I did study this at school and it was probably my least favourite Shakespeare play. Quite enjoyed this version of it though!

Hello, Antenna and Cartimand. I confess that 'Coriolanus' is my absolute favourite amongst Shakespeare's tragedies, so I'm looking forward to this film. Not having seen it at the pictures, I've pre-ordered my copy together with the screenplay. I was disappointed to see the script in the latter heavily cut. One regrettable excision is Menenius' 'belly' tale, which is hilarious in context (the citizens' interruptions and all). And when a line like 'He [Martius] did it [service for his country] to please his mother' is given to the non-Shakespearean character Tamora (here, a TV correspondent), then there's our loss, since originally it's spoken by one of the all-male citizens: coming from the mouth of a woman, the remark made of Volumnia and her son isn't insulting enough. The cuts in some of the blank-verse lines to accommodate the play's new setting and characters are another drawback. Nevertheless, I await the film's release on DVD with impatience, my judgement so far being based on the screenplay.

Thanks for your comment. I'm beginning to see the benefits of not being an expert on Coriolanus. Perhaps the key is to accept that the film version will be different. I tend to find that versions like this one which set out to "suit the medium" work better than, say, filming of a live stage version.

That's a good point, Filippo. Whilst I did enjoy this version, I too thought the hilarious 'belly' (and big toe of course!) scene should have been included, to give us at least one laugh amongst the gore and tragedy. Coriolanus is still powerful stuff, but not one of the Bard's best IMHO.

Thank you, Antenna and Cartimand, for your thoughtful replies. You must be wondering why I'm so passionate about 'Coriolanus'. Here's an extract from one of my reviews on the play:

'Coriolanus' is the maturest, most innovative, and most modern of Shakespeare's tragedies. For a start, nothing (even for the Elizabethan and Jacobean audiences) is worse and more pathetic than an overlong protagonist's death speech, a theatrical convention mocked in 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' ('Pyramus and Thisbe'). The only tragic hero who dies onstage without a speech is Coriolanus (mercifully, embarrassing interjections like 'Ah' and 'O' are dispensed with altogether): his silent death is far more noble, realistic and uplifting than that of Hamlet, Othello and Lear. Macbeth (like Timon) has no death speech, simply because he (again, like Timon) dies offstage: his last lines - 'Lay on Macduff; / And damned be him that first cries "Hold, enough"!' - verge on the comic (the omission of the 1847 onstage death soliloquy from the 1865 revised version of Verdi's 'Macbeth' is a huge improvement). In 'Coriolanus', Shakespeare rids the drama of the conventional stage business that litters the 'four great tragedies' ('Hamlet', 'King Lear', 'Macbeth' and 'Othello'): no self-dramatization at the moment of death, no self-recognition (so much for hamartia, hubris, anagnorisis), no supernatural events and props (ghosts, witches, magically-woven handkerchiefs, over-the-top thunderstorms, lightning and rain), no old-fashioned clowns and fools, no songs (rhymed verse is less than 1%), no lengthy self-reflective soliloquies (just a handful), virtually no asides, not even a metrically complete line to conclude the play (the last line is an iamb - 'Assist' - the only instance in all Shakespeare; the unconventional ending of 'Hamlet' - 'Go, bid the soldiers shoot' (six syllables) - surpasses that of the other three great tragedies, which (like the bad quarto of 'Hamlet') conclude with couplets; 'Timon' ends with four heavily-stressed syllables: 'Let our drums strike'). The title role is the only one in Shakespeare that owns a section of an Elizabethan/Jacobean public theatre: a pratictioner at Shakespeare's New Globe had once told me that the pillars supporting the roof are antithetical in gender and emotion, one of them representing Mars and the other Venus - 'Martius' is derived from the name of the Roman god of war (the 'son of Mars'). I side with Eliot (though I personally exclude 'Antony and Cleopatra'): 'Coriolanus' is 'Shakespeare's most assured success'.

Finally got the time to watch the film. I must say I'm a bit disappointed, for a number of reasons that primarily involve the text being used. I've already mentioned the opening scene with the citiziens. Then, the role of messengers (named or anonymous, played by major or minor characters) is superfluous: it doesn't make sense for a character to bring news which can be seen and heard on satellite and cable channels by almost everyone. The only scene featuring female characters - the 'sewing scene' - is weakened by having the lines of Valeria (a role of a hilariously nosey woman omitted altogether here) spoken by Menenius. One of the best Shakespearean speeches - Cominius' 'I shall lack voice' - is also weakened, most of the lines being heard outside the hall where the scene takes place. And where's the 'gown of humility'? Coriolanus is smartly dressed in the voting scene. Another thing is the reversal of the hand gesture 'Holds her by the hand, silent': in the original text, the gesture precedes, not follows, 'O mother, mother, what have you done?', a moment which is more moving than in the film. In the screenplay, we're told that Shakespeare's original is kept (despite the modern setting), but (I recall only these two examples) 'Let us revenge this with our pikes' is spoken as 'Let us revenge this with our sticks'; and Sicinius' 'Are you mankind?' is replaced with 'Are you mad?': Volumnia's 'Ay, fool; is that a shame?' is pointless, since she's responding to the word 'mankind' (which means 'mad' in context) to mean 'human' (at least, 'mad' should have been spoken as 'human'). Overall, much of the work looks like a documentary than a film (too many headlines and news bulletins). Pity no satisfactory version exists on DVD: the Moshinsky production (BBC) is heavily cut, and the Steven Berkoff film (Tokyo Globe Theatre) suffers from middle-of-the-road line delivery and staging. Despite my reservations, I'm glad that Fiennes chose this play, rather than a well-known work (no more 'Hamlet' and 'Othello' films, please!). Its realism is timeless.

Excellent points, Filippo, on the play's novelties, not to mention your argument of the Globe's Mars pillar being associated with (you say owned by!) Martius.