Coriolanus

Synopsis: Roman General, Caius Martius (Ralph Fiennes), saves Rome by putting down the rebellious Volsces in the city of Coriole, which was hitherto controlled by his sworn enemy, Tullus Aufidius (Gerard Butler) and is awarded the title of Coriolanus in recognition of his conquest. He is pushed by his ambitious mother (Vanessa Redgrave) and political mentor, Menenius (Brian Cox) to stand for the powerful Senate position of Consul. However, such a position requires Coriolanus to seek the approval of the citizens of Rome, a group whom he despises. Eventually he rages against the political manoeuvring required to secure the Consulship, alienating the citizens and securing his own banishment from Rome. Wanting revenge he seeks out Aufidius and offers to assist him overthrow Rome.

The name of this film got me thinking about film titles. Who will see the word “Coriolanus” and think to themselves: “I have to see that!”? It is not a title that will inspire the Saturday night popcorn crowd, but it will immediately get the attention of fans of Shakespeare’s wider range of works. A small but well-defined audience who will appreciate the opportunity of seeing a fresh take on one of the Bard’s less well-known works.

With this in mind, Fiennes has carefully chosen a non-specific, contemporary Eastern European country as “Rome” and intersperses traditional dramatic scenes with “Veritas Television” reports. Shot in Serbia, the Roman scenes are credible as a place where wealth and poverty co-exist and  the graffiti and gunshot-pocked buildings of Coriole are as real-seeming as those in Welcome to Sarajevo (1997).  

Fiennes does a convincing job as a man, contrary to his natural disposition, trying to please others.  I was also impressed by Brian Cox, whose Menenius is sympathetic to Coriolanus’s dilemma, while James Nesbitt (as Sicinius) and Paul Jesson (as Brutus) are delightful as the jealous, scheming tribunes who can’t wait to see Coriolanus fall from grace.

Coriolanus also got me thinking about other things as well:
•    How to make an Imperial general into an action movie guy;
•    How to adapt a 16th Century play into a contemporary setting;
•    How to use Shakespearean language in modern film;
•    Why extras might look good but fail to engage with the action they are supporting;
•    Why handheld camerawork should be limited in most films to 10% of screen time.

Although the realtively modest budget and Fiennes’ directorial inexperience shows in a couple of areas, Coriolanus succeeds in making Fiennes not a conventional action hero but an authentic warrior with a dilemma, and generally in updating the Elizabethan perspective to today. I didn’t find the language as appealingly used as I did in Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo And Juliet (1996), but perhaps that would improve on a second viewing.

Overall Coriolanus succeeds, and if it makes me think about the techniques of filmmaking and want to see it again, that’s a sign that Ralph Fiennes should have another go at directing.

Want more about this film?

Want something different?