Give a brief personal evaluation of this production based on what you consider to be its strengths and/or weaknesses.
Click here for the names of the director, designer, composer, and cast: http://www.shakespearesglobe.com/theatre/whats-on/globe-theatre/a-midsummer-nights-dream-2013
This performance of a Midsummer Night's Dream directed by Dominic Dromgoole was a very pleasant one. I overall really enjoyed it, from the varied and beautiful costumes, the relevant staging and scenery to his personal and original interpretation of the play.
ReplyDeleteI loved their interpretation of the opposing yet parallel worlds of the Humans and the Fairies. On the one hand their atmospheres very entirely different : when in Athens the light music, civil interactions and tight costumes conveyed an impression of order and calm, the loud, violent, almost tribal songs and dances of the fairies in the forest created a tense, wild, frightening atmosphere. But on the other hand the fact that the same actors played Hipolyta and Titania, Theseus and Oberon and Philostrate and Puck made us think about how similar the relationships and the conflicts were in both worlds.
What stroke me the most was the portrayal of certain characters that I did not expect to be this way and sometimes they turned out to be less effective and noteworthy on stage than in the book. For me, in this staging Puck was quite disappointing. I had imagined him more witty, mischievous and active. Here he was quite often overshadowed by other characters who had more energy and presence than him. I think that especially during his last soliloquy our attention was more drawn to Oberon and Titania behind him than to Puck delivering this key passage of the play.
Finally, one of my favourite small details was the tiny stage within the stage during the play within a play in act 5. The two little, shaky columns that reminded the columns of the main stage added to the comical aspect of the mechanical's play and incorporated the play in the Globe Theater and in Shakespeare's legacy.
I really liked this adaptation of A Midsummer Night’s Dream because I found it very funny and rather faithful to Shakespeare’s text. There are some changes to the original text but they merge perfectly in the play and they make it even more comical. I also find very interesting that each character has a specific mannerism (for example Bottom’s little finger at the corner of his mouth, or Puck’s disarticulate gestures). It really adds to the characterization.
ReplyDeleteI particularly liked the first scene of the play where we see the fight between Theseus and Hippolyta. I think it explains and underlines the tension that we find in the first lines of the play. This fight is also very artistic. Indeed, there is a lot of dances and acrobatics in this adaptation. It makes the play very beautiful and can contribute to create different atmospheres.
I think that the parallel between the human world and the fairy world is well-shaped thanks to the actors playing two roles. It is also due to the fact that the conflicts for power between Theseus and Hippolyta and Oberon and Titania are very similar. Nevertheless Athens seems associated to reason whereas the woods represent wildness. I think this difference is very well shown through the clothing. On the one hand, in Athens they wear sophisticated clothes of nobles. On the other hand, after one night in the woods, the lovers’ clothes are torn and filthy.
To conclude one thing really struck me: Oberon kissing Puck. When I read the book I didn’t imagine such a relationship between them. I thought they were close but more in a “father-son” way. It really shows that there can be different interpretations of a play.
In my opinion, this "kiss" you talk about has nothing much to do with the relationship between Oberon and Puck. It was only staged to show the character's enthusiasm and add a comic dimension to this part of the play. It as well pushes further the contrast between the real world and the fairy world by showing the carefree aspect of the fairies.
DeleteHmm... I do think that this gesture held some importance in the development of their relationship, though not in a romantic sense. I thought it gave something almost symbiotic to their relationship, as if Puck was the continuation, or the more active side of Oberon. This is also shown when Puck is perched on Oberon's shoulders, the two characters - the body and the mind - thus merging into one entity to fully control the mortals' lives.
DeleteThis staging of the play A Midsummer Night's Dream was, to my mind, a great success and a pleasure to watch, espcially since it is played at the glorious Globe Theater, a historically famous place that frames the play into its original context and unables the audience to visualise something close to Shakespeare's real scenic space.
ReplyDeleteWhat I especially liked about the play is the freedom with which Dominic Droomgoole played around Shakespeare's text, never modifying it but adding things to it and developing the characters and the relations between them through elements of the staging not mentionned in the text. For example, at the very beginning, we are shown the love affairs between Oberon/Hippolyta and Theseus/Titania in a short scene that is not included in the text but makes the audience's understanding of the play better and encourages it to draw a parallel between the two couples.
