Greetings,
Right off I'll say this much: I like (Note the use of personal opinion here not global statement) this version much more than the nightmarishly Hollywoodized 2003 one with Kevin Kline and Michelle Pfeiffer.
This version is a bit of extremes. On the one hand it's an excellent portrayal of the Bards work is some ways and in others directly contradicts what many masters of his works consider paramount at times.
The Good:
Well, personally I like the colors and allusions in the motifs of light bulbs and umbrellas. The contradiction of a normal stage, set and settings in the human world and this, oh...quasi-minimalistic, surreal approach when in the woods worked, at least as far as this member of the audience is concerned. Of course there are the basic prerequisites that were matched (This IS the Royal Shakespeare company after all) of wonderful acting, yadda, yadda, yadda and so on, good casting, blah, blah, blah. For me though what makes or breaks these kinds of immortal works are the little things. The physical gestures, facial expressions etc. Oberon is perfect for example, the bare feet, the flowing coat hanging literally all over the young lovers who play their part perfectly by not acknowledging this rather large fellow actor breathing in their ear. Puck too works well. 'Proud Titania' certainly was amazonian enough; protrayed as a bit of a stick in the mud which went a far way to showing her greater, oh, let's say moral authority over her king; though the fae have no concept of morality, but I digress. The 'Human' characters were also quite fun getting yanked this way and that and playing the roles well. Though, as should be evidenced by this review, Oberon and Puck were my personal highlights.
The Bad:
As in The Good, it's the little things. In this case the sex scene with Bottom and Titiana. Um... As I've also said this IS The Royal Shakespeare Company so I have to wonder what industrial accident happened near their HQ to induce a dementia to the point where someone thought a sex scene was a good idea? One of the major charming points regarding Bottom is the idea that he is an innocent. A prime point of this comedy is how Titiana, who is a Fae Lord for God's sake, one of the most beautiful and enticingly sensual creatures in the history of time, is throwing herself at this mortal and he doesn't even notice being much more charmed, in his childlike manner, by Mustardseed and its kin. The actor who portrays Bottom is a good physical actor, he's just not a good physical actor for Bottom.
So, as I said, this is a creature of extremes in productions of Midsummer Night Dreams. Get it for Oberon and Puck, pay no attention to the kiss, it's a gesture of servile devotion- only a fool associates mortal definitions to fae actions. Avoid it for The Bottom of Bottom and Titian portrayals. Personally, I find Oberon and the young lovers actions and presentation to be of greater value than the detriments caused by the flawed writing and directing that birthed the Titania and Bottom fiasco- but that's not my call to make globally.
The Neutral:
These things did little to harm or add to the play. They came across as 'Charming' or 'Odd' but did not much add pro or con to any sum total of mental assessment as far as I'm concerned. These would be things like- The Umbrellas, the light bulbs, the feathered hair, the running through doors, the portrayal of the dream as a dream, maybe, and the boy who pops up now and again who I like to think of as 'The Witness'. Really the only thing that's worth commenting on regarding The Witness is how this young actor is apparently also in the Anthony Hopkins version of Titus, directed by Julie Taymore where he has has much the same role until the last third or so. As I said, a bit odd.
I remain, as always,
Mad-Hamlet
