A Midsummer Night's Dream (1996) User Reviews (22)

Odd take off as a boy dreams the play.

[Bernie4444 · 6/10 · 18 April 2021]

"On one night of every year, the boundary between the daylight and twilight worlds is thin as air." Shown as a stage play but uses excessive camera tricks to display a colorful version that still keeps iambic pentameter. At least it is not one of those present-day versions that force Shakespeare into contemporary clothing.

Only occasionally moving a play to a different time or place can it keep its magic. This presentation is of no real-time or place but seems to have borrowed from the junk leftover from previous plays, containing part stage and part Victorian England, with a dash of Alice in Wonderland.

Lots of nice colors and music. However, everyone goes around kissing everyone but the person they should be kissing; you can call it artistic license but I call it a distraction for the purpose or base story. For those people that do not like the introduction of bicycles and nudity as in another version, take heart as there is no nudity or bicycles. The bicycles are replaced with Mary Poppin's type of umbrellas. O. K. I lied there is the E. T. bicycle scene, motorcycles with sidecars motorcycles.

Usually, this tail is played out by well-known actors so I must confess that even though this is the Royal Shakespeare Company production I do not recognize anyone.

One big missing part is where Nick Bottom is transferred into a donkey. Too bad as that is one of the best parts. He just pops up with ears and teeth. That is like showing Hamlet without Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.

You need to watch any other production before this one as "Who would not change a raven for a dove?"

Presented by the "Royal Shakespeare Company" Starring:

Lindsay Duncan as Hippolyta/Titania Alex Jennings as Theseus/Oberon

Desmond Barrit as Nick Bottom Barry Lynch as Puck/Philostrate

The Lovers:

Hermia - Monica Dolan Demetrius - Kevin Doyle Lysander - Daniel Evans Helena - Emily Raymond

Egeus - Alfred Burke The boy - Osheen Jones.

A Bit Disappointing

[artzau · 6/10 · 1 April 2001]

I would have liked to have seen this production on the stage without the introduction of a boy whose ambiguous presence is supposed to give the production its "dream-"like quality. I'm afraid, as the other reviewers here have noted, a well-intended and, for the most part, well acted version of one of the Bard's best known and most loved romps, alas, fall flat. The RSC is great but I found the presentation of Alex Jennings in the double role of Theseus and Oberon to be unconvincing. His facial expressions reminded me of one who's stepped out of the loo remarking about the lack of potty-paper. Lindsay Duncan, is lovely and fun in her double role as is the feckless Bottom given in fun by Desmond Barrit. Finbar Lynch's Puck has a darkness not often seen in other presentations but it works. My only quibble besides Mr. Jennings perpetual sneer and the wandering (as another reviewer here noted, a Macaulay Culkin look-alike) kid, is the flatness of the effects-- which I'm sure, worked wonderfully on the stage. Cross-overs into other media can be tough. All in all, an earnest albeit not wholly satisfying effort as earlier versions or the one two years later.

Not incredibly satisfying.

[TwzzlrFrk · 6/10 · 17 August 1999]

After it's been through hundreds of different settings and thousands of different interpretations, it's hard for directors to come up with original concepts for William Shakespeare's "A Midsummer Night's Dream". As a result, we either get productions with highly original concepts that are terribly distasteful or we get a rather conventional interpretation that leaves us bored.

Adrian Noble has tried to transfer this masterpiece from the stage to the screen, and I'm afraid that he doesn't do a particularly good job. The concepts are original and quite intriguing, but the movie itself lacks the dynamism that this play has when performed on stage. The concept of adding The Boy is in my mind great, especially for the movie. Otherwise, I find the settings bland and monotonous.

The Royal Shakespeare Company does an excellent job in acting (of course they do - it's the RSC!) and I would love to see this performed on stage. As for the movie . . . not incredibly satisfying.

Creative and very English adaptation

[raygirvan · 21 February 2003]

I just love this film. I didn't see the stage version, but this is an extremely clever adaptation of the play: a nice parallel construction where the human court is pointed up by using the same actors as the fairy court, and Bottom's friends reappearing as his fairy attendants. Desmond Barrit is brilliantly characterised, and the Mechanicals very creatively presented as English working-class (for instance, Bottom on a motor-bike combination). And we're left with no doubts that he does have sex with Titania, and donkey's ears are not all he gets from the transformation! I think it's one of the hallmarks of good Shakespearian productions that it manages to make the humour genuinely funny, and the play-within-the-play combines slapstick with genuine pathos. Ultimately, it was a very moving production, whose end (despite my being fairly hard-bitten) brought tears to my eyes with its deep nostalgia and Englishness. You are sorry to leave the world of these characters.

Delightfully Surprised!

