La tempesta

I am not only a Shakespeare enthusiast, but one who values this play highly. I am puzzled why it is getting high ratings by imdb users. I rank it a six, and that only because it includes the whole text, relatively clean where you can hear it. (Much of the first scene is unintelligible because of the storm noise.)

As a film this is lousy. The production values are mid-TV level.

As Shakespeare, the director follows the stand-and-talk tradition aka "teapot" acting. Tapes of various productions are hard to find in my location. But I expect this to be near the bottom of what I find.

An easy measure of success is whether you can tell something of Caliban. If man or magical beast or something in the middle. He's just a silly distraction here. In a real production he is an important fulcrum.

Second in my viewing of BBC Shakespeare adaptations: as with the previous 'Measure for Measure', I'd not previously seen any version of the play, and was only vaguely acquainted with the plot.

Although the vengeful wizard, Prospero and to a lesser extent his sprite aide/conscience, Ariel, are the key characters, the title is an apt one in that it is the eponymous tempest, or storm - brought about by Prospero - which drives so much of the plot in that it causes to bring to Prospero's island those who had most wronged him. Not surprisingly, given that it is one of Shakespeare's later plays, I found it to be one of his most satisfying and intricately plotted, and although officially classed as a comedy, I'd probably also consider it a moral tale, in the choices and decisions it ultimately has Prospero make when he finally has his hated opponents at his mercy. Although I haven't done any further research or re-reading since my only viewing of this production, I was also interested with one of Prospero's speeches where he seemed to be suggesting that much of his situation might be entirely a dream, which would make the plot richer still (And, incidentally, the actual quote "We are such stuff As dreams are made on" was the source for Bogey's similarly memorable "that's the stuff that dreams are made of", from and about 'The Maltese Falcon')

As regards the production itself, I'd absolutely no problem with any of the sets, which more than fulfilled their functions, and allowed for the intelligence of the viewers to flesh them out; the scene where Nigel Hawthorne and Andrew Sach's character first appeared reminded me of various sets for Beckett's 'Happy Days', which is no bad thing. Acting- wise, Hordern was supreme, and well-nigh faultless; I don't understand some reviewers problem with David Dixon's Ariel, as he seemed to me to fit all the requirements of the role. Similarly, Hawthorne and Andrew Sach's characters' interaction with Warren Clarke's hirsute and mildly scary Caliban provided the necessary comic relief, ably, as they did their roles. The remaining performances and characters I'd largely consider functional.

Now I can't wait to compare and contrast with Julie Taymor's much- maligned adaptation; on the evidence of her enthralling and visually arresting adaptation of 'Titus Andronicus', I've no doubt that it will make for a worthwhile watch. On a side note, watching Andrew Sachs in this version, I was reminded of his recent very public 'spat' with Russell Brand and, given that they both played Trinculo, it should be interesting to see whose characterisation is the better one.

Although The Tempest is among Shakespeare's most popular plays and considered by many to be among his greatest, this reflective, thoughtful fantasy is not among his most frequently-filmed. This solid production, made for the BBC's series encompassing television versions of all of Shakespeare's addresses its theatrical and fantastical elements squarely, and comes off well without being great.

Michael Hordern is an excellent actor, playing his fretful, merciful old magician compellingly. His is an avuncular Prospero, and he doesn't really transmit the power or danger of the character. David Dixon, painted gold, gives a very eccentric performance as Ariel. His intentionally mannered speech patterns succeed in their presumed cause of transmitting a primary impression of otherworldliness (with also makes the fact that he's so strongly associated in my mind with The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy less of a problem). Derek Godfrey just sneers and slithers his way through Antonio. The highlights may be the scenes with Warren Clarke's excellently fierce-yet-innocent Caliban and Nigel Hawthorne excellent as always Stephano.

Camera tricks are employed in force and tread a line between distracting and effectively understated. In all, the story is told through mostly very strong performances and adequate design in which must be considered a success, but not a runaway one.

Not sure what to make of the negative comments here, but the contributors were perhaps brought up on Star Wars special effects and feel that they were sorely misused with this poor representation of the cinematic magic put forth therein. Please be assured that this taping of a stage play is very good and compared to what it might have been at the Globe is quite magical with invisibility and storms at sea well represented.

But WONDERFULLY represented are the words of the play and the art of the actors far surpass that of the usual movie fare. The amazing Michael Hordern (who also plays Capulet in the BBC's R&J) is the perfect Prospero, and from his performance I glean most enjoyment. Miranda leave something to be desired in the acting, but nothing in the appearance.

The entire play is herein represented. Most characters are well, if not wonderfully enacted. I further disagree about Caliban who captures very well the fine line between beast and man, touching on the viewers' pity, ire and loathing at various times. Do we really need to judge hair styles when watching this play on video? Are we truly a people best represented by "People" magazine? Judge for yourself if you are lucky enough to borrow or own this DVD, or fortunate enough to have seen the BBC presentation originally. This is Excellent Shakespeare, do not be misled.

The Tempest is often considered to be Shakespeare's last major play. Therefore it is easy to see why many think Prospero, the leading character, is a sort of picture of Shakespeare on the eve of his retirement; Prospero retires to Milan as Shakespeare did to Stratford and put away his magic staff as Shakespeare did his pen.

Michael Hordern was usually good as Prospero (some unfortunate line readings do not detract too much from the over-all effect.), the wizard of the island which was possibly Shakespeare's representation of the New World, then being explored. (Miranda even famously exclaims, with Aldous Huxley, "O brave new world, that has such people in't".)

David Dixon was the spirit Ariel and, he "almost has on" a sort of thong like the other spirits (dancers) that bring and then deliberately remove a magical meal before anyone has a chance to consume it. Alas, Mr. Dixon isn't that convincing as an actor here; too often he merely throws his lines out in a thoughtless manner. Both he and these other spirits seem more campy than sincere, more softcore gay porn than Shakespeare.

I'm not suggesting that other productions may not have similar displays of near-nudity which W.S. himself might well have appreciated once he got over his initial shock, but a bit more dignity might also have been in order. The "masque" towards the end was both more extended (though slightly abridged in this version.) and better done in my opinion and the music by Joseph Horovitz in this section was quite good.

Pippa and Christopher Guard were good as the young lovers Miranda and Ferdinand but they are cousins in real life and not siblings as someone else stated. The other characters were also well done including Nigel Hawthorne as the drunk Stephano and Warren Clarke as Caliban.

The opening ship scene was almost totally inaudible with the actors' lines overpowered by the sounds of the storm. But I thought that the scenery was perfectly adequate for the purpose of this TV production.