A Midsummer Night's Dream Part 1 - Max Reinhardt and William Dieterle,1935

There's so much that could be said about this movie, I can't even begin to cover it all. In the end, I'll probably end up preferring another Midsummer Night's Dream over this one, but I think I can say, right now, if you need to or want to watch a Midsummer Night's Dream, even if you watch another one, watch this one too. It's worth it.

Points in favor:

• This is an American film of an English play, directed by two Germans, featuring a Javanese/Danish ballerina, choreographed by a Russian.
• By 1935, special effects were pretty impressive, considering that most of them were done in the camera. The digital effects we see in today's films are (for me) no more believable than the state-of-the-art effects you will see in this. The creativity plus trial-and-error formula of the 1930's makes the 21st Century CGI effects look cheap and lazy by comparison.
• James Cagney as Bottom. Apparently, critics hated his performance back in the day (and there are valid points there, like he was too handsome, too Brooklyn, too, well, wrong for the part), but he committed to the role and made it pay off. Maybe not as Bottom, but certainly as Bottom playing Pyramus.
• Joe. E. Brown. You'll recognize him from Some Like it Hot. If you don't, put down the computer and go find a copy of Some Like it Hot, watch it, and come back. I can't imagine I will see a better Flute/Thisbe.
• Victor Jory as Oberon. Olivia de Haviland and Jane Muir as Helena and Hermia. Their readings of the script might not be perfect, but they do a great job of bringing the characters to life.

Points against:

• It's black and white, which isn't a problem for me, but may be a problem for some.
• I'm pretty good at the Willful Suspension of Disbelief thing, but the masks on the elves and gnomes are pretty bad.
• Mickey Rooney's obnoxious cackilng! Oy! According to the special features, Max Reinhardt loved the laugh Rooney developed for the audition, and this is what got him the part. I found it extremely irritating.

Watch this one a second time with the commentary on. It might not explain much about Shakespeare or A Midsummer Night's Dream, but you will learn quite a bit about cinema in the 1930's.

Happy Birthday to William Shakespeare

Today is probably William Shakespeare's 450th birthday, so as a Happy Birthday to William Shakespeare, here's a video of the Pyramus and Thisbe Scene from A Midsummer Night's Dream, performed by some young actors you may recognize. Enjoy.

The Richard II that Got Away

While I was writing my post about The Hollow Crown: Richard II, I stumbled on a YouTube video that turned out to be the best version of Richard II I've ever seen. The sets aren't lush, the costumes might be a bit over-the-top, and the acting might not always be perfect, but everything about the production is right. 

One catch, though: I can't watch the whole thing. It's not available in the US. Or anywhere, as far as I can tell.

The production I'm talking about is a stage production by Shakespeare's Globe that was apparently broadcast on the BBC in 2003 (Richard II / Shakespeare's Globe). Their website does offer DVDs of some of their shows, but not this one, which is tragic! I have a "Don't Spend Money" policy when it comes to this project (the only exceptions being my Netflix.com and Amazon Prime subscriptions), but this production is so far above all the others that I would totally pay to see it.

Here's the first YouTube clip, it's John McEnery (who you'll remember as Mercutio in Zefirelli's 1968 Romeo and Juliet) playing John of Gaunt:

In Shakespeare's time, the actor playing Gaunt wouldn't have had to worry about being heard over passing airplanes.

Here's Act  3, scene 2. Richard has returned from Ireland, and it's been slowly revealed to him that he's lost his kingdom. It was here that I realized what was missing from the other productions: The audience. English teachers often tell their students that Shakespeare plays were written not to be read in silence, but read aloud by actors. They're almost right. They were written to be acted in front of an interested and active audience. A loud audience, that's interacting and commenting on the action. This scene is usually presented as tragic and heartbreaking (and it is), but notice how many laughs Mark Rylance gets as Richard realizes there's nothing he can do:


Here's Act 3, Scene 3, the confrontation at Flint Castle:


Act 3, Scene 5. John McEnery reappears as the Gardnener. The queen and her lady-in-waiting are played by men. This is completely appropriate for Shakespeare's day, except that it's usually said that women were played by boys. At the time it was considered indecent in England for women to appear in stage, although standards were different in some parts of Europe:


Act 5, Scene 3. This scene has baffled me for some time. Presented in front of a live audience, with the Duchess of York played by a man, this scene makes sense - and it's hilarious:


Act 5, Scene 5. Richard is in prison, musing on his situation.


