A Midsummer Night's Dream

Rating:
Summary: Not perfect, but certainly worth watching
Review: To make Shakespeare accessible, you have to make it entertaining. Not just entertaining to those who already know and love his work, but entertaining to those who have never picked up a Folger edition of anything in their lives.

I teach English to teenagers. Teenagers, who gasp in horror at the mention of Shakespeare. Teenagers, with their 30 second attention spans, faulty grasp of the modern English they supposedly speak, and affection for the physical comedy of the likes of "Jackass."

So, how do we make teenagers like Shakespeare? We edit. So, naturally, some of the best speeches are missing or drastically shortened (remember, 30 second attention spans); the physical, often silly humor is accented; and the women mud wrestle. So what?

This movie is entertaining. At times, it is enchanting. It is fast-paced, visually interesting, and funny. The emphasis is shifted away from the complexities of the language because it is the language, the very thing we love about Shakespeare, that makes these plays inaccessible to the majority of the American movie audience.

I use this film because it is easy to understand. The actors have faces my students recognize, and it gets them excited about Shakespeare.

What this film does is to put the content of the play within the grasp of its modern audience. Shakespeare himself would have done no less.

Rating:
Summary: A Midsummer Night's Dream
Review: A Midsummer Night's Dream is a poetic, sassy, and sultry play which I absolutely adore. This video is the one, I feel, that embodies the essence of this amazing play, and I absolutely love it.

The casting of this film is very close to perfect. I can't think of anyone better to play the slightly tipped Helena than Flockheart. The rest of the character casting is nearly just as perfect (most notably, Kline as Bottom, Everett as Oberon, and Friel as Hermia). The only bone I have to pick with the casting is Pfeiffer, who I personally think makes a horrible Titania. She really overacts in this show and speaks as though she doesn't even know what the words mean.

I am so impressed with the way they did the setting, however. I am amazed at how closely the fairy grove and the rendezvous of the lovers matched how I imagined them when reading the play. However, for some reason Theseus' palace is in Italy rather than Athens, and bicycles have been added to the plot. I'm not sure why, and am slightly annoyed at the fiddling that's been done with the plot.

All in all, however, I love this film. I watch it over and over again. There are a few mistakes here and there--with the words, the casting, the plot--but it's easy to deal with. Overall this show is very fun, and definitely worth getting if you love Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream.

Rating:
Summary: Pleasant Adaptation of Shakespeare's Romantic Comedy
Review: The biggest draw of the film, is, of course its top-shelf cast. Hoffman stuffed as many familiar faces as he could in his light, accessible interpretation of Shakespeare's work.
The story involves, lovers, jealously, magic and trickery. Calista Flockhart does a surprisingly good job as Helena, a woman who pines for Demetrius (a bland Christian Bale), and is a rival of Lysander (and equally bland Dominic West) for the love of Hermia (a nonexistent Anna Friel). While this is going on, King Oberon of the faeries (a suitably handsome and dashing Rupert Everett) is jealous that his Queen Titania (Michelle Pfeiffer, stunning) is not paying him enough attention. So with his right-hand man, Puck (Stanley Tucci), he puts a spell on Titania. Through complicated plot twists, Hermia falls out of favor with both Lysander and Demetrius, a troup of actors, lead by Bottom (Kevin Kline) plan to perform a play; Bottom is turned into an ass; and Titania falls in love with Bottom. The play's convultedness is dizzying, but pretty straight forward to follow.
The set is excellent in its appropriate lushness, and the all-star cast is hit-and-miss. Kline is the best of all, giving nuances to Bottom -- essentially he gives Bottom dignity and makes more than an ass -- Rupert Everett, lounging around half-naked as if he's modeling in a _GQ_ Spread is good as Oberon, though he doesn't have to do much but pout and look handsome -- both of which he does superbly. Flockhart surprises with a deft command of the dialogue and comedy; Tucci is suitably impish as Puck; Pfeiffer as Titania, is impossibly beautiful. Her performance is also very funny, and loose -- to be sure her screen time is limited, but she makes an impact, almost as impressive as Kline's -- and judging from the quality of his performance, that is quite an achievment.

Rating:
Summary: Am I the only one who loved the 1935 version?
Review: First of all, I am not a Shakespeare afficionado.

The 1935 version of this film is the best one, as far as I am concerned. It is in fact, the only Shakespeare rendition I have ever truly liked. I have loved it since I was a kid.

