A Midsummer Night's Dream
|
List Price: Our Price: $4.69 You Save: $10.30 (69%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $3.98 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Canada
Movie Reviews of A Midsummer Night's Dream
Movie Review: Wonderful
Summary: 5 Stars
The Royal Shakespeare Players know how to do a production. This film of A Midsummer Night's Dream did more than take my breath away, it made me think and gasp and laugh till I had tears in my eyes. The sensitivity of the cast to each line they speak is profound and beautiful. So often when Shakespeare is performed on film the actors are not very familiar with speaking in verse, but this version the actors speak beyond the text and break down the barrier of language that is often associated with Shakespeare.
Also in this version there is a brilliant use of light and color to set a mood. The rooms and costumes are wildly colorful and it makes things seem very child-like. This brings in the topic of the little boy in this film. He seems to be the one dreaming this whole play, but in the play he seems to be the changeling boy that Oberon wants to take from Titania. The fairy world is very sexual and I for one find it a bit too racy for my taste, and it makes me recoil to see the perverse gestures as the thoughts of a little child.
Other than this, I was delighted by the themes brought out in the film. One such theme is the relationship between the dream world in the woods and the world of reason in Athens. This is shown by actors playing Hippolyta and Theseus are double cast as Titania and Oberon, (as they would be in Shakespeare's day) and so is every other character except the four lovers, who visit both worlds throughout the play.
It is beautiful and intriguing production and I enjoyed it immensely.
Movie Review: An enchanting fairy tale
Summary: 5 Stars
This is an enchantig fairy-tale adaption of Shakespeare's comedy. Since it is performed by the Royal Shakespeare Company, all actors are excellent (of course they are - it's the RSC!), but Alex Jennings as Oberon really stands out, he IS the fairy king. For 2 hours it transported me into another world, with fairies, enchanted woods, Amazons and Athenian noblemen. It is the most entertaining adaption of Shakespeare's play I have ever seen. Unfortunately, there are no subtitles, but I could still follow and enjoy it, even as a non-native English speaker.Movie Review: A superb production
Summary: 5 Stars
I've seen a dozen productions of A Midsummer Nights Dream over the past 40 years and this is by far the most satisfying of them all. A part of the reason for this may well be the way the mind works with advancing years, filtering out the redundant & superficial fodder that comprises 90% of contemporary film and theatrical fare.
Acting, direction & sets all superb.
Movie Review: An excellent production, but way too many cuts
Summary: 4 Stars
I'm performing as Demetrius in A Midsummer's Night Dream this November (2002) for my college, and I bought this movie to see another version of the play, and perhaps to get some inspiration for how certain scenes should be played out.From what was there, it was excellent. Finbar Lynch as Puck was a great interpretation of the character. Definitely a racy version of this classic character, but it fits in well with how Shakespeare writes his plays to appeal to both the groundlings and the royalty (ie comical and slightly perverted humor vs. intelligent humor and themes).
Another thing to note is the fact that the actors doubled up on parts, something common in theater (especially during the time of Shakespeare), and in this play it adds more weight to the relationships between the character's "fairy" and "mortal" counterparts. Alex Jennings does an excellent job at being Oberon. He commands respect in his performance. Same goes with his performance as Theseus, although we don't see much of him because of cuts (more on that later). Lindsay Duncan does an excellent job at being Titania. She conveyed the sense that she lived in a sensuous environment, and made this known when she was charmed to fall in love with Bottom. But, because of cuts, her Hippolyta fell flat, and it made it difficult to understand why Hippolyta was so angry at Theseus in the beginning of the play, but came around at the end.
Desmond Barrit was an excellent Bottom, much better than Kevin Kline's in the 1999 production. Bottom came across as a well-meaning, although slightly egocentric man that just wants to put on a very realistic play for the duke. When confronted with Titania, you get the sense that he just rolls with the punches and accepts this new thing thrown at him. His braying as a donkey is awesome, and I couldn't keep from laughing. And the "love" scene between Bottom and Titania is absolutely hilarious. About as raunchy as one can get while keeping all the actors' clothes on.
The mechanicals played their parts well too, although I wish they wouldn't have cut out the part in the woods where Bottom comes up with ideas on how to solve different problems, such as the lion with ladies problem, the wall problem, and the moonshine problem. The one problem they DID address (the need for a prologue) was then cut out in Act 5. Peter Quince never said the Prologue that he was supposed to prepare. He instead jumped straight to the "dumb-show" where the actors played out the play quickly. If one says they are going to add something, then it shouldn't be cut...
Which brings me to the one problem with this production. The overabundance of cuts to the script and scenes. One can notice I haven't mentioned the lovers at all yet. That is because their parts were practically butchered. The lovers are what tie the story together with the fairy land, and I didn't get a sense of that when I watched this production. Lines were snipped, scenes split up, and an entire sequence was completely omitted, which serves to tie in several important parts of the play which dealt with the mortals.
