A Midsummer Night's Dream (1968) User Reviews

A Hard Day's Midsummer Night's Dream

[gjf221b · 7/10 · 24 January 2000]

The Bard and the Royal Shakespeare Company fight the Swinging '60s to a respectable draw in this production, which does feature nearly all of the text of the play, splendidly _ if often frenetically _ delivered. Director Peter Hall couldn't quite come up with a film equivalent of his famous stage production, which featured modern dress, a stark white set, and imaginative use of trapezes. Instead he picked an approach heavily influenced by the French New Wave and its English imitators, notably Richard Lester. There's lots of jangly, abrupt editing _ which sometimes, as intended, captures the supernatural flitting of the fairies, and sometimes is just annoying. There's lots of talking to the camera, and a certain catch-as-catch-can attitude: shots don't match up, and, although the main action is supposed to take place at night, there's sometimes no effort to disguise the sunlight streaming through the trees. (Of course, perhaps some of this was the result not of artistic decisions, but merely of haste and a tiny budget.) It's somehow a very '60s Athens _ Hermia and Helena wear cute miniskirts, the four lovers get so twig-torn and mud-spattered that they look like refugees from Woodstock, and the fairies look like green-skinned members of a back-to-nature commune. For all the eccentricities, this festive but haunting play is done straight and done well, and the cast ranges from solid to splendid. The two standouts are Diana Rigg (Helena) and Judi Dench (Titania) _ and this is your one and only chance to see the former sucking her thumb and the latter wearing an outfit (consisting mainly of body paint and flecks of vegetation) that Blaze Starr might have found drafty.

Great Actors, Bad Cinema

[Bologna King · 6/10 · 6 May 2005]

This movie looks like it was hastily committed to film by high school students. The lighting changes constantly so one is never sure whether the scene is intended to be at night or during the day. The fairies appear to be various shades of green at different times. The lovers get muddier and muddier as the story progresses, and the stains migrate around their clothes and faces. The sound is exactly the same wherever the action is. There is a frequent use of jerky stop action to move the scene from place to place and to show fairies moving at the speed of light. The dreadful music is earnestly trying to be avante-garde and succeeding in being cacophonous and out-of-place. The costumes were trendy then but look rather silly now.

The virtually uncut script, an advantage for students, has the disadvantage of occasionally slowing the action to a near stop.

It's a pity because these are great performances by an amazingly talented cast. Helen Mirren's Hermia, less strident than most, Ian Holm's doglike Puck and Judi Dench's near naked Titania are standouts certainly. Best of all for me was Derek Godfrey as Theseus. He brings a lot of dignity and urbanity to a part often played as a pompous bore or a chump. Theseus is given a lot of lines, sadly cut in many productions, which comment on literature and drama. "The best of this kind are but shadows, and the worst no worse, if imagination amend it." You need a fair bit of imagination to amend the shortfalls of this film, but the effort is well worth it.

Not the best, but not the worst either.

[scottishrose · 7/10 · 31 March 2006]

After seeing this film, I find that I can both praise it as the best in existence, or toss it down and trample upon it. As it stands, I neither love it devotedly, nor do I despise it.

There are a few items on which I must comment, and I pray you give me leave to do so. First and foremost, the acting. Ian Holm radiated sheer Puckishness in his role as Robin Goodfellow. As a young man, he was more reckless and boyish than I've ever seen him. (Although that thing with the tongue was a little weird... but still. He was great.) Judi Dench, also, was magnificent as Titania. Although I would've preferred her to be... um... wearing more clothing... or at least SOME clothing. But regardless, she was wonderful. Paul Rogers was pure Bottom from top to... well. Yes. Some of the acting, however, I found to be purely horrid. Diana Rigg (Helena) and Helen Mirren (Hermia) in particular. They rarely put emotion into their voices, and merely spoke in monotone. When they did insert emotion, it was overblown. And besides, they seemed to have only one emotion TO insert - that of "on the verge of tears, oh-what-shall-I-do, poor-little-rich-girl" acting. Ludicrous and not befitting of the character at all.

