Our Movie Review: Titus (1999)

Why we watched it: It’s Shakespeare!

His rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars

Her rating: 2 out of 5 stars

His review: I’ve read many of Shakespeare’s plays, and seen many live and theatrical productions of them. When I was young, in my early years as a reader, I chaffed at hearing how great Shakespeare was. It was only when I reached college and took two Shakespeare courses that I came to appreciate how his language can so move us.

I’m always intrigued to see a new take on Shakespeare–not a “based on” adaptation that drops the language and mimics the plot. For me, Shakespeare is the language. I still feel chills when I hear Macbeth’s soliloquy upon hearing of the death of Lady MacBeth (Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player/That struts and frets his hour upon the stage/And then is heard no more: it is a tale/Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,/Signifying nothing.) I’m interested in productions that find resonance for Shakespeare outside of the Elizabethan world. I’ve seen MacBeth set in Africa, as a battle between 20th century warlords; Richard III set in a Nazi-styled military state. I appreciated Baz Luhrmann’s music-heavy, contemporary vision of Romeo and Juliet. Even when they don’t work, I am reminded each time how we are always trying to see Shakespeare through new eyes.

This brings me to the movie version of Titus (1999) directed by Julie Taymor. I’ll admit that this is one of the few plays by Shakespeare that I haven’t read. Similarly, I haven’t read Coriolanus, but that didn’t stop me from truly appreciating Ralph Fiennes recent adaptation of that play (2011). For each, I cannot attest to their integrity to the play. What I can report is how the films work. Coriolanus works well, as it hinges on an excellent performance by Fiennes.

I cannot say the same for Anthony Hopkins take on Titus. Each is coming off a major military victory; each deals with the possibility of turning their military success into political power; each falls when they make poor decisions in the political world. However, Coriolanus is younger, filled with ego and rage; Titus is older and struggling with the loss of power. Fiennes’ Coriolanus is mesmerizing in his arrogance; we can understand why he could lead men into battle. I was less taken with Hopkin’s Titus. At one point, early in the film, I felt Hopkins was going through the paces. The Shakespearean lines didn’t seem to flow naturally. Later, though, as he faces the crushing death of his sons and mutilation of his daughter, Hopkins takes the reins. The scene where he prostrates himself on the ground, begging mercy for his falsely accused sons, is Hopkins at his best. Unfortunately, later as Titus seems to struggle with his sanity and eventually has his revenge, Hopkins seems to be channeling his Hannibal Lector character. Too many of the mannerisms, such as sucking through his teeth in a menacing way, pull me out of the character. It is an unfortunate coincidence that his final scene mirrors Hannibal’s penchant for turning his victims into meals, as this reinforces what seems like an imitation.

The notoriety of Titus as a play comes from the extreme violence. Shakespeare works in murder, rape, mutilation, revenge, more murder, and more revenge. The lasting image for me from this film is that of Lavinia after she has been most violently assaulted. She is standing in a white dress, perched on a stump in a barren wood. Her hands have been replaced by twigs, and when found by her uncle, opens her mouth to bloodily reveal that her tongue has been ripped out. The horrendous tone of this scene, and what has been done to her, does (and should) push us to contemplate Shakespeare’s treatment of women. Is he critiquing men who would do this, or using her suffering for sensationalism?

This scene and the earlier one of Hopkin’s pleading for his son work well, as the location, the acting, and most importantly, the language come together. In others though, the mix doesn’t work. Often, the music was too heavy; the tonal shifts in characters didn’t work; or the acting wasn’t up to the language. Jessica Lange’s Tamora or Alan Cumming’s Saturninus didn’t work for me. Their performances were okay (Cummings more than Lange), but I think the approach taking by Taymor with these characters worked against the overall tone of the movie.

As the only version of Titus I’ve seen–imagine trying to stage this play live–I don’t have much to compare. I do think, as Roger Ebert pointed out in his review, that Taymor is working with a lesser Shakespearean play, and that she can only do so much with it. I found myself drawn in at times, and at other points ready to quit. At the end, I appreciated what Taymor was trying to do, but I think too often her visual and character choices worked against the movie overall.

Her Review: After being so excited about Ralph Fiennes’ Corialanus, I was eager to check out this movie. What a disappointment. I attribute the problems to the direction: it seemed nearly schizophrenic and I was so ready for this movie to be over when it finally was. Some of the acting seemed frantic and in your face, especially from Jonathon Rhys Myers and the man playing his brother as well as Alan Cumming. On the other hand, Colm Feore and Jessica Lange seemed to be in a different movie.