First, Lysander and Demetrius I felt were mis-cast. I felt Kevin Doyle would have been a better Lysander, and Daniel Evans would have made a better Demetrius. Kevin Doyle's Demetrius comes across as flakey and a little slow. Daniel Evans seems a little too angry to be Lysander, who is the slightly more sensitive of the two. Yes, the parts are virtually interchangable, but Demetrius is not dimwitted, he just doesn't like it when there is disorder (the woods). Maybe I'm biased because I am cast as Demetrius myself, but hey, that's my interpretation of the character.
The ladies fair much better though. Monica Dolan did a good job at being Hermia, although there were times when I thought that she could have turned up her energy just a bit (when she had the nightmare about the snake. I didn't get a sense that she was scared at all). Emily Raymond's Helena was excellent, and one could really feel bad for her. It's very easy for Helena's complaining to become annoying (as Calista Flockhart sometimes did in the 1999 production), but Emily avoided this with great acting. One minor complaint though, she should have dyed her hair blond. Helena, according to words in the script, is blond.
What angered me was that the second half of Act 4 Scene 1 was completely cut. This is just too important a scene to leave out. This is where Theseus, Hippolyta, and Egeus are out hunting. In the first part, Theseus and Hippolyta finally make a connection because they both like hunting, and we, as an audience, see how Hippolyta finally falls in love with Theseus. They then come upon the lovers sleeping (either naked or in torn clothing). When they are awakened, Lysander tries to explain that it isn't what they think, and Egeus gets angry and tries to get Lysander executed. Demetrius steps in and explains that he now loves Helena, but that he doesn't exactly know why. This is enough for Theseus to overbear Egeus' will, and then invites the lovers to be wed alongside Hippolyta and himself. It brings closure, explains why the four lovers end up in Theseus' court, and explains what happens to Egeus. Without this scene (as this production did), one is left to wonder why they ended up where they are, and Hippolyta and Theseus come across as rather one-dimensional in their actions.
That, and the boy in this story was totally unnecessary, and I could not understand what he was doing in here. The prospect of a young boy (not even in middle school yet) reading Midsummer is laughable, and it really made no sense.
Aside from those complaints, this is still the best film version of Midsummer that I have seen. Maybe some day an uncut version of the play will be filmed, but until that time comes, this is a very good version to watch.
Movie Review: A Midsummer Night's Dream
Summary: 4 Stars
The 1996 production of A Midsummer Night's Dream puts a modern spin on a traditional Shakespearean play.
Having the same actors play the parts of both Titania and Hippolyta, and Theseus and Oberon was a very good move. It accentuated the difference between reality and imagination, which is one of the main themes of the original Shakespeare. We see Theseus and Hippolyta as serious characters in a serious, recognizable set. Then, we see the same actors dressed differently in an "other-worldly" type of set - it really stressed the difference between that which is a dream, and that which is real. Costumes were easily differentiated as well, for the fairies had wild, Dr. Seuss-like hair-do's, and the Athenians wore specific costumes according to their sex, in a variety of colors.
The production was very true to Shakespeare in terms of using the majority of his text within the play, which, though staged far differently than he ever foresaw it, offered an accurate presentation of Shakespearean themes and vision nonetheless.
While the little boy seemed to be distracting at first, he also had a role to play in the movie: it was HIS dream. He was the Indian boy whom Titania and Oberon fought over. And, it was the play stage in his room which was used by Puck and Oberon during their plotting. However, some of the shots of his reactions to different occurrences did seem slightly superfluous. But, through the eyes of this child, it was much easier to believe some of the seemingly crazy things that were going on in the woods.
The play-within-the-play remained unchanged in this version from the original text, and the players also performed multiple roles, dressing for the part of Bottom's fairy attendants when the fairy queen falls in love with him. Again, this adds to the distinction between reality and dream. It reminded me of the Wizard of Oz, where Dorothy falls asleep and dreams of a lion, a scarecrow, and a tin man, who are really the people from her own farm in different costumes. An excellent choice by the director.
While the staging and overall presentation of Shakespeare is radically different from any other movie version I've seen, I believe it holds significant value nonetheless. In fact, I believe that, although the set and costumes are very different from the Athenian garb which was worn in the 1935 version, the characterization and presentation given by this version is far more accurate to the original text.
Finally, while this version contains some sexually explicit material, that probably makes it more true to what the original production would have portrayed. Since Shakespeare wrote to please intellectuals and commoners, it was not uncommon for his plays to contain raunchy lines or scenes. This version has captured that, as the sexual themes do not overpower the themes of love, dreams and reality, they do play a part.