La tempesta

'The Tempest' is one of my favourite Shakespeare plays. It contains one of his most imaginative settings, which can be truly wondrous with the right budget. Again, Shakespeare's mastery of text is evident throughout with many memorable, iconic in some cases, lines, speeches and scenes. And the characters are not easy to forget, with the play boasting two of for me Shakespeare's greatest characters in Prospero and Caliban.

BBC's Television Shakespeare productions running between 1978 and 1985 is mostly most worthwhile and really fascinating, for the opportunity to see every one of Shakespeare's plays performed as one project the BBC Television Shakespeare series is a must. Not all the productions are great, but regardless of any misgivings with production values or stage direction it is great to see so many talented actors (some experienced in Shakespeare and some in early roles), seeing all of Shakespeare's work as one big project and Shakespeare adapted and performed relatively faithfully. The series' production of 'The Tempest' is a decent one with many great merits, but to me it fell short and somewhat disappointing, considering that this was one of the productions that should have been great.

It primarily suffers from looking woefully under-budgeted, as unfair as it sounds one does not at all get a sense of the wondrous place described in the text. It just looked too drab and sparse.

Some of the sound quality can be an issue, particularly at the start where the sound effects are far too loud and render the dialogue and action incomprehensible. Actually found the acting to be fine on the most part, but do agree with those who found David Dixon too mannered as Ariel.

However, Shakespeare's writing is out of this world and has a lot of impact throughout. Despite the low budget, there are some nice visual touches, and the understated camera work complements well here, and mostly a good job is done with the stage directing. It's coherent, is done in good taste and the committed performances and nice detail to the character relationships stop it from being static. The magic may be missing here, but the humour, emotion, suspense and romance are not. The music during the extended masque towards the end is really quite lovely.

Dixon aside, the acting is fine. The standouts being Michael Hordern's powerful, noble and moving Prospero with plenty of authority and Warren Clarke managing a perfect balance of monstrous and sympathetic as Caliban. Nigel Hawthorne also stands out, he (and Andrew Sachs) being vastly entertaining without thankfully overdoing the clownishness. His and Sachs' characters are problematic in how easy it is for the actors to do that. Christopher and Pippa Guard are appealing, not as strong as Hordern, Clarke and Hawthorne, but in all fairness their roles are not as meaty. Derek Godfrey sinks his teeth into Antonio.

Concluding, decent production of 'The Tempest' albeit not a great one. 7/10 Bethany Cox

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.

I love The Tempest as a play - its magic, its fun, its emotional impact. All these should be present in a good adaptation.

The problem with this version is twofold. First, it is very studio-bound, giving a feeling of flatness to the proceedings (compare to the Derek Jarman version a year earlier, or the 1950s version with Maurice Evans). Second, it suffers from inappropriate casting in key roles, notably real-life siblings Pippa and Christopher Guard as lovers Miranda and Ferdinand, and David Dixon as Ariel (the potential was there but it just didn't work).

Michael Hordern is however fine as Prospero, and Nigel Hawthorne and Andrew Sachs provide some comedy. Warren Clarke is a monstrous and diverting Caliban, devoid of magic but with some sense of the injustice he feels at his treatment on the island.

Some clever ideas and some very good scenes (notably when the goddesses appear, singing), but this Tempest is too dry and flat to be really engrossing.

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.

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.