[Sylviastel · 8/10 · 8 December 2005]

The little boy in the movie has read William Shakespeare's A Midsummer's Night Dream. Like the title, he has a dream where he goes to different worlds and sees them act out the comedy. While it can get confusing, I prefer this film version because the little boy can be the audience. Not everybody who is going to see it is going to relate to the film. Shakespeare's Comedy is fantasy as well with fairies and an underworld all on its own. The boy may not grasp the language neither can most of the audience. But he does see what going on. Just like a title, it is his dream. Dreams can have fairies and be weird on its own. I like the fact that the director tried to do something different. After watching other versions, I like this quirky film for its pure hearted attempt to get people involved in Shakespeare. Like our dreams, they don't make sense a lot of the time. The acting here is average. You can't compare these actors to the other versions. They are not as seasoned as them but that's not the point. The Royal Shakespeare Company should be commended and applauded for taking a daring chance at bringing this play to a mainstream audience. If you want the old fashioned film, watch the 1968 version with Dame Diana Rigg, Dame Judi Dench, and Dame Helen Mirren. If you don't want that, you will enjoy and open your mind to Shakespeare's play without the bloodshed of his tragedies. By the way, since I am going to become an English teacher. I like this version because of the little boy.

All the World's a Stage, Except a Film

[Bologna King · 5/10 · 6 May 2005]

When you go to watch a stage show, you expect to see the action from one viewpoint, you expect the action to be confined to a limited space (the theatre at least, and probably the stage), and you expect the actors to enunciate extra-clearly and move using broad dance-like movements so the audience can hear and see them.

Not on film. Wheareas in a theatre you might create an ambiguous set which imagination could transform from an interior into a forest, in a film you'd just shoot one scene indoors and the next in the forest. Whereas an actor on stage might spit out his t's and roll his r's so he can be heard 30 rows back, a film actor only needs to be heard by a boom mike. Whereas often all you can see of a stage actor are body movements, all you can see in a film closeup is the actor's face.

All of this argues that a successful stage production does not necessarily translate into a successful film. Such is the case here.

Daniel Evans must be the worst Lysander ever to appear on screen. He uses all of his stage mannerisms but no facial expression so the performance is highly unconvincing. Puck also suffers from mime-like movement. The young women are better and Kevin Doyle as Demetrius is quite good. The rude mechanicals take themselves too seriously.

Some attempt has been made to use Osheen Jones as a framing device by suggesting that the play is all his dream (a device stolen, actor and all, by Julie Taymor in her Titus) This idea is not carried through rigorously: we have no idea of what his relationship is supposed to be with the characters--do they represent figures in his waking life? Does the doubling of parts suggest a correspondence in character between Theseus and Oberon, or Puck and Philostrate? Is the fairy story a dream of the human characters who are themselves a dream of Osheen Jones? Who knows? What is clear is that on film a stage with hanging light bulbs looks like . . . a stage. Not a dream landscape. In the end, this version of Midsummer Night's Dream is unconvincing and doesn't know where it is going. It should have been left on stage.

different, but really well done!!

[italyzmafiachick · 8/10 · 29 June 2009]

While it does take a bit of time to get things going, I found that it was REALLY well done! The way they did the woods scenes with the lights and the doors it made me look at it in a whole new way. The scenes in the woods required the watcher to use their imagination and it was so lovely! The characters and the dialogue are well done by the actors! The costuming and make up are wonderful and full of color!! I enjoyed it! The boy did puzzle me, but that was the only thing I could have done without! I just love Lindsay Duncan who most would know from HBO's ROME, she is such a classy lady and a very good actress. Puck reminded me of a young Robin Williams and was very good in his part. It was a good production and I would love to see it again!

completely uncaptivating

[Sarah-60 · 2/10 · 27 July 2003]

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....

Inventive

[galensaysyes · 8/10 · 31 August 2000]

This film makes the title literal by adding a Little Nemo character dreaming it all. There are a couple of allusions to Alice in Wonderland, as well. It's a cute idea and leads us to see the characters as if through the boy's eyes but he comes to get in the way after a bit. Many of the actors are double cast so that we're led to see one story in the light of another. The film is playful and inventive in its magical use of prosaic settings and objects. The mood sometimes reminded me of "Dr. Who". There's hardly a scene without a visual surprise. The fairies are rather sinister and erotic; some of the stage business is unusually bawdy--too much so to fit with the conceit of the child's dreaming it all. Bottom and the rustics are funnier than usual, but overall this isn't a primarily comic "Dream". But it is an imaginative and poetic one.

a cinematic abortion

[reverbandwhiskey · 1/10 · 26 July 2003]

i would it were more forgetable- the garish colors and deplorable acting made it the worst thing I have ever had to sit through and such nightmarish images remain in my head. Between the "hammer pants" that Puck dons and the macauly culkin-esque annoying kid whose purpose is so meaningless as to remind the viewer that someone is watching this thing, the film has all the appeal of a piece of bad corporate art circa 1990.

