It’s a funny old world. Not too long ago I was watching Madonna’s second directorial offering, and making arguments that we should forgive her of her flaws because she’s a relatively new director who is still finding her feet. Now I’ve been to see Ralph Finnes’ directorial debut and I find myself not needing to make any of the same arguments. I find myself in the position of not needing to be an apologist for this director, because frankly his work here and indeed film as a whole is splendid.
Everyone studies Shakespeare at school. Most of us do Macbeth or Romeo and Juliet or perhaps A Midsummer Nights Dream. If you go beyond GCSE English, you might do King Lear and The Tempest and beyond that at degree level you might read the history plays. I don’t know anyone however who has read Coriolanus. It’s one of those plays, like Titus Andronicus that has fallen out of favour with the curriculum and so rarely gets an airing. It’s probably because it’s too violent or too long and that’s what makes Finnes’ choice to film this play so interesting and in no small way brave.
The story itself takes place in a country that calls itself Rome. It’s clearly been filmed in Eastern Europe and the present day setting in that location makes the story feel very real and relevant. Our “hero” Coriolanus (Finnes) is Rome’s greatest soldier, triumphant in his offensive against Rome’s sworn enemies the Volsican’s led by Aufidius (Gerard Butler). The problem begins when Coriolanus returns home to Rome to find a country in disarray and a people starving after years of war. His status as a war hero leads his powerful political friends and his mother Volumnia (Vanessa Redgrave) to push him towards a place in government. Coriolanus’ reticence to use his battle scars to gain political power is used against him by his enemies within the senate and he finds himself banished from the country he has spent his life protecting. Angry and full of bile he flees and turns to his sworn enemy Aufidius to wage a war against Rome to punish them for his banishment.
From the moment he is on the screen you can tell that this play is a real labour of love for Finnes. He gives a powerful and downright scary turn as Coriolanus, pitching him perfectly as a man too scarred by war to be able to cope with peace. In keeping with most protagonists in Shakespeare, although our hero has the potential to be great, he is plagued by one fatal flaw in his character which ultimately destroys him. For Coriolanus it is his pride. Although proud of his skills as a warrior, he is too proud to give the people of Rome what they want: a public acceptance of his victory in battle and a genuine and heartfelt appeal for their approval. It is this inability to swallow his pride leads to his banishment. Finnes manages to find balance in this character weakness and make Coriolanus a thoroughly believable man. There is a scene inside a television studio, just before the banishment where we see our “hero” struggling to put aside his pride only to be pushed to his limits before exploding at his audience with contempt and distain. Finnes handles it with aplomb. He is initially contrite but when pushed begins to shake with his ill disguised rage at his treatment. It’s all there in Finnes’ eyes, their cold blue indifference only adding to the distance the character feels from his countrymen.
I should also praise Vanessa Redgrave as Volumnia who dominates every single scene she’s in. It’s a reminder for anyone who ever questioned the legitimacy of the position the Redgrave family have in British acting circles, because bugger me, she’s astonishing. In her hands long and weighty (although obviously edited and truncated) soliloquies become lyrical and meaningful, even if you’re not an expert in iambic pentameter. She clearly has a deep understanding and love of the text and so she’s able to completely transport you to a place where it doesn’t matter that she’s speaking Shakespearean dialogue, her meaning is conveyed as simply and as if she were speaking modern English.
The real shock for me however, was when it came to the acting was Gerard Butler. I don’t think I’ve ever before seen him in anything where I’ve thought “Gerard Butler was really good in that”, but honestly, it was a revelation. He can act! Why oh why doesn’t he do it more often? Why keep producing crap like The Ugly Truth and The Bounty Hunter? It might be something to do with him actually, for once, being part of a project he really cares about, rather than doing something solely to pay the rent. He could do so much better than these shitty rom-coms and I can only hope that some casting directors see this film and start sending him decent parts. Other noteworthy performances come from James Nesbit, who I couldn’t quite believe I was seeing and Jon Snow (yes, that Jon Snow), both of whom handle the weighty dialogue with aplomb. Clearly Finnes is a director who knows how to get the best out of his cast.
Moving back to our director, I can honestly say that this was the best “modernized” Shakespeare I’ve seen on the big screen. The eastern European setting gave an immediacy to the story, and Finnes has managed to insert realism into many of the scenes. For example, right at the start of the film there is a riot scene, where hungry people try to storm a government depo. What’s realistic about this scene is that during the riot, when the protestors and the police clash, the rioters are filming it on their mobile phones. How many of us have watched YouTube footage taken by protesters at anti-war demonstrations on their mobile phones? This type of footage has made the news, as it does in Coriolanus. The direction itself is very good, especially in the chaotic war scenes. There is a disorientation to them that feels right for the setting. Finnes likes to frame his actors in extreme close-up when they are delivering big speeches. This only adds gravitas to their already towering performances, especially as I’ve said in the case of Redgrave.
I said at the start of this review that choosing Coriolanus as his directorial debut was a brave choice by Finnes and I stand by that. Being one of the lesser known plays, he’s taken a gamble that people will want to see it despite being unfamiliar with the story. Adding to that the fact that he has wisely retained the Shakespearean dialogue, he’s taken a leap of faith that there is a hunger and an audience in the mainstream for this type of film. I’m not suggesting that there isn’t, however, I went to a screening on a Thursday evening and there where maybe twelve people in the whole of the cinema including myself and my friend. Of those twelve people, five walked out. I think that’s very telling about the expectations certain quarters of mainstream audiences have about action-type films, that they should require very little from their audience in terms of attention. I think the problem those walkers had with Coriolanus is that it isn’t mindless. Yes, there were explosions and running gun battles, but overall to truly be able to follow the thrust of the story (and unlike some action films I’ve seen there is a thrust to this story) as an audience member you had to engage your brain rather than just let it wash over you. I feel quite sorry for the walkers, because by failing to engage and leaving before the end they missed a truly excellent story.
One tiny complaint I could make (only because I feel I need to be a little balanced) is that it’s quite long. Of course, it’s not as long as a full and proper staging of the play “Coriolanus” would be, because in order to get it to a reasonable running time of 122 minutes, John Logan (the Screenwriter) has had to cut vast swathes of dialogue. It does still feel a touch bum-numbing if you will, but honestly, to see such toweringly good performances it’s totally worth it.
Suzanne King