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!
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!