The Tempest (2010/I) was directed by Julie Taymor, who also wrote the screenplay. (The play was, of course, written by William Shakespeare.)
There is a long tradition of women playing male roles in Shakespeare's plays. The great Sarah Bernhardt played Hamlet in the 19th Century, and at Stratford, Ontario, Seanna McKenna played Richard III. (I saw McKenna in Richard III, and she was incredible.)
However, for this Tempest, Julie Taymor directs Helen Mirren as Prospera, a woman, rather than Prospero, a man. Mirren is such a superb actor that I think she could have played Prospero, but that isn't what happened.
Changing the gender of the principal character in your story is a risky business. The whole concept of The Tempest is that Prospero was the Duke of Milan. He wasn't Duchess of Milan. On the island where he is marooned, Prospero is lord and master. His relationship with Miranda is one of father and daughter. It's hard to think of Prospero as a woman.
Having seen The Tempest many times, I've come to expect an older male actor playing the role. (The classic Shakespearean progression is Romeo to Hamlet to Macbeth to Lear and Prospero.) So, despite Mirren's skills, I simply couldn't adjust to a woman in the part.
Also, of course, the relationship between father and daughter and mother and daughter is often very different. So, changing Prospero's name to Prospera isn't just a matter of a name. It's made The Tempest into a very different story. And, in my opinion, it's definitely not the story that Shakespeare wrote.
Although I have a high regard for both Helen Mirren and Julie Taymor, I think this was a concept that just didn't work. Directors and actors have always modified Shakespeare according to their thoughts about what the plays mean. You can push and stretch a Shakespearean play a long, long way, and still have it be Shakespeare. However, in this case, it's not Shakespeare, it's Taymor. It's an interesting movie, but It's not the Tempest.
At the time I wrote this review, the IMDb rating for the movie was 5.4. I've never seen a serious film with this low a rating. Apparently, almost no one liked the concept. I gave the film a rating of 7.0. It's not great cinema, but it's better than a 5.4.
There is a long tradition of women playing male roles in Shakespeare's plays. The great Sarah Bernhardt played Hamlet in the 19th Century, and at Stratford, Ontario, Seanna McKenna played Richard III. (I saw McKenna in Richard III, and she was incredible.)
However, for this Tempest, Julie Taymor directs Helen Mirren as Prospera, a woman, rather than Prospero, a man. Mirren is such a superb actor that I think she could have played Prospero, but that isn't what happened.
Changing the gender of the principal character in your story is a risky business. The whole concept of The Tempest is that Prospero was the Duke of Milan. He wasn't Duchess of Milan. On the island where he is marooned, Prospero is lord and master. His relationship with Miranda is one of father and daughter. It's hard to think of Prospero as a woman.
Having seen The Tempest many times, I've come to expect an older male actor playing the role. (The classic Shakespearean progression is Romeo to Hamlet to Macbeth to Lear and Prospero.) So, despite Mirren's skills, I simply couldn't adjust to a woman in the part.
Also, of course, the relationship between father and daughter and mother and daughter is often very different. So, changing Prospero's name to Prospera isn't just a matter of a name. It's made The Tempest into a very different story. And, in my opinion, it's definitely not the story that Shakespeare wrote.
Although I have a high regard for both Helen Mirren and Julie Taymor, I think this was a concept that just didn't work. Directors and actors have always modified Shakespeare according to their thoughts about what the plays mean. You can push and stretch a Shakespearean play a long, long way, and still have it be Shakespeare. However, in this case, it's not Shakespeare, it's Taymor. It's an interesting movie, but It's not the Tempest.
At the time I wrote this review, the IMDb rating for the movie was 5.4. I've never seen a serious film with this low a rating. Apparently, almost no one liked the concept. I gave the film a rating of 7.0. It's not great cinema, but it's better than a 5.4.