Skip to main content

All's Well That Ends Well


No one since the great Laurence Olivier has done more for Shakespeare on film than Kenneth Branagh. He’s directed and starred in a few of the best Shakespeare adaptations, such as Henry V and Hamlet, and has breathed the Bard through theatre, radio, and even the 2012 Olympics opening ceremony. He’s more closely connected to Shakespeare perhaps than any other global personality. And All is True (named for the alternative title of Henry VIII) feels like his denouement, his definitive statement on the most celebrated writer in the English language, as it chronicles Shakespeare’s retirement years in Stratford and his complicated family life with exquisite depth and contemplative serenity.
Following the destruction of the Globe Theatre in 1613, William Shakespeare (Branagh) gives up writing and returns to Stratford to live with his wife Anne Hathaway (Judi Dench), and grown-up daughters Judith (Kathryn Wilder) and Susanna (Lydia Wilson). However, unresolved emotions over the death of his son Hamnet seventeen years earlier and a lack of closeness to his family and home-town result in tensions within his home and community, as he’s forced to examine his life, relationships, and legacy.
All is True is a very dangerous title for a biographical film, as it invites all sorts of added scrutiny as to the legitimacy of its claim. Truth is a major theme of the film, but like a lot of the details of Shakespeare’s life, most of it is supposition and speculation. We don’t know much about how he spent his last years, so most of the specifics of this film are unapologetic extrapolations. One might begrudge the movie for this, but for a key conversation between Shakespeare and one of his admirers, to whom he admits making up a lot of the details of his plays set in foreign lands and historical time periods. Here it becomes clear that All is True is no more meant to be an accurate interpretation of Shakespeare’s final days than Richard III is a factual version of the last years of the War of the Roses. Additional themes that have recurred throughout his work showing up here and his characterization resembling that of figures like Prospero and Lear indicate that the movie is really itself a Shakespearean play about Shakespeare -taking the same liberties that he did in order to convey a greater human truth.
In the mood of this conceit and the sheer drama it yields, I was particularly surprised to learn the movie was written by Ben Elton, one of the great British comedy writers. Shakespeare isn’t new to Elton, having dabbled with the Bard in Blackadder II and his current sitcom Upstart Crow, but I wouldn’t have expected him to write something so sincere and meaningful as this elegiac screenplay. It’s certainly one of his best works. As to Branagh’s direction, it’s much more graceful and subdued than one would expect from him. When you remember the grandiosity of his Hamlet or Much Ado About Nothing, or even more conventional Hollywood movies like Cinderella and Thor, it’s such a sharp contrast to see in this film so much quiet ambience. His camera moves very little, preferring still long takes through various scenes and even holding on shots in meditation for moments after a dialogue has ended. There are a number of candlelit scenes in his home at night that evoke a Caravaggio or Rembrandt painting, yet the art direction is still lush and authentic.
Against all this is Shakespeare himself, and despite Branagh’s obvious love of him, it’s with admirable humility that he allows the film to indulge in Shakespeare’s faults. He was an absent father and, like most men of the period, put too much stock in his male heir, convincing himself that Hamnet was a beautiful, inspired soul to match his own. Branagh plays the stubbornness and frustration well, the unconscious coldness and inability to recognize the misery of his family, and it all amounts to humanizing Shakespeare in a way I’ve never seen another film do. It contrasts the genius playwright with the man, two separate identities, and touches on relatable insecurities and regrets. Nowhere better is this displayed than in a conversation he has with the visiting Earl of Southampton (Ian McKellen), the “Fair Youth” of a couple of Shakespeare’s sonnets, that touches rather boldly on the question of Shakespeare’s sexuality. Indeed the movie finds a way of addressing most of the common speculations around Shakespeare, from his religion and politics to even shrewdly dismissing that anti-Stratfordian nonsense.
In making this film in his late fifties (only a few years older than Shakespeare when he died), and twelve years after his last Shakespearean adaptation, there’s a subtext that can’t entirely be ignored of this movie being about Branagh as much as the Bard. Branagh has had successes and failures just like his subject, he’s had some turbulence in his personal life and relationships, and by virtue of making movies of the plays, he’s been compared to and assessed off of his ability to perform Shakespeare. This movie, like Stratford to London, is smaller and simpler than his recent fare, and has the pastoral elegance of a late-stage swansong. And it’s worth noting that he fills out the cast with RSC alumni, greatest among them an apathetic Dench and a stirringly passionate Wilder, which gives the movie a very theatrical sensibility. He, like Shakespeare, is returning to his roots. I don’t believe Branagh is done though, but much like Kurosawa’s Dreams or Miyazaki’s The Wind Rises, I feel it’ll prove to be the best film he could have gone out on.
All is True may not all be true, but the purpose of the movie is not to nail down a definitive portrait of Shakespeare’s final years as it is to emphasize his humanity and family, and engender a greater rumination on life and loss. It’s a movie with a lot on its mind, much like Shakespeare must have had at the end of his life, and it may well be the best film about Shakespeare the person ever made. Kenneth Branagh has successfully articulated his Shakespeare, he’s taken his bow of the Bard, his revels now are ended.

Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/JordanBosch
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...