The Tempest

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.

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.

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 production values are weak, the handling of the spirits is laughable, the wedding masque is tedious, and Ferdinand's hairstyle seems, to our current sense of fashion, ludicrous. BUT this television of Shakespeare's play is to be prized for some excellent performances, most notably Michael Hordern's restrained, intelligent, compassionate and emotionally profound performance as Prospero. Listen to him handle the difficult exposition in Act I, watch how he gives his approval to his daughter's marriage, how he releases Ariel, and the wonderful transition he makes into the final epilogue. There are some fine performances here--you just have to look past some unfortunate design and directorial choices.

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.