Just afterwards, we are shown another short scene presenting the victory of Theseus over the Amazons which clearly pushes the audience to question Hippolyta's willingness to marry Theseus. This is emphasized by Titania's strength and, because she is played by the same actor as Hippolyta, ecourages the audience to juxtapose the two characters and compare them ; we clearly notice a contrast between the fairy wolrd and the real world. Yet, it seemed to me that the fairy world was almost too bestial and savage (fairies with body paintings, screaming, agitated and violent), contrasting by far with the operas that were made of the play were the fairies were played by ballerinas and offering a much more unceremonious performance but associating all the laudable qualities of the fairies (strength of women, for example) with a savage world, almost showing those are not relevant to the real and civilized world...
Moreover, I thought Droomgoole perfectly handled the way Oberon and Puck should act while the lovers are on stage : they do unconcealed actions and play around with characters which perfectly creates the illusion that they are invisible to them. Some more powers are furthermore granted to Puck like an ability to stop time (when he transforms Bottom into an ass) which is never mentioned in the text.
Lastly, during the play-within-a-play, I think the director definitely interpreted the text freely with the little stage put on stage, Bottom forgetting his lines, the « dead dog episode » and the spontaneous moment of sympathy between Starveling and Hippolyta (which could symbolise a sense of unity that goes beyond the social differences). All of those added to the comic aspect of the last scene yet, they sometimes tended to be over-the-top and almost too-much : a little bit more subtlety might have been appreciated even if overall the scene was perfectly handled.
I absolutely loved this adaptation of A Midsummer Night's Dream directed by Dominic Dromgoole. The performance of the cast was terrific and the way Shakespeare's play was interpreted by the director was innovative.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, because of how Titania was played. Michelle Terry managed to make her character a strong female one even though her words would rather indicate a character overpowered by Oberon.
Secondly, normaly fairies would be presented as calm, spititual and elegant formosities who dance, sing and move with grace. But in this adaptation the fairies were wild, scary and monstruous creatures. They also moved graceless and sang songs in a frightening way (for example the song from act II scene 2 when Titania is going to sleep).
Thirdly, in act II scene 2 just after the flower juice started to work on Lysander, he said to Helena he loves her, this shocked him. He tried to stop talking by putting his hands on his mouth: the audience could see by his face and actions that those words were spoken under the influence of the juice. But as the play continued the flower gained more control over him.
Furthermore, I loved how the mechanicals were played. Their entry is always chaotic and noisy which adds to the comic aspect of these characters who are already extremely funny thanks to their actions and words.
In addition, the way John Light plays Oberon is brilliant. The fact that he is always finding something to climb on (even Puck) is hilarious and enables him to make his serious speeches lighter, sometimes even humorous.
Moreover, I love how the cast used dramatic pauses or repetition of some lines. It definitely highlighted both the comic aspect or the seriousness of the play. For example in act III scene 2, after Puck and Oberon discovered the juice was squeezed on the wrong Athenian's eyes, John Light who plays Oberon pauses between the lines 87 to 88 and then asks Puck “What hast thou done?”. This dramatic pause was absolutely hilarious because the audience knew Puck made a mistake and were eager to know how Oberon was going to react.
Finally, I didn't like the way the play ended because I didn't understand why the whole cast was dancing and singing together. It was a little too abstact.
http://www.theguardian.com/stage/2014/oct/01/shakespeare-jig-music-choreography-globe-theatre
ReplyDeleteEva, this article should give you a little insight into the way the play ended.
Overall, I really enjoyed the play. I found it very well interpreted and the comic aspect is much more underlined than in the text. When I read the text, the beginning was quite tragic and tense whereas in the representation, the comic aspects of the play come out directly thanks to the props, settings and costumes (especially the ass and Thisbe).
ReplyDeleteI decided to focus on Hippolyta and Titania, played by the same actress. On the one hand, I think it is important to have the same actress playing Hippolyta and Titania and the same actor playing Theseus and Oberon because it reinforces the illusion and underlines the parallel between the fairy and the mortal worlds, showing their similarities and opposition. On the other hand, it can be confusing. If you don't really know the play, it can be difficult to follow.