Another thing I must mention is the lighting. You could SEE the lights through the trees. Not very professional - I must admit that for the first twenty minutes I was sure that it was an independent film. The camera angles were also rather ridiculous, and the constant shaky-camera effect gave me a headache and made me not wish to look at the screen.

Another thing (though perhaps this is just me being difficult), but did the fairies really have to be green? Really? I found it rather strange, difficult to distinguish the actors from the greenery, and I believe that Ian Richardson may have been allergic to the makeup. Or even if he wasn't, SOMETHING was making his eyes turn red, and whatever it was gave me the creeps.

All in all, however, it wasn't too bad. I laughed my head off several times. The donkey was well done (I liked the use of prosthetics), and the children playing the fairies seemed to know their roles wonderfully, and they played very well. I wouldn't recommend it to non-Shakespeare fans, but if you like Shakespeare, I think you'll like this.

The Bard, and How to Get Him

[baker-9 · 19 June 2002]

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.

Amazing in Several Respects

[[e-mail] · 6/10 · 8 May 2011]

I saw this film in streaming video from a print that looks as if it had been decaying in somebody's dank basement for the past 40 years. The color was washed out, lacking depth. But this Royal Shakespeare Theatre Company production, directed by Peter Hall, contains amazing performances by Diana Rigg, Helen Mirren and Judi Dench (as Helena, Hermia and Queen Titania) when all three were young and beautiful but already capable of displaying the talent that subsequently carried them to fame. Ian Richardson as Oberon and Ian Holm as Puck are also outstanding, as is Paul Rogers as Nick Bottom, the weaver. Despite the poor quality of the film itself, you will surely wait a lifetime to see a version of Midsummer Night's Dream in which Helena and Hermia are dominant players, and you may never see a Titania as sexy as gorgeous or as outright sexy as Judi Dench. The entire play-within-a-play by the "rude mechanicals" is as good as any I've ever seen, and Rogers is marvelous as Bottom.

A Charming Dream To Another World

[Kirasjeri · 8/10 · 13 August 1999]

There were little jumps and quirks in this production by the Royal Shakespeare Company - but in reality they merely added to the otherworldly and ethereal overall effect. I liked the art design very much and found it charming. The cast was superb - and for those who only know Judi Dench as dowdy or as Queen Elizabeth, in this film she plays the queen of the fairies, Titania, in a costume consisting only of three small leaves! She might have been the sexiest Titania ever.

"Decaying in a dank basement"

[Red-125 · 6/10 · 7 September 2014]

Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream (1968) was directed by Peter Hall for the Royal Shakespeare Company. It features some truly great actors: David Warner as Lysander, Diana Rigg as Helena, Helen Mirren as Hermia, Ian Richardson as Oberon, Judi Dench as Titania, and Ian Holm as Puck.

MND is a perfect play for film. This MND was directed by a highly talented Shakespearean director, and had brilliant casting. It had to be great, right? Wrong.

First of all, this is--literally--the worst print I've ever watched. As another reviewer pointed out, it looked as if it had been decaying in a dank basement for 40 years. This isn't Abel Gance's "Napoleon," patched together from various sources and very, very old. This film was made in 1968! How could RSC release a print like this?

Another problem--contemporary costumes. Midsummer Night's Dream is supposed to be set in Athens, but everyone knows that it really takes place in England, and most directors set it in Elizabethan England. That's probably how people saw it in Shakespeare's time, and that setting will always work. Hall set his play in "contemporary" England. The problem is that "contemporary" costumes look very dated after 50 years. So, seeing the women actors in miniskirts and go-go boots looks really, really funny.

Most of the play is set in a forest, and the young actors get lost, stumble about, fall into streams, etc. OK--so we don't want the young women to look like they just stepped out of a bath. But, director Hall has smeared their faces with mud. We can't really see them anyway, because of the print, but what we can see looks like Diana Rigg and Helen Mirren prepared for a commando raid. Was it really necessary to hide the actors' faces?

