A Midsummer Night's Dream 1996

This is a Royal Shakespeare Company production, and it has the look of a stage production that was adapted to screen. That can work well, but in this case, the adaptation doesn’t work so well. There's a little bit too much "staginess" about it. The actors understand their characters and convincingly deliver their lines as if they know what they mean. Let me briefly explain what I mean by "staginess:" the actors seem to be very aware that this is a Shakespeare play and they are in the RSC, and they are supposed to pronounce things in a Shakespearean way and sound Shakespearean. In order to get through to the people in the cheap seats, a stage actor needs bigger movements and louder, clearer speech than a film actor. These actors seem to have been told to do what they always do, and the camera will be over that way. It gets to be a bit much by the end, and I think the film would have been improved by more natural performances. There are also moments that must have been the director’s favorite bits, but should have been edited out (I’m thinking of when Theseus roars directly at the camera. It’s impossible on stage, so why not try it in a movie, except that it doesn’t make sense and doesn’t work).

This is the weirdest version of A Midsummer Night's Dream that I've seen. It's framed as the dream of a little boy, which seems like a good idea if you haven't already seen Julie Taymor's Titus. Instead of a real world–fairy world contrast, the whole film takes place in a vibrant Seussian dreamscape. I miss that contrast. I think I must have written a paper about it in college.

I’m ok with weird, as long as it makes sense. I thought the production’s take on fairyland was very interesting, with lightbulbs descending from the sky and doors appearing out of the ground. Sometimes this can look like a production just didn’t have the budget to afford a real set, but in this case, the minimalist approach provided just enough information and just enough spectacle. I like the lightbulbs; they would be really cool on stage. Well done. Athens, though, with all the hairspray, flowing gowns, and candles, looks like a Whitesnake video. And a fire hazard.

Adrian Noble seems to have had a strong dislike of the “fourth wall.” He places The Boy, played by Osheen Jones (who, incidentally, played Young Lucius in Taymor’s Titus), in the action, standing in as the proxy for the audience. The boy is in the play, the play is in his dream. It would be a really cool nesting of realities if it worked. The characters seem to recognize that he’s there (sometimes) and direct their soliloquies to him (sometimes) and try to scare him (sometimes). Mostly he’s there to show us how we’re supposed to feel about the story, because I guess Shakespeare wasn’t a good enough writer to convey that, or maybe because we’re too dim to understand what’s going on.

The overall impression is that it’s a film by people who would be much more comfortable working on stage, but excited to finally be able to use all the ideas they’ve ever had for a movie.

I have one last note before I finish: I had to watch this twice because when I checked imdb.com, I noticed that one of the fairies is played by Ann Hasson, who was amazing as Juliet in the 1976 Thames Television Romeo and Juliet. I think she’s the “Over hill, over dale / Thorough bush, thorough briar” fairy. It’s amazing what makeup can do.

Here’s how I rate this production:

1. Midsummer Night's Dream. Dir. Max Reinhardt and William Dieterle. Perf. James Cagney, Joe E. Brown, and Dick Powell. 1935. DVD. Warner Bros, 2007. (imdb.com)
2. Midsummer Night's Dream. Dir. Elijah Moshinsky. Perf. Helen Mirren, Peter McEnery and Pippa Guard. 1981. DVD. Ambrose, 2000 or 2001. (imdb.com)
3. Midsummer Night’s Dream. Dir. Adrian Noble. Perf. Alex Jennings, Lindsay Duncan, and Finbar Lynch. 1996. Netflix.com, 25 MAR 2015. (DVD. Miramax Lionsgate, 2011.) (imdb.com)
4. Midsummer Night's Dream. Dir. Peter Hall. Perf. Helen Mirren, Diana Rigg, and Ian Richardson. 1968. DVD. Water Bearer, 2004. (imdb.com)

To be fair, Julie Taymor’s Titus came out in 1999, three years after this A Midsummer Night’s Dream, so I could just as easily be criticizing her.

Another Richard II: The Royal Shakespeare Company - With David Tennant!

I'm taking a little break from A Midsummer Night's Dream because the DVD of the RSC production of David Tennant in Richard II arrived a while back, and I'm not going to wait any longer to watch it. And it's Richard II! My favorite Shakespearean history! And it has David Tennant! I might get my wife to watch this!

I think it's hard for David Tennant to shake his Doctor Who character, and Richard probably isn't the role to use to break out of that stereotype. I think it would be great to see him as Richard III, or Edmund from King Lear. In this production, though, David Tennant sort of finds one note and sticks with it. It's a good note, but he is capable of so much more.