I watched this new version with my husband when it was first released. I'm not saying it is a bad film, and Kevin Kline is just marvelous in anything he does.

The original film had wonderful cinematography, although I'm sure many people would think it crude and outdated. It was shot using soft focus filters, and other filters that added sparkle and star effects. This gave the film a very magical quality. The new version lacked that entirely. It was just ordinary. There was no magic to it.

Also, this film used only certain pieces from Mendelssohn's exquisite original music. The rest of the score was selections from various operas and other classical pieces.

I wish the original was available on DVD.

This film is a poor imitation, and I'm not surprised it can be found everywhere for such a low price.







Rating:
Summary: pretty colors, pummeled plot
Review: This director seems to like pretty colors.

If you are into pretty colors, and if you know nothing about Shakespeare, you will probably like this movie. Shakespeare is so good that even after one of his works has been butchered with a meat cleaver, it still holds up fairly well.

If you know quite a bit about Shakespeare, you will probably hate it. The movie should actually be much funnier than it is, because there are many laughs in the script that were either cut out or performed incorrectly. Particularly annoying is when something really good gets cut (presumably for time) and is replaced by some visual nonsense or discretely-naked people (there are leaves and flowers everywhere, always in just the right place) doing... well, nothing relevant! But there are other examples where characters are either reacting (or not reacting) in a fashion contrary to what Shakespeare meant. For example, in the first scene with Bottom, he should wear much more harshly on everyone's patience. Bottom is, after all, an "ass," and his name is no coincidence. Bottom is the prototypical scene-stealing, self-important actor that Shakespeare warned actors NOT to be in Hamlet, and that Shakespeare obviously decided to make fun of in this play. That scene is extremely well written and should be 4-5 times more enjoyable than it was performed. All the added b.s. did was slow down the pace and distract from the basic gist of the scene. I don't see this as the actors' faults. This one falls squarely on the shoulders of a banal, unintelligent director, who probably didn't even realize all the damage he was doing.

In sum, if you know the play, you will be offended by deletions that seem blasphemous and additions that are pointless and irrelevant. If you don't know the play, you won't know the play has been sullied in this manner, and you may like the visual nonsense, discreetly-naked people, and various other cheap devices. Hence the dichotomy of reactions.




Rating:
Summary: A chopped salad using only portions of Shakespeare
Review: The full title of this movie is "William Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream", however, it should be "Michael Hoffman's Adaptation of A Midsummer Night's Dream". There is really no attempt to present what Shakespeare actually wrote. Sure, they use some of his words, but everything is chopped up and made subservient to the visual images (most contrary to Elizabethan theater), and to the limitations of the actors.

It is interesting that the more able the actor the closer their lines match what is in the actual play, and the more we are dealing with a movie or TV star the more impressionistically are the words of Shakespeare used.

One of the problems most movies of Shakespeare have, and this one has in spades, is the variety of accents and style of delivery. This polyglot casting creates a muddle of meter, rhythm, and pacing.

Am I upset that the movie is in 19th century Italy with bicycles? Not really, that kind of thing might work, what I am upset about is the causal approach to the true text of Shakespeare. Certainly, some cuts can work, but this kind of wholesale chopping is just bad and a disservice to our greatest writer.

I usually don't give bad reviews, and I hate to give one now because of how much I admire some members of this cast, but this movie is botched from beginning to end.


Rating:
Summary: Does what a good movie should: make you laugh and feel good!
Review: I watched this DVD by myself, and I think this is the way one should watch movies; no distractions. English is not my native tongue, although I'm totally bilingual (Spanish-English), however I was absolutely enthralled and delighted by Shakespeare's Old English poetry and in the end I think I got all the meanings right. I will not dwell on the content, but in the feelings it provoked, all the time surprising in the plot and development of the story and also in the mostly gratifying performances of the cast. The settings were as they are supposed to be: fantastic and unreal. The final play-within-a-play was superlatively funny. In sum, the movie left me with an ear-to-ear grin and a wholesome good feeling that lasted me all evening and a good part of the next day. I will only say to the other would-be critics that this is a movie best judged by its ability to evoke feelings and less for its technical and/or acting/directing characteristics. A word of caution: Do not try to compare it to a stage play; this is a movie, with the constraints and limitations of movies and also with some advantages over plays, so, oranges vs. apples, different, no? Both can be delicious, each in its own way.
What is a movie for? My opinion: to make you feel something. NOT to satisfy supercilious and punctilious critics. Therefore I rate this as one of the best movies I have ever experienced and I heartily recommend it to most viewers.