The movie is true to the text, which is good, but there's so much hand-held camera work, and so many jump-cuts, that nothing hangs together. My wife and a friend both gave up after the first half-hour, saying that the film was too painful to watch. I watched until the end, so that I could write this review.

I love Shakespeare, and I love MND, but I don't love what Hall did with it. It's more like Midsummer Night's Nightmare. What a waste of talent!

Decidedly showing its age

[oshram-3 · 4/10 · 1 August 2006]

I'll come right out and say it – not everything Shakespeare ever wrote is a gem that needs to be enshrined forever. What's more, most movies of Shakespeare plays are even worse; they're either faux-stagey, as if the actors wish you to keep in mind that this is Shakespeare, for God's sake, or they go the other way and become overly artsy. I only own a few on them on disc (Ken Branagh's Much Ado and Henry V, where the tongue-twisting dialogue flows so effortlessly it appears to be ad-libbed), as most of the versions I have encountered are artless train wrecks; even Orson Welles' Othello is to my mind wince-worthy.

I tried this version out solely because Diana Rigg was in it. Granted, so was the rest of the Royal Shakespeare Company circa 1968, an impressive list (Ian Holm, David Warner, Helen Mirren, Judi Densch, etc.); and this is a difficult play to do well because its plot is so hoary, and the play-within-the-play so tedious, that these actors can hardly be held accountable for the bard's sins.

Not that they don't make enough of their own, however. Central to the film's weakness is that it can't figure out its own identity. There is a stab at period costume here and there, but then Rigg shows up in suede go-go boots (not to mention Queen Hippolyta in a leather dress and thigh boots). The story is set in Athens, but the landscape (at least they didn't use a soundstage) is Tudor England, as are whatever costumes attempt to be period (the period of Shakespeare, not Athens). The film takes place almost wholly outside, which is a relief, but unlike, say, Branagh's Much Ado, which takes advantage of some gorgeous Tuscan landscape, most of the time here we are treated to some non-descript copses of trees. Add to that budgetary problems – Puck, Oberon, and gang appear as green-tinted hippies, with their faces not even matching the hue of their bodies – and you have a production that is easier to laugh at than with.

Most of the actors give it their all, but most of them appear miscast. Rigg is far too old and worldly for the dopey Helena, and Derek Godfrey's Theseus seems more like a baron in some Russian novel (though admittedly I kept getting distracted by his helmet-head bouffant). You'll see a lot more of Judi Densch than you ever wanted to, as her costume amounts to green paint and teeny pasties. I did like Warner's Lysander, who appeared the most natural of the four young lovers, and Ian Holm's Puck, but it's impossible not to enjoy a Holm performance.

I tend to think Shakespeare movies tell you more about the period when they are made rather than when they are set (much like the plays themselves), and this one is no different. Part old school, part hippie romp, the film unintentionally reflects the chaos of the late sixties, of a cultural shift, or wanting to take something classic and make it new but unfortunately having no idea how. The end result is a lurching effect, its low budget and low-tech seeming impossibly crude to viewers used to spectacles such as Lord of the Rings (even Xena's make-up jobs would make these look silly). It's interesting as a novelty piece to look at where Shakespeare presentations were, and where they were aiming to be, four decades ago; certainly we have a different emphasis now, as actors forty years from now will no doubt reinterpret the bard in their own fashion (android Iago?). For all but a die-hard fan of any of the regulars or of Shakespeare's work, though, this film is a pass. It did, however, help shed light on why a talented actress who was part of the Royal Shakespeare company for many years is chiefly remembered for judo kicks and leather catsuits.

Most entertaining, a must see

[dkruse314 · 10/10 · 11 September 2006]

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".

Talented cast, but atrociously shot and edited.