This Richard II is a filmed theater production. The actors are on a thrust stage in front of a proscenium. There are also ramps for actors to enter and exit in the front corners, and musicians are high above the audience on the sides. Lighting effects and an occasional chair fill in for scenery. The audience surrounds the stage on three sides, and appears to have been coached to keep still and keep quiet. The setup is actually not too far off from the Blackfriars stage that the Lord Chamberlain’s Men would have used, although I believe they were mostly working at The Globe when Richard was probably written. I’ll let that go, though. Richard II was a politically very dangerous play to put on at all. It’s reasonable to think that it was too hot to be shown a The Globe, but may have been performed more often indoors, by request, at Blackfriars.

So how did it turn out? Well, not bad. Richard II will never be a comedy, but Shakespeare wrote in a few good jokes here and there, and even the heavier dramatic scenes have at least a few laughs thrown in to cut the tension. This production is so serious that the audience is ready to jump on any opportunity for a little giggle. The appearance is that everyone knows who the star is, and nobody’s going to get in his way. Nigel Lindsay is appropriately bland and masculine as Bolingbroke. Michael Pennington is no John Gielgud or Patrick Stewart, but he still makes a solidly good John of Gaunt. Emma Hamilton does what she can as the Queen. Oliver Rix is given a bit more meat to chew on as Aumerle. You might recognize Oliver Ford Davies from his role as Naboo politician Sio Bibble in the Star Wars prequels. It’s pretty much the same role, just with better writing.

This is not my favorite Richard II. I enjoyed it. David Tennant is always worth watching (even when he’s letting his hair extensions do most of the work). But I was left with the feeling that I really wanted to re-watch the Hollow Crown version, and I’d still like to see all of the Mark Rylance Globe version. If you need a version to watch for a class, this will do nicely (but stick through to the end, or you’ll get an F on your paper!). If you are a teacher and need a Richard II to show your class, try to get your hands on the Mark Rylance version.

Here's the RSC Website, where you can find all sorts of cool stuff: http://www.rsc.org.uk/whats-on/richard-ii/

Here's a clip from the deposition scene:

A Midsummer Night's Dream part 2: The Royal Shakespeare Company 1968

Dear lord, this is a dream cast!

Helen Mirren.

Diana Rigg.

Judi Dench.

Ian Richardson (the guy from the original British House of Cards).

Ian Holm (Bilbo from Lord of the Rings).

David Warner (best known as the Cardassian who tortured Picard).

Clive Swift (Friar Lawrence in the Thames Television/Ann Hasson Romeo and Juliet. He’s also been on Doctor Who twice, I believe).

There will never be a better Helena than Diana Rigg. She’s perfect. She understands every line, every motivation. If you’ve been cast as Helena, watch Diana Rigg. Or maybe don’t. You’ll lose hope.

Helen Mirren is incapable of putting out a bad performance, and she absolutely rocks as Hermia.

If the chemistry between Ian Richardson and Judi Dench (as Oberon and Titania) doesn’t make you blush, their costumes might.

Ian Holm is suitably weird as Puck.

The tragedy of this production is that in contrast to the extremely high quality acting, it appears to have been directed, filmed, and edited by a team of college freshmen taking Filmmaking 100 as an elective.

Tracking shots are hand-held. In the 1935 Max Reinhardt film, you can occasionally see rails on the ground behind James Cagney, which is a little cheesy, but in this one, Diana Rigg is looking straight at the camera, nailing Helena’s monologue, and the image you have is of the cameraman stumbling backwards across the field, desperately trying to point the lens in the right direction.

The splotchy green makeup is more reminiscent of Santa Claus Conquers the Martians than magical forest creatures.

The attempts at special effects are really really bad. I mean, my siblings did better with their production of Scrooge back in the early ‘70s. In fact, the production values of Scrooge compare well to this Midsummer Night’s Dream. Scrooge features characters appearing through jump-cuts. So does Midsummer Night’s Dream. Scrooge has scenes where the lights are pointed straight at the camera. So does Midsummer Night’s Dream. Scrooge has family members playing magical creatures. So does Midsummer Night’s Dream (Fairy and Peasblossom are played by Judi Dench’s nieces). The production team of Scrooge was amateurs aged 1-14. I can’t confirm that this is also true of the production team for Midsummer Night’s Dream, but the evidence on screen points in that direction. The only elements missing are double-exposed scenes and an interlude with the Memorial Day Parade.

So, no, I don’t recommend this version of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, but if you have to watch it, I suggest you use the smallest screen you can find. The shaky hand-held shots would be bad enough, but it looks like in the transfer from film to DVD, the frames were dancing around, so even where they did use a tripod, the picture is still shaking and bouncing. It’s very distracting on a large screen, but if you shrink the image on your computer, or watch it on your phone, you might be able to get through it without Dramamine.