A Midsummer Night's Dream

Though many praise this version of A Midsummer Night's Dream, I find it strange, creepy, and hilarious. Maybe I can't appreciate it because I'm only in high school, but after studying the play, the movie was not what I expected. Though it looks like it was produced in someone's basement while they were under the influence, most of the movie is just funny. Many of Shakespeare's dirty jokes are stressed, and that's the strange part. Also, the boy supposedly dreaming this enters whenever he pleases. Not only is he annoying, but he looks about 6 or 7. I hope my 6 year old never dreams about the content in A Midsummer Night's Dream, especially the way it's portrayed in this reproduction. Weird!!!

This film is based on a wonderful stage production that was staged by the RSC in 1994. On stage it was superb, and I think of it as one of the best times I've ever had in the theatre.

The film, however, is a complete mess. All the effects that were so magical in the theatre - the forest of lightbulbs, the flying umbrellas, the mysterious doors - look ridiculous when they're turned into bad computer graphics. And although some of the performances are good - especially Alex Jennings and Des Barritt - the pacing of the film seems poor. In particular, the mechanicals scenes are stilted and unfunny - and 'Pyramus and Thisbe' is mangled with poorly-timed slapstick and glooping sentimentality. And most annoyingly of all, Noble introduces a Macauley Culkin lookalike, who runs around being wide-eyed and imaginitive, infusing the film with unnecesary Hollywood schmaltz.

I regard this film as a brave, but poorly-executed attempt at translating faithfully a stage production to film. It doesn't really work, but at least Noble's vision is more imaginitive than the other films of the 'Dream'. And bad though the film is, it's still better than the ghastly Michelle Pfeiffer / Kevin Kline version, which should be avoided like the plague.

The Royal Shakespeare version of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" is highly conceptual; in fact it is quite abstract. However, as an English teacher I prefer this version over the Michelle Pfeiffer/Calista Flockhart/Rupert Everett version; mainly because it does not mess with Shakespeare's text. My students have watched both versions as they studied "Midsummer..." (although it should be noted at this point that this version is a bit naughty...the Royal Shakespeare Company brings out that quality which is found in Shakespeare's comedies). During the viewing I suggested that they tried to follow along in their texts. We quickly found that the latest film version rearranges chunks of text freely (for example part of Helena's last speech in Act I: Scene I occurs after Act I: Scene II where the rustics are introduced). I did not find this interpretation disappointing at all. One must remember that it is based on a stage production. Perhaps the fact that I hold a degree in Theatre is the reason I found it so enjoyable. I agree that the adding of the boy is a nice touch for the film; however, it did confuse some of my students. This version provides a nice contrast to some of the other versions.

"On one night of every year, the boundary between the daylight and twilight worlds is thin as air." Shown as a stage play but uses excessive camera tricks to display a colorful version that still keeps iambic pentameter. At least it is not one of those present-day versions that force Shakespeare into contemporary clothing.

Only occasionally moving a play to a different time or place can it keep its magic. This presentation is of no real-time or place but seems to have borrowed from the junk leftover from previous plays, containing part stage and part Victorian England, with a dash of Alice in Wonderland.

Lots of nice colors and music. However, everyone goes around kissing everyone but the person they should be kissing; you can call it artistic license but I call it a distraction for the purpose or base story. For those people that do not like the introduction of bicycles and nudity as in another version, take heart as there is no nudity or bicycles. The bicycles are replaced with Mary Poppin's type of umbrellas. O. K. I lied there is the E. T. bicycle scene, motorcycles with sidecars motorcycles.

Usually, this tail is played out by well-known actors so I must confess that even though this is the Royal Shakespeare Company production I do not recognize anyone.

One big missing part is where Nick Bottom is transferred into a donkey. Too bad as that is one of the best parts. He just pops up with ears and teeth. That is like showing Hamlet without Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.

You need to watch any other production before this one as "Who would not change a raven for a dove?"

Presented by the "Royal Shakespeare Company" Starring:

Lindsay Duncan as Hippolyta/Titania Alex Jennings as Theseus/Oberon

Desmond Barrit as Nick Bottom Barry Lynch as Puck/Philostrate

The Lovers:

Hermia - Monica Dolan Demetrius - Kevin Doyle Lysander - Daniel Evans Helena - Emily Raymond

Egeus - Alfred Burke The boy - Osheen Jones.

This is a fantastic play.With the exception of Daniel Evans, who's strong Welsh accent becomes grating when reciting Shakespeare, so were the players.Congrats to RSC on keeping the original idea of each actor playing two characters.They could've easily gone the easy route.However, you lose all that in the presentation.The bright colors and bizarre props( bubbles,bicycles,umbrellas etc)distract from the actors.The whole thing has a very sixties acid trip vibe. Thumbs up for Barry Lynch. He made an excellent Puck.And Philostrate. I recommend the version with Stanley Tucci over this one, however. now they're saying I need at least ten lines which I thought I had but o well, I'll try to fix it.