Love's Labour's Lost

By the year 2000, Kenneth Branagh had an admirable film career. Especially noteworthy are the 3 films that he adapted from Shakespeare plays. After his most ambitious, HAMLET, he focused on more acting roles and didn't step behind the camera until he produced LOVES LABOUR'S LOST. It pains me to say that the resulting film is audacious and sometimes mind-numbingly awkward. This review will personally serve me as I try to understand this effort.

This was the first film top be created under the new SHAKESPEARE FILM COMPANY. It is likely obscure to most viewers as it survived only through two films, LOVES LABOURS LOST and the markedly better AS YOU LIKE IT. My guess is that the new film company was going to tackle more frequent Shakespeare stories that were already less popular and not as epic as HAMLET or HENRY V. And many of those lesser known stories contain stuff that just doesn't translate well to modern audiences. Maybe this new company can approach the stories with a more experimental approach?

LOVES LABOUR'S LOST is certainly experimental and the results are scattered. Most obviously, Branagh took a 3 and a half hour play and trimmed it to an hour and a half, of which half an hour of it was pre-existing song standards. It seems the objective was to call to mind the musicals of the golden age of Hollywood. But the casting didn't require singing and dancing, so it often feels like we are being duped.

What remains of the stage play makes for some excellent fun. Branagh knew what to leave in and what to excise. Nathan Lane and Adrian Lester join some of Branagh's frequent film collaborators. They are right there, bringing some professionality to the beautiful but otherwise sufficient casting. But the young Alicia Silverstone really shows her socks while trying to carry the important role of the visiting queen.

Some of the musical numbers work to a point, some make you long for the films they emulate, and a couple...