Coriolanus Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Coriolanus
Year: 2011
Director: Ralph Fiennes
Country: Canada
Language: English

Film history is ripe with unique and sometimes awe inspiring Shakespearean adaptations, from Akira Kurosawa’s Throne of Blood (Macbeth), The Bad Sleep Well (Hamlet), and Ran (King Lear) to Disney’s own animated version of the fateful tale of Hamlet called The Lion King. Some, like Buz Luhrmann’s  modern adaptation of Romeo and Juliet have been a sink and others, like Sir Laurence Olivier’s  Richard III, have been a swim. The point is that when you make a Shakespearean adaptation you are running a fine line between making a great piece of art and making trash, this line is especially thin when attempting to modernize Shakespeare’s work.

Ralph Fiennes (Schindler’s List) proves he has great courage as he directs and stars in one of Shakespeare’s great roman tragedies Coriolanus. However Fiennes seems discontent in making his film line for line like Shakespeare’s work,  instead of the location literally being Rome during the time of the Roman empire it is set in a place that calls itself Rome and is in the present time period. Explosions, death, madness Coriolanus looks like the average macho action film and in a way it is.

The lead character Coriolanus looks like the typical macho action movie star, he is lean and muscular sporting a bald head and tattoo on his neck. He struts with an AK-47 by his side. It almost seems out of place when Coriolanus speaks Shakespeare’s language. Am I watching an action film or a Shakespeare film? While Fiennes is likely much more swooned by Shakespeare that I and he probably has much more love for Coriolanus than most scholars of Shakespeare, but it seems like this film tries to pander too much to both Shakespeare and action film fan. He tries to please everybody but ends up pleasing  nobody. Famed critic Roger Ebert says “As Shakespeare, it has too much action footage and as action, it has too much Shakespeare.” Although, Fiennes is in a money making business and perhaps to make money on this film he felt he needed Coriolanus to appeal to as much people as possible.

Caius Martius is a battle obsessed man from war torn Rome,supplies are cut off and there are riots everywhere.  He leads Rome in battle against their Volscian enemies, leaves Rome for another battle, named Coriolanus when he wins and then comes back to run for consul. He becomes banished from Rome and as a result decides to help his former enemies, the Volscians, in their attack against Rome.  Slaughter, mayhem, death and explosions occur as a result of Rome’s banishing  of Coriolanus. There is great emotion in this film, especially between Coriolanus and his mother, but perhaps the intense action overshadows this.

In conclusion, though I admire Shakespeare and Shakespearean adaptations I would not say this was necessarily  “good” or “bad” . It is much better than the bad Shakespearean adaptations like Buz Luhrmann’s Romeo and Juliet but would make very poor company with Sir Laurence Olivier’s Richard III, Henry V and/or Hamlet. It’s unfortunate when the financial aspect of a film gets in the way of the creative aspect. Fiennes has the creative capacity to make a great Shakespearean film, but his need to please the masses led to the downfall of Coriolanus. Piss On It! 2/5