Le songe d'une nuit d'été

Yes, it's clear that director Peter Hall was influenced by Richard Lester in his filming of Shakespeare's classic comedy/fantasy: the hand-held camera, jump cutting, etc. And while one could quibble with some of his derivative directorial choices, there's no arguing that this is the best-acted "Dream" on film available.

There's hardly a weak link in the cast, with the exception of David Warner and Michael Jayston as the male half of the quartet of lovers. Warner is a skilled classical actor, but he never had an ounce of charm. Jayston is competent, but dull and colorless.

But the rest of the cast is marvelous, with special kudos to Helen Mirren, Diana Rigg, Ian Richardson, and Judi Dench as a very sexy Titania. Ian Holm's snake-tongue bit as Puck gets old, but his somewhat malevolent rendition of Puck is well done.

I'm surprised that no one has made more out of Paul Rodgers superb Bottom, by far the best I've ever seen on stage or screen. Unlike so many actors who broadly overplay the role to wring laughs, Rodgers plays Bottom completely straight and with total conviction - never descending to self-conscious comedic playing. And he's all the more hilarious for it. This Pyramus and Thisbee playlet at the end is the funniest ever.

This is the Royal Shakespeare Company at its best. I mean, hey. Not only do we get a treat to Diana Rigg's Helena in her pre-Emma Peel days but look at lovely Helen Mirren's delightful Hermia. The youths, David Warner and Michael Jayston are great, twirled and swizzled by Ian Holm's delightful Puck messing up the good intentions of the bug-eyed Ian Richardson's Oberon. But, a semi-nude Judi Dench-- all in green-- is likewise delightful in her cavorting with Paul Rogers's Bottom. The rest of the players within a play, Swift, Shaw, Eccles, Normington and the great Bill Travers (who can ever forget him in 'Big Time Operators,' or 'Wee Geordie?')as Snout. There is wonder in this romp through the woods, where the lovers keep getting dirtier and dirtier, as the sprites, fairies and gnomes are green. This is a wonderful version that will only be approached 31 years later. As for the later (1996) RSC version..., well, you'll have to go there and see my comments. But, in my view, it can't approach the fun, mirth and joy of this wonderful production.

A fine, and sadly forgotten, version of Shakespeare's most amusing play. I suppose I am not the only male person who discovered a simultaneous love for the Bard and Diana Rigg in what was (then) a scandalously scantily clad television spectacular. This is, if nothing else, one of the many evidences that the Brits breed actors in a way we don't. The cast, which is by British standards only second-tier, outdoes anything that we could scrape together. Sheer fun; it's us, and not just Shakespeare, in love.

I was channel surfing one day and came upon this film. Unbelievable acting and costumes. I was glad I found it, most entertaining. This is one movie which should go down in history as one of the "must sees". Wish I could personally shake Clive Swift's hand for a wonderful performance in this classic, along with all the other performers! The "costumes" used to portray the individuals in each of their roles was wonderfully done. Also, the "life" put into each of Shakespeare's characters is outstanding. If one does not understand the play by reading it, one will surely understand it after watching this film! This is also a perfect film to see Clive Swift do some other acting other than his extraordinary performance upon "Keeping up Appearances".

This is not only the best version of the play available on film, it is easily one of the five best Shakespearian films of all (at least in English).

The fact that it was made on less than a shoestring budget is totally irrelevant. Whether or not there are any special effects, the photography by the renowned Peter Suschitzky ("Dead Ringers", "Empire Strikes Back", "Spider") is excellent. It's not only pictorial, but contributes greatly to the spontaneous, irreverent, slapstick-esquire approach to the whole production, which Peter Hall and his marvelous actors worked so hard to achieve. The locations are also ideal, given the modernized, anglicized look of the production.

Director Hall's interpretation of the play comes as close to 'perfection' as an enthusiast of the Bard could possibly ask for. He refuses to reduce the play to an erotic fantasy, as so many other have done (i.e. the 1999 film), and he rejects the even more common temptation to turn it into a loud, garish costume-ball. In other word, Hall presents the play as Shekespeare wrote it.It relies for its appeal on marvelous words and gestures, not on costumes and special effects.

As for the cast, one only need to look at the big names on the list to see that this production was literally one-of-a-kind. Actually the least famous major player in this company is the one most worthy of note: Paul Rogers, a wonderful character actor and a frequent collaborator of Alec Guinness, is quite possibly the best Bottom that most of us (in this day and age) are ever likely to see. Both Cagney and Kevin Kline were terrific in the major films, but Paul Rogers IS Bottom.

It says something about both film audiences and readers that the 1935 Warner Bros. film with James Cagney is rated more highly on the IMDb than this production. In that pretty but vapid collection of songs and dances, you could hardly hear any of Shakespeare's words, and if you could you would have to cringe, since almost none of the actors could adequately speak the lines. Cagney was good, but the rest was silence. GO WITH THIS VERSION INSTEAD! Fortunately, it was recently made available on DVD.