A Midsummer Night's Dream (1996)

Adrian Noble created cinematic greatness with his take on William Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream. This 1996 version brought together Lindsay Duncan, Alex Jennings, and Kevin Doyle for a vibrant different take on a classic Shakespeare comedy. Different worlds are woven together in this delightful adaptation of the Bard's work.Theseus (Alex Jennings) is preparing for his marriage to Hippolyta (Lindsay Duncan). He is committed to finding the best amusement for the four-day festival. Simultaneously, deep in the woods live two very different groups of people. A band of fairies led by Oberon (Alex Jennings) and Titania (Lindsay Duncan) King and Queen of Fairies, respectfully lives in the woods and have been commissioned to bless the marriage of Theseus and Hippolyta. Then there is a group practicing a play that they hope to perform at the wedding affair. Traveling between the two worlds simultaneously was a brilliant decision by Noble and created a wonderful screen adaptation of Shakespeare's work. This film is so well done. The set design was fantastic, the colors were incredible, and the zany acting was amazing. I've been struggling trying to find a way to write this review in an unbiased fashion, but not finding a way to succeed. I felt changed by this film, much like my first experience with a David Lynch film. I also find the film a bit difficult to explain. The colors are incredible among so much else in the film. Please carve out some time for this film. You will not be disappointed.

This performance of Shakespeares best play by the Royal Shakespeare company is a visual gem. Contempory without throwing out the setting or the themes, presenting the original language in a way to appease both traditionalists and the MTV generation.Of course, if anyone can do the play right its the RSC, but even they have not always hit the mark. This is by far the best envisioning they've done in the past few decades and the ability to pull off a few minor tricks with TV cameras that couldn't be done live on stage only adds to the whole film.A nod to the origins of their craft is presented when most of the players play two roles, one in Faerie and one in Athens. The Duke is also Oberon, his bride Hypolita also Titania whilst their attendant Faeries are also Courtiers of the Noble couple. Even the players of Pyramis and Thisby are also the inner circle of Titania's grotto and all of this adds to the question of how much is real and how much is Dream.The simplicity of set and props half convinces you time and again that it is a Staged show and not a movie, with Faerie scenes feeling very magical in an 80's pop video kind of way. (don't hold that against it, this is not matched by terrible pop video editing or camera work in anyway). The Costumes (especially the use of bright colours and single shade outfits) adds to the pop video feel without it detracting from the story.All in all this is far better than the Kevin Kline Hollywood attempt at the play which lacks the same otherworldliness and basic acting talent. A Midsummernights dream told in a dreamy way without the dry throats or discomfort of summer.

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....

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.