And here's the grand finale. This has to be my favorite part. Bolingbroke is already dealing with the difficulties of being king, putting down rebellions and buying loyalty where he can. But how do you end a tragedy? The hero, failed person that he was, is dead. The kingdom is probably in better hands, but there will be a price for Bolingbroke's treason, which will play out in the wars of Henry IV parts 1 & 2, Henry VI parts 1, 2, and 3, and finally be resolved in Richard III. But that's for another day. For now, let's have a silly curtain call and send the audience home happy:

Take a look on YouTube for more clips from this production. And keep checking Shakespeare's Globe. Someday they have to sell it on DVD. If I ever get to go to London, I don't care what's playing - I'm going to Shakespeare's Globe.

Bye, Mickey.

Stick with it through the first 3 minutes.

Mickey Rooney, Sept. 23, 1920 - April 6, 2014.

The Hollow Crown: Richard II

I've been trying to decide what I think about The Hollow Crown: Richard II. Compared to the other two Richard IIs, the production quality is way better. It's still made for TV, but it's made for 2012 HDTVs, not 1978 "Oh, you have color?" TVs. Much better. The casting is at least as good as the best  of the other two (Patrick Stewart as John of Gaunt - how can you go wrong?). The sets are more full and vivid. The costumes are entirely believable - they look like clothes people have actually worn. If you are a student of 1300s fashion or theatrical costuming, I suspect you will love this film (tell me in the comments if I'm wrong). The sound is impressive, too. Try to watch this on a TV with good bass response - you won't regret it.

Here's a clip from YouTube (the entire film might still be on PBS.com. I know you can find it in a boxed set on Amazon.com). This is the controversial Deposition Scene, which was banned for many years by the English government. Bolingbroke (played by Rory Kinnear, and usually shot so that he's tilted back and to his right - it reminds me of how the "villains lairs" on Batman were always filmed at an angle - and wearing a baffled expression) has outmaneuvered his cousin, King Richard II (played by Ben Whishaw), and while Bolingbroke is essentially king at this point, he needs Richard to go through the formality of turning over the crown.


So the production values are by far the best of the Richard IIs I've seen. Most of the shots appear to be filmed with the widest-angle lens possible, and the director, Rupert Goold, and director of photography Danny Cohen seem deeply enamored of extreme close-ups, so if you don't like the looks of Ben Whishaw's nostrils, you might find many segments difficult to watch. Also, perhaps due to their fascination with extremely small depths of field, it appears the actors have been told "OK, we have your ear in focus, now stand RIGHT THERE! DON'T MOVE FROM THAT SPOT!" Now, I get that the movie has no major battles, dance scenes, etc., but it's not just a story about people standing around talking. Or reaction shots of people staring blankly into space.

That said, the wide angles do emphasize the distance between the characters. The blank expressions could be an attempt at showing us that these characters are very serious, or perhaps that the characters are terrified of Richard's power. The long meditations on the sun dappling through leaves picks up on Shakespeare's metaphor of Richard as the sun setting as Bolingbroke's fortunes rise.

Here are a few more nitpicks:

• This play has five female characters. They cut two. Then they cut lines from Isabella and her maid. Now, in my head, I always imagine one of the maids to be Philippa Chaucer (you know, Geoffrey's wife. She was a lady-in-waiting to Queen Philippa of Hainault, Edward III's wife. Philippa Chaucer's sister was John of Gaunt's third wife, by the way, and Geoffrey held various posts under Edward III and Richard II, and his pension was continued by Henry IV, but may not have been paid. I always picture Geoffrey Chaucer in the background of John of Gaunt and Richard's scenes). Philippa probably died many years before the action of the play, but she would have been the older of the two ladies-in-waiting. They cut the part. (Here's a quick bio of Geoffrey Chaucer: http://www.poemhunter.com/geoffrey-chaucer/biography/)
• They also cut the entire scene between John of Gaunt and the Duchess of Gloucester (one of the five female characters), which explains the basic conflict of the play - that everyone thinks Richard had Thomas of Gloucester killed off by Mowbray. It may not be Shakespeare's best-written scene, but it does explain what's going on.

Enough of that.

Throughout the play, Richard compares himself to Jesus (no lack of ego there), but in this production, they've decided to draw a line from Richard to Saint Sebastian. I think it works really well, at least as far as visuals go. Richard is cut down by many faults, and Saint Sebastian was shot with so many Roman arrows that he looked like a sea urchin. The connection makes sense. Of course, Sebastian recovered and was finally martyred by being beaten to death and thrown in a privy, but you can't have everything.

I liked that they made Bushy an artist. Bagot, Bushy, and Green tend to be treated as interchangeable, and this made Bushy stand out. Bagot and Green are also surprisingly well-defined. That's the sort of thing that makes a film for me - it shows that there was thought and care put in to even the characters who barely appear. If only they'd come up with a way to do that with the Duchess of Gloucester and the second lady-in-waiting.

I ended up watching this three times, and my opinion improved each time. I think it would be my favorite version of Richard II, if it weren't for the one I'm going to write about in my next posting.