Rating:
Summary: Not perfect, but certainly worth watching
Review: To make Shakespeare accessible, you have to make it entertaining. Not just entertaining to those who already know and love his work, but entertaining to those who have never picked up a Folger edition of anything in their lives.

I teach English to teenagers. Teenagers, who gasp in horror at the mention of Shakespeare. Teenagers, with their 30 second attention spans, faulty grasp of the modern English they supposedly speak, and affection for the physical comedy of the likes of "Jackass."

So, how do we make teenagers like Shakespeare? We edit. So, naturally, some of the best speeches are missing or drastically shortened (remember, 30 second attention spans); the physical, often silly humor is accented; and the women mud wrestle. So what?

This movie is entertaining. At times, it is enchanting. It is fast-paced, visually interesting, and funny. The emphasis is shifted away from the complexities of the language because it is the language, the very thing we love about Shakespeare, that makes these plays inaccessible to the majority of the American movie audience.

I use this film because it is easy to understand. The actors have faces my students recognize, and it gets them excited about Shakespeare.

What this film does is to put the content of the play within the grasp of its modern audience. Shakespeare himself would have done no less.

Rating:
Summary: An occasional dream
Review: One of Shakespeare's most beloved works finally gets a modern cinematic makeover, good news for all of those who'd rather not see Mickey Rooney's Puck again. Unfortunately the latest retelling leaves much to be desired. Though mostly enjoyable, this film could use a good shot of fairy dust.

The story concerns three sets of lovers - Hermia and Lysander, Helena and Demetrius, and fairy royalty Titania and Oberon. The first pair loves each other but cannot marry because Hermia is betrothed to Demetrius, the object of Helena's desperate affection. When Hermia and Lysander steal away, the second couple makes chase and all four end up lost in the woods where our third pair, the quarreling fairy king and queen, reside. Oberon, dissatisfied with all about him, enlists his servant, Puck, to make amends. Puck is to place a spell on Demetrius so that he will fall in love with Helena, but a case of mistaken identity causes Lysander to become smitten with her. Meanwhile, a traveling actors troupe, led by Nick Bottom, stumbles into the woods for a late-night rehearsal. They prepare a play for the Duke's wedding and soon become the object of the fairies' mischief.

With the shell of Shakespeare's original, this movie pulls of adequate amounts of wit and humor; clearly the script is better than most. Despite Puck's much abbreviated role, it remains a light comedy and surreal and magical in every sense. The costuming, makeup, and Italian backdrop add to the enchantment and are some of the most enjoyable aspects of an aesthetically pleasing film. I loved the energy of Monte Athena in turn-of-the-century Italy (punctuated by a soundtrack of renowned operatic talent), although it added little to the understanding of the story or the updated time period.

My main qualm for this otherwise fanciful retelling is the distracted acting, which ranges from inspiring to embarrassing. Shakespeare's language, archaic by our standards, depends on talented actors and directors to lift it and his beautiful stories from obscurity. Kevin Kline proves that you don't need an English accent to perform Shakespeare effectively. His Nick Bottom is the most rounded character in the film, wholly human and rich with emotions thick enough to dip your fingers through. Anna Friel's Hermia acutely defines the play's romance and innocence. Along with Kline, she seems the most comfortable in her role and possesses a grace and naturalness absent from the other female characters. Dominic West gives an amusing and (sometimes) smitten Lysander to Friel's Hermia. I also liked Roger Rees' affectionate Peter Quince. The remainder of the cast spirals downward. Calista Flockhart as Hermia and Michelle Pfieffer as Titania appear uncomfortable and rather unsure of their characters, as if they are too afraid of fouling up the Bard's work to dig deeply into it. Rupert Everett's Oberon is tired and melancholy to a point of boredom. I am still trying to figure out why David Strathrain, who lacks the nobleness of his character, was cast as the Duke. Poor Sophie Marceau should have stuck with Mel Gibson. Though I would not have picked Stanley Tucci for Puck, he provides a slightly amusing if ineffectual performance, as does Christian Bale as Demetrius.

Because of the spotty acting, the film never gels completely. An unfamiliarity with the play by certain actors interrupts otherwise fluid scenes. Those who act well in this film make it worth watching; the others leave us wanting more.