takes some getting used to, perhaps an hour or so into the movie one gets the hang of it. Unfortunately, that is the biggest drawback of this movie. I guess those with literary inclination feel right at home. I didn't. I didn't find this English beautiful at all. To my ears it sounds like English spoken in Latin grammar. And it's not so much that it's sophisticated and we the viewers are a bunch of dummies. It's just old English, with words forms that are out of usage and with a very cumbersome sentence structure. This forces also the characters to stand there and give speeches to no one in particular making the movie more like a theater piece.But there are more problems. Martius is very dislikable. He thinks of himself as noble and vastly superior to the common folk. He's a war hawk, childishly uncompromising even when his life is at stake, and holds on to his beliefs like they're religious dogma. So how are we to root for this guy or care about his fate? Especially when his enemy is so much more likable. The story itself is nothing special either. At every step of the way he gets what he deserves. What is interesting though is the political structure, which I assume is based on how Rome worked. Political intrigue is also always entertaining.Coriolanus is an ambitious and audacious project. It wouldn't surprise me if the intended audience loved it. But I suspect its aim is to go beyond that group and introduce others to Shakespeare, tragedy, and so on. In that regard it failed. It's too long a movie, and I take it too faithful to the original text. Had they settled for a more updated English it could have been a bit better. For instance the English spoken in Spartacus is truly beautiful and would have been ideal for Coriolanus. Tightening the script would also have helped as so much is said that doesn't say anything and doesn't advance the story in any way.