According to me, these characters have key roles in creating the atmosphere of the play, conveying ideas and developing themes through their gestures, intonations of voice and face expressions, even though they don't appear in every scene. For example, Titania seems to be powerful when she refuses to give the child to Oberon, then delivering a speech about the consequences of their conflict. Whereas it creates a tense atmosphere in the play, the atmosphere of the representation was much more lighter because of Titania's play, the way she was trying to persuade him through her eyes expression or gestures toward him.
Furthermore, Hippolyta is well-developed in this representation even though she appears only a few times. Firstly teasing and ignoring Theseus, she jokes and talks lively with him in the final scene. I found it interesting to see these two sides of her character, something difficult to notice in the text. In addition to that, it highlights the parallel between Hippolyta and Titania, the mortals and the fairy worlds. They both seem powerful at the first sight but then they lose this strength and become passiv characters and I think this is more apparent in the representation than in the text.
To conclude, I loved how the play was staged and the way the characters were played and developed, and to see it brought a new insight about the play !
This version A Midsummer Night's Dream at the Globe directed by Dominic Dromgoole, in my opinion, is truly spot on. Indeed it really does capture the feel/tone of the play and Shakespeare's unmistakable genius and play on words. Some people may argue it is too happy-go-lucky and having seen other interpretations of the play it is safe to say that it does carry a slightly brighter tone but one fitting for Shakespeare's classic wit, it is a comedy NOT A TRAGEDY. We must importantly remember, despite the multiple timeless tragedies that he wrote, that this man was rather humorous being quoted to have left Anne Hathaway, his wife, "his second favourite bed" when he died.
ReplyDeleteMoreover this humour is greatly emphasised by the outstanding cast ,(especially by the mechanicals in the last act), which for every character we discovered, felt more than fitting...
Indeed, from Oberon or the mechanicals (my personal favourites) to Peaceblossom, the costumes and the full commitment of the actors to risky staging just made this play go from good to perfect (for me)!! For example having a single actor play Oberon and Theseus was a risky idea but in the end was worthwhile offering a parallelism between the two and therefore giving some insight into the play and characterisation.
Resting on solid filming techniques and overall flawless, this interpretation of AMSND will keep you at the edge of your seats howling laughing at Dominic Dromgoole’s staging or simply awestruck at Shakespeare’s talent in writing …
I believe he left her their 'second best bed'! ;)
DeleteFrom Vanille :
ReplyDeleteI have to say that I found this performance of A Midsummer Night's Dream quite hilarious. This was not a surprise as this lay is a comedy and not a tragedy. I'd say one of the great strengths of this lay was the importance given to the Mechanicals. They were more comic than ever in the way that they were performed. This led to many surprises. For example, I'd not portrayed Bottom character the way he was presented (haughty and fond of himself), at all! I think this is the great advantage of great performances and I insist on the word great. It allows you, as the audience, to see thing in a different way. For example, the subtlety of intonation or a character's traits. Another strength of this play was the musical accompaniment. This might seem irrrelevant and obvious but I think that it still has its importance. Some scenes like the fights at the beginning or the general dance at the end would've been plain and perhaps not that catchy if they weren't accompanied by great instruments. Globally, I thought this performance was extraordinary and that the cast was of fine quality, I'm looking forward to see this performance again!
In general, I really appreciated watching this adaptation of A Midsummer Night's Dream. The main reasons are that the cast was very talented and played their roles perfectly. I think that Oberon and Puck were the most convincing characters even though all of the actors were talented. Bottom had, in my opinion, the most complicated role because even though his lines are whimsical, his visual expressions communicate the comical aspect of this play. In Bottom's case, his acting was primordial to fully explore the comic character that he is.
ReplyDeleteI also enjoyed watching this adaptation because it helped me understand some details of the play I missed or that were not clear when I read it by myself, such as most of the passages of the Mechanicals, I had not really understood the humour. Moreover, since we have done a thorough analysis of the play in class, we could only imagine and create our own image and faces for the characters based on what we read and it was a pleasure to finally visualize the characters in performance.
