FREE ESSAY ON THE OMITTED

THE OMITTED

Sherrie McIntyre
ENG 321
3/31/00
The Omitted 
When watching the Branagh version of Much Ado About Nothing, I tended to realize lines
had been omitted from the movie. I then got further into the movie and some of the lines
that were ones that foreshadow what had happened in the text. The purpose of this paper
will show that lines left out of the movie were in some way essential to character
development and aided in the movie's plot confusion. The analysis took several watchings
to create a vivid view of what lines were missing and why. So, as I was watching the
movie I marked which lines were not spoken. This approximated to 1329. Wow! 1329 out of
2712 (give or take a few lines) were missing. Now I asked myself how is anyone going to
get the full feel for this play, if there is 49% missing. Half an answer would be that
the choices to leave out certain parts were to down play a character's attitude or
behavior. Or I could be way off base, and producers could have wanted to just save time
and money in producing, editing, etc. It is the first choice I would like to consider. 
When reviewing the lines left out, the first big chunk is in act 1 scene 1. Beatrice is
describing Bene*censored*, In our last con-/ flict four of his five wits went halting
off, and now/ is the whole man governed with one; (1.1,62). Which creates a dynamic that
gives you a precursor to the rest of the play. This precursor being that Beatrice and
Bene*censored* fight constantly, not like old friends, but old foes. The word choice that
Beatrice gives in the opening of this play gives us that overall feeling that the two
just do not see eye to eye. Hence, when they spar for the first time, 60 lines later,
Beatrice seems a little more outspoken than is perceived, due to the omission of the
lines. Bene*censored* comes off like a prince trying to defend himself. The lines make
the sense of two friends giving each other a hard time, but the text gives them a sting.
The omitted lines that help characterize the strength of words are needed for the sting
to be apparent, which just lacks in the movie. The Branagh version showed lots of areas
where Bene*censored* was coming off as doing nothing to spite anyone, which allowed
Branagh to make Bene*censored* a better character than is portrayed in the text.
The next major spot in the text that is omitted from the movie is all of act 1 scene 2.
This was an unusual choice, because this is where Leonato is shown to know that his
daughter has a suitor. The wrong name is given, but still is an edited moment of comedy
that allows a reader to know what is going on in the text, and who knows what and how.
The movie did not let you know that Leonato was indeed aware of a suitor until he says
Daughter, remember what I told you. If the/ Prince do solicit you in that kind, you know
your/ answer.(2.1,65). When reading the text, this wrong information about the Prince
being the suitor instead of Claudio being the suitor (the Prince just acting in Claudio's
name), is revealed in the scene that is mentioned earlier. It would help to make the
comic nature of these lines unfold, instead of the confusion that comes about when the
movie has the viewer confused to the textual facts of what is happening. Also it is the
first time that somebody overhears (notes) a conversation and gives out wrong
information, but this is also omitted in the prior mentioned scene. Consequently when
people start to spy, it looks uncommon for the movie, but the text gives the notions of
spying from the start.
The next major sets of lines that are not used in the movie are ones that foreshadow what
is to happen in the rest of the play. Borachio has a set of lines in act2 scene3 that
tell all about having Margaret in a chamber window having sex with Borachio using the
name of Hero. The movie omitting these lines, makes Don John's plot of ruining the
marriage unknown to all until later, but the deed doesn't come into full light on who was
the perpetrator of this scheme till the conviction at the end of the play. This shows the
confusion on who is involved with what. It also does not give the full picture the way
the text does, maybe to give added suspense, but it actually just makes more confusion.
The beginning of act 3 omits the first 35 lines of text that Hero and Ursula speak to one
another. These lines are the ones that reveal about the trick they are playing on
Beatrice to make her fall in love with Bene*censored*. When they first speak in the movie
it seems like Beatrice is walking into a normal conversation, not a planned set of words
that are going to change her opinions of a man she loathes. Also with the omission of the
first lines, and others, about her feelings toward Signior Bene*censored*, she is shown
in the movie to be easily swayed away from the realm of hate for this man. In the text
these trickery lines seem cunning because they are played on her emotions and doubts.
Therefore omitted lines again create a blur about character development. This development
being Beatrice being easily fooled in the movie, versus the careful planning that
actually takes place in the text for this transformation to occur.
Next, the friar even gets cut off in the movie, when it comes to having lines omitted in
act 4. This wise man who helps make things right again, gives short simple speeches in
the movie. This could be to help in the understanding of what is going on in his
philosophical words, but it does not give the full view of the friar's worldly educated
nature. The friar claims Hero's innocence in his first speech which is not there in the
movie, and makes all seem right and fair, in just 12 on his 100 lines. 
These lines that have been omitted overall were some unusual choices. These
aforementioned are just some examples of what was different from the text, versus the
movie in question. Some of the omissions created confusion, others made characterization
seem lacking. There is a spot however, in the movie that makes a positive change to text,
and that is the confusion Dogberry gives off when speaking, Branagh tries to clear
matters up with omission and changing lines around. Put things in a more logical sense,
and understanding. This realm of work actually worked if the goal was to try and
understand what Dogberry had to say, but again that ruins the confusing character that
Shakespeare had created. Which in turn lacks developed characterization.
I feel that the movie was not an accurate representation of the text, and that with half
the text missing, how could it be? This play was wonderful the way it was written, and
Branagh has done wonderful work with other Shakespeare plays. I expected more out of
this, I guess. Also I would have to say that the interesting choice Branagh made in
omitting so many lines, important lines, aides in what I feel to be a half done job of
script writing.