[jleinung · 4/10 · 26 August 2006]

How do you take a play by Shakespeare, a talented cast, and then stage, shoot, and edit it so horribly? It suffers from the 1960's avant-guard compulsion to shoot everything hand-held, including static close-ups. The film has been edited to be almost entirely in close-up, hardly ever giving us a visual rest with a medium shot or wide-shot. Very static staging -- which again makes me wonder why they felt compelled to shoot hand-held all the time. The best thing you can do with this production is cover the screen and just listen to the language. Diana Rig is one of my favorite actresses (what adolescent boy of that time didn't have dreams about Ema Peel?) but she is totally wasted here. I hate to continue trashing this film, as I think I've said all there is to be said concisely already.

THE BEST...period.

[paybaragon · 10/10 · 21 August 2005]

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.

How Can Something Like This Happen?

[Jon Kolenchak · 5/10 · 28 March 2003]

This film has a dream cast. Diana Rigg, Judi Dench, Helen Mirren, and Paul Rogers are especially fine. Yet, the film moves clumsily along with all the cinematographic finesse of a home video. So much of the production values of this film are just plain sloppy. Sloppy makeup and sloppy attention to costume detail are just the beginning of the list of faults. Exactly when was this story supposed to happen? It could have been an Elizabethian period piece, yet methinks it could have been the 1960's based on the women's short skirts and very 'mod' boots. There were touches of the directing style of Ed Wood, also. We enter the forest and it's dark. A few scenes later, the sun is shining, then it's dark again. I can't let this review go by without echoing another reviewer's comment -- What exactly were they doing to get so dirty?!?

I did find a way to completely enjoy this film. Don't watch it -- listen to it. It works much better as an audioplay than as a film.

One of the best Shakespeare films ever!

[lime-3 · 22 January 1999]

Yes, there are flaws in editing, lighting and the like. These are probably the results of a relatively low production, and, perhaps of the fact that this was originally conceived as a TV film, and therefore as relatively ephemeral. The superb service given by director and cast to Shakespeare's language and characters far more than make up for any shortcomings. A better production of "Dream", for screen or stage, can hardly be imagined!

WONDERFUL! GREAT!!

[artzau · 9/10 · 2 April 2001]

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.

This is the silliest stuff that ever I heard

[WeaselWoman13 · 5/10 · 24 March 2002]

This adaptation of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" seemed like it was trying to be a liiiittle too arty. It resulted in looking downright silly to me. Here's a rather lengthy list of reasons why.

First of all, the male characters' costumes looked like simple modern suits with ruffly collars added. The females were all wearing extremely short mini dresses, making it very clear that the movie was made in the 60s.

Puck, Titania, and Oberon are running around naked and green. I don't mind the naked part, but...must they be green? It bothered me slightly - it's a neat way to think of fairies and spirits, being green. But if they were going to take that route, they could have done a slightly better makeup job - the makeup seemed thick and shiny, stopped on certain parts of the body, and also seemed to be irritating Oberon's eyes - they looked redder-rimmed and puffier through each shot.

The lovers get muddier and muddier as they go through the woods. This is slightly exaggerated. I mean, what were they DOING? It wasn't THAT muddy, and they weren't falling down on their face every few minutes! People simply don't get that muddy walking in the woods!

When we did this play at the school, it was stressed that we should USE our body gestures and hands, and so after having that pounded into my mind, the actors' almost completely inanimate bodies really bugged me, and Oberon seemed to be telling himself "Must not move face must not move face must not move face..."

Puck's tongue thing was really odd, and the way the spirits teleported around...priceless! And don't you love it when all the little fairies come jumping out of the trees and the camera flashes around? Deliciously weird.

Speaking of the camera - how about that camera work? It reminds you a little of those "Blair Witch Project" trailers.

And what kind of animals were those in that forest? Where did they get those sound effects?

However, I did love the rude mechanicals. They were just as I would imagine them (and I recognize Snug from Keeping Up Appearances!). And Puck went on to be Bilbo Baggins - it's so perfect! All the actors were good - it's just that the film was put together so strangely. It was an extremely interesting approach, but they got a little too creative. 5/10.

