oldgirl
If ever there was a film that actually improved upon the Shakespeare text, this is the one. The director's fluid treatment of the boundaries between light and dark, dream and dream, innocence and awareness, and fear and fantasy is really something to behold. Absolutely loved the timeless, yet contemporary feel of the costumes, and though it took some getting used to, eventually fell prey to the spell of the very strange and mystical 'forest' with its opening/shutting, rising/falling doors, quirky dangling lights, and odd, angular levels. Just the look of this film adds depth and resonance to Shakespeare's 'dream' motif. The superb acting - especially on the part of Lynch (Puck/Philostrate) and Barritt (Bottom) -- neither weighs down the lines (as so many British productions do) with pomposity nor allows the lines to weigh down the actors (as so many American productions do). Fantastic, fresh feel to this take on what has usually been nothing more than a fluffy little fantasy. And it's so-o-o-o much better than that mannered monstrosity given birth by Hollywood. Long live the Royal Shakespeare Company!
shaneandcarmen
This is a fantastic play.With the exception of Daniel Evans, who's strong Welsh accent becomes grating when reciting Shakespeare, so were the players.Congrats to RSC on keeping the original idea of each actor playing two characters.They could've easily gone the easy route.However, you lose all that in the presentation.The bright colors and bizarre props( bubbles,bicycles,umbrellas etc)distract from the actors.The whole thing has a very sixties acid trip vibe. Thumbs up for Barry Lynch. He made an excellent Puck.And Philostrate. I recommend the version with Stanley Tucci over this one, however. now they're saying I need at least ten lines which I thought I had but o well, I'll try to fix it.
Sarah-60
I studied this play at school, saw several stage productions, and loved it, so I was looking forward to this RSC production.So first of all - what's with the little boy? I found his presence annoying and distracting. Sadly, the opening scene was delivered with practically no life, and that's where I switched off, too bored to continue.So obviously, you should take this review with a big pinch of salt, cos I only watched a few minutes.But just a few weeks later, the Kevin Kline version was on TV, late one night. I was highly suspicious, but gave it a chance. I was hooked almost straight away, and all the way through. So make of that what you will....
sg_otsr
The Royal Shakespeare version of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" is highly conceptual; in fact it is quite abstract. However, as an English teacher I prefer this version over the Michelle Pfeiffer/Calista Flockhart/Rupert Everett version; mainly because it does not mess with Shakespeare's text. My students have watched both versions as they studied "Midsummer..." (although it should be noted at this point that this version is a bit naughty...the Royal Shakespeare Company brings out that quality which is found in Shakespeare's comedies). During the viewing I suggested that they tried to follow along in their texts. We quickly found that the latest film version rearranges chunks of text freely (for example part of Helena's last speech in Act I: Scene I occurs after Act I: Scene II where the rustics are introduced). I did not find this interpretation disappointing at all. One must remember that it is based on a stage production. Perhaps the fact that I hold a degree in Theatre is the reason I found it so enjoyable. I agree that the adding of the boy is a nice touch for the film; however, it did confuse some of my students. This version provides a nice contrast to some of the other versions.
AD
