Customer Reviews

Midsummer Night's Dream [VHS]

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

This is NOT the weak Hollywood version released earlier this year, but a tremendous production by the Royal Shakespeare Company a few years ago. I saw this production in England in 1995 and it is truly phenomenal. Alex Jennings is an actor of true power, forcefully taking on the dual roles of Theseus and Oberon (an interesting, though not uncommon approach). Desmond Barritt is absolutely hilarious leading the band of mechanicals. I would HIGHLY recommend this video to anyone, but particularly to those who have seen the play performed by other (particularly American) actors. You will truly have an appreciation for how truly gifted Royal Shakespeare Company actors are.

This 1996 film adaptation of the 1994 RSC stage production of A Midsummer Night's Dream is marvelous. The acting is outstanding throughout the cast and the beauty of Shakespeare's language shines like a jewel. The costuming and setting are a rather non distinct present day time. The stage design is quite different than anything I've seen before - quite original and quite effective. The woods around Athens are represented by a blank stage with hanging light bulbs and various moveable doors about the set. Umbrellas are used in a number of unique and creative ways both to denote scene changes and as the bowers in fairyland. Also creatively used is a doll-house. Another unusual aspect of this production is the use of a young boy and his dream as a framing device for the play. The boy is also the "Changling Child" and he observes each of the scenes and takes part in the scene changes. Fairyland is often the most difficult effect for a modern director to conceive and Noble's concepts are both effective and delightful. The doubling of Theseus / Oberon and Hippolyta / Titania also works to tie the storylines together thematically. The staging of the Pyramus and Thisby play within a play during the fifth act is both touching and funny and again Noble's direction brings out Shakespeare's messages about the nature of love in a most perceptive manner. My only criticism of the casting (and it is a very minor one) involves the two female lovers. As Shakespeare wrote the play, Helena is a tall blonde. In this production Emily Raymond as Helena is a short-haired brunette only an inch or so taller than Monica Dolan's long-haired brunette Hermia. Both actresses' performance is superb, and the similarity of their looks does increase the confusion and emphasizes the theme of the lack of reason when considering love. Demetrius and Lysander are virtually interchangeable as Shakespeare wrote them. At 103 minutes, the play moves along briskly and some cutting of lines must have occurred but the cuts must be deftly handled because I didn't notice them. All of the famous passages are there as well as all the memorable quotes. I consider this production much superior to the more well known and highly publicized lavish Hollywood 1999 production directed by Michael Hoffman starring Rupert Everett, Calista Flockhart, Kevin Kline, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Stanley Tucci.

I give this production five stars.

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

I was fortunate enough to see the stage version of this production (same cast, same director, etc.) when the RSC came to Broadway in spring 1996. I loved the show so much that I went to two performances in three weeks.

The video preserves a lot of the most endearing characteristics of the stage show--the double casting (everyone except the four lovers has a "mortal" role and a "fairy" role), the slightly naughty atmosphere, the mystical world of the fairies. I was espcially glad to see that the "forest of light" set wasn't omitted--just as stunning on film as it was live.

The cast here is top-notch. A number of the leads are Olivier Award winners, and it's easy to see why. Alex Jennings (Oberon/Theseus) is a treasure--as Oberon, he is commanding and masterful; and Barry Lynch is an impish, sexy Puck. All of the mechanicals are splendid, especially Desmond Barrit as Bottom. Among the lovers, Emily Raymond stands out--she really works to make Helena into a unique and sympathetic character. The actors here actually USE Shakespeare's words, instead of reciting them as poetry. How wonderful that all of these performances were preserved on film!

Having said that, I was surprised by some of the changes made to the production for this video. For one, why is the young boy included? During a few of the scenes, the camera is so focused on his reactions that the dialogue is pushed into the background. I also missed the original music--on Broadway, it was sort of Celtic, and the fairies had a beautiful dance in the final scene.

All in all, however, this is a fantastic film and the best adaptation of "Midsummer" I have seen.

I prefer a more traditional approach, and found the funky fairies rather disturbing. The bare stage and opening and closing doors were interesting. This will do very well for what I wanted it for--contrasting different approaches to the play in the classroom; however, having seen it once, I will not choose to watch it again just for pleasure. The young boy, while cute, was very distracting--what was his purpose? I thought at first he was going to play Puck, but was quickly disabused of that notion. Again--interesting, but very strange and a bit unsettling.

Psychedelic and funky, the Royal Shakespeare Players present "A Midsummer Night's Dream" with an entirely new twist to the traditional costumes and set. The fairies are portrayed wearing brightly colored tufts of fluff and their hair-do's are something to behold. The actor playing both Oberon and Theseus changes not only his attitude for each respective character but also his hair undergoes massive transformation from a hail to a Sesame Street character to something more subdued. Puck is an 80's rock star re-incarnate.

The sets are simplistic yet astounding in their simplicity. Many times they consist of only doors opening and closing to symbolize a different setting. Another interesting point to note is the use of color. The doors change colors periodically throughout the performance and can be tied to the emotion being enacted in that scene. Much of the action takes place on an empty and somewhat darkened stage.

This interpretation of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" is a unique blend of modern and traditional. While staying true to Shakespeare's written words they take liberty to play with the characters and how to interpret them. The players in the play (Bottom, Quince, etc) are portrayed as a pseudo-biker group, leather jackets included. Puck is interpreted as an extremely sexual being, which accentuates Shakespeare's tendency to incorporate the intellectual and vulgar into his plays in order to appeal to the groundlings and to the more scholarly.

Many reviewers have something to negative to say about the boy who randomly appears in this version. In a way it can be confusing but upon a closer look his appearances are not as random as one originally assumes. For example, he falls asleep and dreams himself into the play and we are seeing the action from his point of view. We get to see his reactions to the drama. Another interesting thing to note is the reappearance of the doll house. The dollhouse starts out as just a toy in the boy's room but later you see Oberon and Puck maneuvering the lovers on the stage of the doll house just as they are discussing how to maneuver them through the woods and rectify the confusion. The boy and his dollhouse are actually ingenious devices used to show the audience how true it is that the whole play is about people maneuvering people to feel a certain way or do a certain thing. For example, Oberon dislikes how Titania is keeping the Indian boy away from him so he manipulates her and makes her fall in love with a donkey. Upon awakening from the "nightmare" she gives the boy over to Oberon.

All in all I believe that this version, although somewhat raunchy in certain scenes, does an amazing job bringing a fresh interpretation to "A Midsummer Night's Dream. With the merging of a simplistic set, fantastical costumes, and overall stellar acting, this play comes to life yet again.

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.

Although I did enjoy the recent film starring Kevin Kline and Rupert Everett, I must say that this is the best video production of the play that I have seen (and I have seen many). The set design serves the play well with its juxtaposition of vivid solid colors and its use of the umbrella. The frame that Adrian Noble sets the play in, that of a boy's perception, gives the production an unexpected dose of fairy dust, blurring the lines between real and imagined even more. Whereas the Michael Hoffman film makes use of modern technology to create the fairy world, Noble's production relies on pure artistic vision. The acting is impeccable and inspired. The best Bottom I've ever seen! And check out Finbar Lynch (the Tony nominated actor for last season's "Not About Nightengales")as Puck! Just delightful!

I accidentally rented this when I was looking for the version with Calista Flockhart and Kevin Kline. I was immediately disappointed when I realized I'd rented the wrong one, but since then I've seen both and DEFINITELY prefer this one. The costumes and art direction are absolutely incredible. Although it's a bit racier than the recent Hollywood version, I recommend this video to anyone.

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.