Legends in the Making

[mayaxiong · 10/10 · 10 August 2006]

This spectacular film is currently experiencing a rebirth on cable TV this month, I've seen it listed several times, in its' completed version, without having the aggravation of commercials or editing. When viewed in it's entirety, you'll gasp and squeal with delight at how so many of these budding young English Shakespearean actors became legends in their chosen field decades later.. A fresh and youthful Judi Densch is spectacular, along with the always sexy David Warner, but Diana Rigg's performance is the one that hammers home the reason why this stunning and statuesque actress was the darling of the 60's and 70's in the acting community in Britain. I'm sure so many of these performers, who'd already made a name for themselves in the Shakespeare community later became absolute legends in film and stage. I was hoping to see a youthful Alan Rickman or Maggie Smith, but beggars can't be choosers... Highly recommended and if you get a chance to watch it on the Hi-Def channels on cable, take the phone off the hook and stock up on the mead...

Midsummer Night's Dream Meets the 60's

[writin_irish · 3/10 · 12 May 2005]

I have seen many versions of the play in my life, both on stage and screen. For that matter, I actually played the role of Puck as a child. And this is unquestionably the worst version I've ever seen. The actors are stiff -- probably mostly due to the director, as they never, ever move. The camera angle, however, leaps whimsically and frequently. Characters, too, and not just the fairies, appear suddenly before freezing in place to say their lines. It reminds me of the Confuse-a-Cat sketch from Monty Python's Flying Circus. Regardless of the high-powered cast, only Ian Holm as Puck and relative nobody Michael Jayston as Demetrius show any energy at all ever. I'd also like to concur with regards to what others have said about how dirty the lovers get, the strangeness of the costumes, and a number of other points. The overall effect is that of a remarkably boring two hour long drug trip, best appreciated through open mocking.

On a side note, I would not allow any daughter of mine on screen naked but for green paint.

Fond memory of childhood.

[davidemartin · 9/10 · 1 October 2003]

I only saw this during the single showing CBS gave it way back when. I had no idea what the play was about but as a Diana Rigg fan, I was curious what she had been up since abruptly leaving The Avengers. I only saw it on a 19' BW TV. I had no idea that some of the Faerie were green.... The things you learn at this site!

Decades later, looking at the cast list, I'm really eager for a chance to see this again! This is one of those productions where everyone was unknown then and famous now. I'm also curious about the relationship of CLARE DENCH and EMMA DENCH to the now-world-famous Judi Dench (I'm guessing nieces).

Postscript, April 2007-- Last November I finally got a chance to see this nearly-forgotten flick. The film quality is a bit off, with some noticeable color shifting. But what the heck! It's probably the only version available....

It's a very, very dated production. Hippolyta wears a classic mid-60s Mod outfit and some of the outfits struck me as very Hippie era. This may be the effect they wanted, a sort of psychedelic Shakespeare.

Oh man, what a cast! So many future stars a decade before they would finally hit it big-- Ian Holm, David Warner, Helen Mirren as an ingénue, Judi Dench in the nude?!?!?!

Hopefully the BBC saved the negative or at least a decent copy of this so that someday they release a decent copy of this.

Depends On Your Tolerance For Dated Staging and A Poor Quality Transfer

[museumofdave · 4/10 · 27 March 2013]

The first thing to be said about this version of the Dream play is how really mediocre the DVD transfer is--it is very much in need of restoration--jumpy, often dirty, and terribly faded; that said, perhaps the effort of restoration could be better alloted to something like Von Sternberg's Shanghai Gesture or the original Front Page--something more worthy.

It's amazing how much more dated this version of Shakespeare's romp is than the often stunning 1935 version with it's perfect Puck in Mickey Rooney and its lush dreamlike imagery. This version attempts to be far too 1960's "with-it" using hand-held cameras, jump cuts, mini-skirts, featuring children that look as if they were plucked from the cast of Hair.

The positives--and very positive: Seeing a very young Helen Mirren, Judi Dench, and Diana Rigg, all totally competent even then, interacting with a mostly able cast, and a script which clearly utilizes almost all of the dialogue. This is doubtlessly a more worthy effort than the ghastly, childish romp made in 1996 by Adrian Noble, but for my taste, the most recent version with Michelle Pfeiffer, Stanley Tucci, and Kevin Kline (as a perfect Bottom), and the early Warner version with Rooney and Cagney, while both lacking in some departments, are far more enjoyable; both capture a good deal of Shakespearean spirit good for any decade. My low rating is given partly because it's hard to watch, not because of the overall acting or content.