True to Shakespeare's original...much better than the latest version...

[sg_otsr · 29 June 2001]

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.

so-o-o-o much better than the Hollywood version...

[oldgirl · 9/10 · 10 April 2006]

If ever there was a film that actually improved upon the Shakespeare text, this is the one. The director's fluid treatment of the boundaries between light and dark, dream and dream, innocence and awareness, and fear and fantasy is really something to behold. Absolutely loved the timeless, yet contemporary feel of the costumes, and though it took some getting used to, eventually fell prey to the spell of the very strange and mystical 'forest' with its opening/shutting, rising/falling doors, quirky dangling lights, and odd, angular levels. Just the look of this film adds depth and resonance to Shakespeare's 'dream' motif. The superb acting - especially on the part of Lynch (Puck/Philostrate) and Barritt (Bottom) -- neither weighs down the lines (as so many British productions do) with pomposity nor allows the lines to weigh down the actors (as so many American productions do). Fantastic, fresh feel to this take on what has usually been nothing more than a fluffy little fantasy. And it's so-o-o-o much better than that mannered monstrosity given birth by Hollywood. Long live the Royal Shakespeare Company!

Watch this movie now, please

[oOoBarracuda · 9/10 · 31 March 2016]

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.

Provocatively Interesting

[ac_mcg · 8/10 · 7 September 2005]

Noble's adaptation of 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' is highly interesting in many ways which highlight the issues explored within the play, bringing many of them into a new light. The introduction of the new character 'The Boy' highlights the interaction between reality, dreams and imagination as the viewer is forced to reconsider the relationship between these concepts. Despite the fact that we appear to enter the boy's dream world, we are confronted by a number of inconsistencies which challenge this assumption, not least of which being the extensive doubling of the characters, as well as the apparent recognition between Hippolyta and Bottom when they are back in the 'real' world. There is also a suggestion that Theseus is fully aware of the events that took place in the fairy wood. The interaction between the boy and the fairies in both the 'dream' and 'real' world also complicates the straight forward assumption that we are witnessing the boys dream.

Absolutely lovely version of a classic, watch for the umbrella traveling fairies!

[inkblot11 · 8/10 · 18 November 2006]

In Shakespeare's classic story, four lovers are playing cat and mouse. Hermia loves Lysander but her father prefers Demetrius. Demetrius, now smitten with Hermia, once courted Helena before he chose to abandon her. Helena still loves Demetrius dearly and persists in following him around. Hermia's father demands that she marry Demetrius and leader Theseus agrees with him. Hermia and Lysander secretly plan to meet each other in the woods and elope. Elsewhere, a group of amateur players are planning a production of Pyramis and Thisbe for Theseus and his lady, Hippolyta. And, the fairy world, led by Titania and Oberon, are feuding among each other and playing tricks. Puck, one of the conniving fairies, is sent to straighten out the love story between Helena and Demetrius, Hermia and Lysander. Puck bungles his assignment. And all on a summer's night! This gorgeous production is inventive and accessible. Watch the fairies arrive by umbrella and the amateur thespians travel by motorcycle, of all things! The principal actors are exceedingly wonderful, although not many of them have household names. One quibble was the production's ending. It failed to give us the resulting triumph of love for the four mixed-up lovers. Nevermind. This is a wonderfully unusual but superior film that proves, indeed, that Shakespeare is a keeper for the ages and ages to come.

What would the RSC do if they had TV special FX?

[spikey-5 · 9/10 · 19 July 2006]

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.

Strange, Yet I Have to Own It

[Summergrl21 · 21 May 2003]

Though many praise this version of A Midsummer Night's Dream, I find it strange, creepy, and hilarious. Maybe I can't appreciate it because I'm only in high school, but after studying the play, the movie was not what I expected. Though it looks like it was produced in someone's basement while they were under the influence, most of the movie is just funny. Many of Shakespeare's dirty jokes are stressed, and that's the strange part. Also, the boy supposedly dreaming this enters whenever he pleases. Not only is he annoying, but he looks about 6 or 7. I hope my 6 year old never dreams about the content in A Midsummer Night's Dream, especially the way it's portrayed in this reproduction. Weird!!!

Magical and funny!

