Sonho de uma Noite de Verão

I came across this movie one rainy afternoon on TV. Jimmy Cagney doing Shakespeare? Surely not! My expectations were, frankly, low. We English are a bit funny about Shakespeare, as you can imagine, and the thought of the dirty rat as one of the bard's greatest comic creations was worrying, to say the least. The whole film is, however, magical. I laughed out loud at the wall joke, even though I knew what was coming, and Roony's Puck was, as another contributor says, probably his best performance. Bottom's realisation that he is now the proud possessor of an ass's head is quite affecting. It's Titania's fairies, though, that make this such a wonderful experience. I have seen this a couple of times since that rainy afternoon, and am always convinced that it will not live up to my expectations. It always does, though. The sheer beauty of the scene where the fairies awake is, as we say over here, gob-smacking. I am sure that this could never be done with such picturesque quality in colour. I had this on tape for a long time, and then I lent it to some eejit who erased it. I scan the listings every week to see if it's on TV, and when it is I shall make sure that it never leaves my possession.

Pre-1950 film adaptations of Shakespeare's plays have varied in quality. Some were good and more, especially Laurence Olivier's brilliant 1948 adaptation of 'Hamlet', though that is something to see on its own terms. Others were average or less, with one example being the 1936 film of 'As You Like It', which was very static and stagy and had a badly miscast Rosalind. Had little doubt that this film would be at least above average, considering that the play is one of Shakespeare's best and because the cast is so good.

1935's 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' is a dream. To me it is not just the best screen/film adaptation of 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' (bar none), it is also one of the best film versions of any Shakespeare play pre-1950 and perhaps overall. As well as one of the best adaptations of 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' full stop, for me only the National Theatre Live and Julie Taymor productions are better though once again as standalones. It has very few if any of the things that other early Shakespeare film adaptations did and is full of magic and entertainment value. It's not perfect, but there is so much to adore here.

For one thing, the photography is exquisite and the settings and such are very lavish and rustic. The world one is immersed in being truly fantastical. Also loved the use of Mendelssohn's music, the music itself some of his best loved for good reason (and he was only 16 when he wrote it!) and it is used cleverly and tastefully. Korngold's, one of my favourite film composers, contribution is typically lush and rousing without being over-scored.

The dancing is beautifully choreographed and danced with great grace and elegance, as well as shot and edited in an appropriately dream-like way. The writing is still incredibly funny, without trying too hard, and also beautifully poetic. The story is incredibly charming and told with great spirit, doing nothing to confuse a story that is already quite complicated. The action is opened up enough to not betray stage origins and the atmosphere is suitably magical. The direction is beautifully theatrical, Reinhardt's theatre roots are evident without hurting the drama. The comedy hits the mark, especially with Bottom.

Most of the performances are great, with two exceptions. James Cagney is a sheer delight as Bottom in a role that is so different to what he was usually cast as and shows that he did have a light and funny side to him. Mickey Rooney's performance has left people more mixed, count me in as one of the people that loved his Puck and consider it one of his better performances. The mischievous energy he embodies is infectious. Olivia De Havilland is a charming Hermia and Victor Jory a sinister, amusing and textbook Oberon. Anita Louise's Titania is spirited and regal and Ian Hunter and Joe E. Brown are very good.

Only two performances don't come over as well. One is Dick Powell, who is very bland and too earnest. The other is the very irritating Hugh Herbert, who was always an acquired taste and was very take and leave for me.

Also found the finale on the overblown side.

Concluding however, great. 9/10.

Max Reinhardt's theatre production, together with William Dieterle's directorial flair, brings Shakespeare to Hollywood. The ideas and effects within this vision are brilliant, although the detail has undoubtedly diminished with the wear and tear of several decades.

Best in the actors are Mickey Rooney as Puck, and Joe E Brown as Flute. James Cagney is Bottom, Anita Louise is Titania, Victor Jory is Oberon, Olivia de Havilland and Dick Powell are amongst the lovers. All are ok but nothing special. The little changeling is Kenneth Anger, who would later be vitriolic in his book 'Hollywood Babylon'.

Perhaps the best thing about this film is how it looks. It truly is magical, and you get the sense of fairies and sprites causing mischief and confusion deep in the woods. I have the feeling it would look superb in colour.

Though another commentator disagrees, if Rooney is not the greatest Puck you've ever seen, then tell me who is. With all respect to a talented actor, the sad part is that he played his greatest role when he was, what, 14?

The greatest Shakespeare movie of all time, in my opinion. The dazzling cinematography for its age. The fact that they got the mostly American actors to speak the lines properly. That inspired scene with a fairy jazz band. The special "star spangled" effect.

The criticism that scenes are overly long is related to a more modern perception of how long a scene should be, and alas, Shakespeare is mostly unmercifully cut (look at Olivier's last "King Lear"--Branaghs "Hamlet" would be an exception). Shakespeare just wrote long scenes. You woulnd't have Juliet on the balcony just say "I love you, Romeo," and disappear.

Since "Shakespeare in Love" made that particular playwright happening and new, check out this, Warner Bros.' wild, expensive, free-wheeling adaptation of "A Midsummer Night's Dream".

For me, James Cagney makes the movie. He's Nick Bottom, the leader (or so he believes) of a traveling troupe of actors. He gives an invigorating performance--the screen is his. At one point, he gets to wear a donkey's head (if you know the play, you know what I'm talking about), but it doesn't faze him in the least. Cagney, the most energetic screen actor, doesn't let his over-the-top approach mar his skill or care with The Bard's great words. It's the test of anyone wishing to act out a part in a Shakespeare play, which Cagney passes, to "speak" the dialogue, and by doing so, make what might be confusing on the page understandable to audiences on the screen or stage.

Warner really spared no expense with this production, which I think might have been the costliest of that year. The whole affair is like a dream in every way--it seems to sway in the wind, fragile to the touch. It features Mendolssohn music, soft-white photography (the great Hal Mohr), and some of the most incredible sets and costumes you're likely to see in a 1930s film.

Nominated for three Academy Awards: Picture, Cinematography and Editing. Bested by "Mutiny on the Bounty" for the first, it won the other two.