A fine, and sadly forgotten, version

[larcher-2 · 12 August 1999]

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.

What a cast!

[kdsigmon · 8/10 · 14 October 1998]

Incredible cast, many who went on to greater things: Ian Holm, Ian Richardson, Diana Rigg , David Warner, Helen Mirren, Judi Dench. Some very odd editing and dubbing though.

A bit funky

[HotToastyRag · 4/10 · 15 February 2021]

For me, there are two kinds of Shakespeare: the Richard Burton kind that I can actually understand, and everything else that I can. Since he wasn't in this 1968 tv-version of A Midsummer Night's Dream, I wasn't able to understand a word of it. With a huge cast, Judi Dench and Ian Richardson as the ruler of the fairies, Ian Holm as Puck, Helen Mirren, David Warner, Diana Rigg, and Michael Jayston as the lovers, and Paul Rogers as Bottom, if you do want to watch it, you'll see tons of familiar faces. If you're not well-versed in Shakespeare, though, you might not be able to understand many of them.

This version is a bit weird, with funky camera angles, green body makeup on all the fairies, and a serious '60s vibe. Through the haze of what it would look like if Shakespeare said, "Far out, man!" you will get one very unexpected bonus: An unrecognizable Judi Dench of 1968, with long brown hair, tons of glittery makeup, and prancing around practically naked. This was the same year she originated (the London version of) Sally Bowles in Cabaret, and while only a brief snippet of her performance can be found online, you can console yourself by watching her play Titania. How often can you see her acting flirtatious, sultry, and scantily clad? Not very often, but she's just adorable.

Best Acting for any Midsummer Night's Dream adaptation

[arbjones · 10/10 · 13 April 2003]

This rendition is somewhat 60ish but its my personal favorite. If you can set that aside, the acting is first rate and I think some of the best performances are delivered. Peter Hall's use of the hand-held camera keeps the movie very interesting and constantly moving.

The cast is unmatched in any other Midsummer production with Diana Rigg, Ian Richardson, and Judi Dench. My favorite is Ian Holm's rendition of Puck ... truly memorable. Paul Rodgers is also stellar as Bottom and is certainly the best Pyramus and Thisbee ive seen in any of the renditions.

A Midsummer Night's Tedium

[Bilko-3 · 2/10 · 27 February 2000]

There are three reasons for seeing this movie. Diana Rigg, Judi Dench and Judi Dench's miniscule costume. What a hot li'l pixie she was thirty years ago! She wears body paint nicely.

Other than that, we are treated to one of the least funny adaptations of a Shakespearean comedy I've ever seen. The director is far more interested in having the actors talk to the camera than each other. The Focus is on The Words, which would be fine for a radio adaptation, but it makes for a snooze of a movie.

The Kevin Kline/Michelle Pfeiffer version was better... and I didn't like *that*. Maybe this is just too delicate a comedy for the movies and needs to be seen live to be appreciated.

But Judi Dench... WOW! There is nothin' like a Dame.

Very Nice Production

[masercot · 8/10 · 24 August 2009]

I originally expected to watch a few seconds of this and turn to another channel; however, the film style intrigued me, so I kept watching. Then, I saw Titania...

She was beautiful. Her acting was sublime. The enthusiasm she had for the ass-headed Bottom was palpable. I had to tape it. Fortunately, there was another showing later in the day.

To my surprise, the beautiful Titania was none other than a youngish Judy Dench. Diana Rigg also appears as Helena, the spurned lover, who joins three other young people for the familiar comedy of errors.

Besides the fairies, the actors dress in modern garb...casual: Button-up shirts, mini-skirts, go go boots. The acting is wonderful and the choppy editing very appropriate. Was it as good as Propero's Books? No, but it gives it a run for its money...