[o_levina · 10/10 · 15 February 2002]

Why this film is so underestimated? May be, because the same production looked better on the stage? Well, I've never seen it on the stage and am totally satisfied with the screen version. It is a wonderful mixture of a fair-tale dream and amusing comedy of characters and situations. The most startling thing about the film is the settings, which are colourful, imaginative, and picturesque, with magic lights. Costumes are also fascinating – artfully invented type of dressing for heroes of English boy's dream. I think that introduction of the boy is very clever and helpful in a film. The movie is beautiful and superbly performed. Alex Jennings and Lindsay Duncan act splendidly, and so does Finbar Lynch. But I especially like the love-quadrangle of Lysander-Hermia-Demetrius-Helena. Young actors are very spirited. Shakespearean text wasn't unnecessary edited and RSC actors speak it brilliantly. There is also a lot of fun. The production of that absurd Athenian troupe is just as ridiculous as it was meant to be, I think. I find plenty of things to enjoy about the movie; highly recommend it to everybody. P.S. Englishmen are extraordinary lucky to have the opportunity of enjoying RSC productions on the stage. What the rest of world would do without films?

A misfire

[drn5 · 27 March 2001]

This film is based on a wonderful stage production that was staged by the RSC in 1994. On stage it was superb, and I think of it as one of the best times I've ever had in the theatre.

The film, however, is a complete mess. All the effects that were so magical in the theatre - the forest of lightbulbs, the flying umbrellas, the mysterious doors - look ridiculous when they're turned into bad computer graphics. And although some of the performances are good - especially Alex Jennings and Des Barritt - the pacing of the film seems poor. In particular, the mechanicals scenes are stilted and unfunny - and 'Pyramus and Thisbe' is mangled with poorly-timed slapstick and glooping sentimentality. And most annoyingly of all, Noble introduces a Macauley Culkin lookalike, who runs around being wide-eyed and imaginitive, infusing the film with unnecesary Hollywood schmaltz.

I regard this film as a brave, but poorly-executed attempt at translating faithfully a stage production to film. It doesn't really work, but at least Noble's vision is more imaginitive than the other films of the 'Dream'. And bad though the film is, it's still better than the ghastly Michelle Pfeiffer / Kevin Kline version, which should be avoided like the plague.

Fun in Midsummer

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 22 October 2021]

'A Midsummer Night's Dream' has always been one of my favourite Shakespeare plays, the story is complicated thoughts lots of fun and charming and the characters and dialogue are iconic. Am familiar with a good deal of Adrian Noble's theatre and operatic work (i.e. His Metropolitan Opera production of Verdi's 'Macbeth') and while he had some puzzling staging touches there are plenty of interesting ones. The cast are a very talented one, Alex Jennings and Lindsay Duncan being the best known to me.

This production turned out to be very good. Not everything works and neither does every staging touch. It is however visually striking, entertaining, creative and beautifully performed. It may not be one's idea of a traditional production, but many non-traditional productions of Shakespeare (as well as theatre and opera productions in general) have worked surprisingly well, and this production of 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' while not one of the best examples is one such production.

Beginning with the not so good things, count me in as one of those that didn't care for the presence of the boy. Didn't see the point of him and it felt like a distracting gimmick that confused the storytelling a bit.

Some of the effects are a little on the cheap side.

Generally however the production looks good visually, the more mystical parts really enchant and the darker hues fit well. Not lavish but also not amateurish and the production is shot with intimacy yet opened up enough to avoid being claustrophobic. The music has a nice atmosphere and Shakespeare's dialogue typically sparkles in the comedy and the emotion. The comedy is genuinely funny and isn't overplayed but the charming heart of the play is also intact.

While not a traditional production of 'A Midsummer Night's Dream', the production is true in spirit to it and does better than most non-traditional productions of anything with complicated stories at being coherent. Only the touch with the boy perplexed. The staging is mostly clever and imaginative, the human court and fairy court parrallel being especially ingenious, without falling into distaste or convolution. The performances are committed and very high quality, especially Finbar Lynch and Desmond Barritt clearly having the time of their lives.

Overall, very good and lots of fun. 8/10.

homoerotic acid trip

[shaneandcarmen · 23 April 2004]

This is a fantastic play.With the exception of Daniel Evans, who's strong Welsh accent becomes grating when reciting Shakespeare, so were the players.Congrats to RSC on keeping the original idea of each actor playing two characters.They could've easily gone the easy route.However, you lose all that in the presentation.The bright colors and bizarre props( bubbles,bicycles,umbrellas etc)distract from the actors.The whole thing has a very sixties acid trip vibe. Thumbs up for Barry Lynch. He made an excellent Puck.And Philostrate. I recommend the version with Stanley Tucci over this one, however. now they're saying I need at least ten lines which I thought I had but o well, I'll try to fix it.

Noble's debut, devoid of imagination

[didi-5 · 27 September 2003]

The news that the former RSC chief Adrian Noble is now planning to make a comedy movie with Meg Ryan sends me back to this, his film directorial debut, based on his successful stage production of 'Dream' in Stratford and London in the mid-1990s. The ideas are great but sadly it doesn't gel, the costumes and settings look cheap and the great acting from the likes of Alex Jennings and Lindsay Duncan looks out of place. Enjoyable then only in fits and starts.