I enjoyed this adaptation because of its movie like aspect. I never felt like I was watching boring theater like we did in French class in college. What particularly struck me was Puck’s ability to convey feelings through gesture, intonations and facial expressions were impressive.
Also, I thought about comparing the Romeo and Juliet adaptations we watched last year to this adaptation of A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Since this adaptation is directly played and filmed in the illustrious Globe Theater I think it elevates even more the experience of the audience, and I personally feel that it is more natural to watch a theater-played adaptation of any of Shakespeare's plays than a movie adaptation. I thought that Zefirelli's Romeo And Juliet didn't fully capture the whole aspect and atmosphere of the play, as they had to cut out parts of the play and I think it would be confusing for somebody that has not read and analysed the play to miss dialogs.
I had planned on writing a final point about "what I would have changed if I was staging this play" but I really could not find any thing to add or modify.
I really enjoyed Dominic Dromgoole's take on Shakespeare's play. Not only did his representation have great props, costumes, and sets, the actors were very talented and brought a lot of humor to the play. I found it funny that some things were modified to make them funny to a modern audience, like having Starveling's dead dog be named "Horse" or the scene when the four lovers are arguing in the woods and start groping each other. It was also interesting that music was recurrent in the play, it even started and ended with the actors singing and/or dancing.
ReplyDeleteFor me the funniest characters were the Mechanicals, especially Bottom, because they were already funny while reading the play, but the actors and the added jokes really had me in tears.
I really enjoyed this performance of A Midsummer Night's Dream. I was really surprised by the interpretation of the play (in the book). Actually, I thought it was quit serious and tragic but in the performance, it was much more comic and 'joyful' if we could say.
ReplyDeleteWhat I really appreciated was the actors performance: they really stressed on their emotions by screaming and make a lot of gestures. Moreover, I think the characters' personalities and behaviours were much more clearer than in the book. The relationships between characters and complicity were sometime exaggerated (maybe between Demeteius and Helena) that we would not have seen when reading the play. Furthermore, I really enjoyed all the ppassages with the mechanicals. Indeed, the director really emphasised the ridiculous aspect of them (especially at the end when they performs their play and they have a lot of 'technical problems'). In addition, I liked the costumes and the scenery, it was really beautiful.
However, I think the director could stress on the 'mischievous' side of Puck. As a matter of fact, I did not see it in this performance, but it was clear when reading the play that Puck enjoyed creating mischief and chaos. In the performance, it seemed to me that he was just played as very naïve character and not really conscious of what he was doing.
All in all it was a really good performance, I really like it, and it permit me to interpret differently some elements of the play A Midsummer Night's Dream.
Overall I really enjoyed watching this adaptation of A Midsummer Night's Dream. I found the cast really interesting, I liked the fact that Oberon, Titania, Theseus and Hippolyta were played by the same actors because I think it shows how close this two couples could be, that their way of being can be similar. I also appreciated how the mechanicals were played as they accentuate the comical aspect of the play with costumes, gestures, dances and songs. About the lovers, and also Puck I found them very talented, Puck was really well played, he made me feel his evil and crazy side. Finally, the themes that are found in the text are well explored in the adaptation, I liked how the fairy and mortal worlds were opposed but still linked in a way, how they stressed the moon, the transformation, the juice,... this performance is faithful to the text and I love the touch of modernity that is still added to the play.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the things I didn't really enjoy was music and dance (except the mechanicals) and especially the end of the play because I found it really strange, for me it didn't fit so well with the atmosphere.
Overall I still really enjoyed watching this performance, it made me laugh and smile which is I think the best reaction I could have by watching a comedy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed watching this adaptation of the play. I found interesting how the words can take different shapes through tone, gaze, costumes, music... without actually changing the words.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, the music and costumes were efficiently used to set in the atmosphere and the particularities of the different groups. For instance, Thisbe's costume in the last act represents well the Mechanicals' world. The petticoat is misused, like they misuse words, and worn as a skirt, and Flute wears too much make-up and looks like a clown : the Mechanicals always seem to get it all wrong and do everything over the top. Moreover, the first presentation of the fairy world is accompanied with wild sounds, eerie costumes and music, and particular dances which show us from the beginning the dreamy and, supernatural world of the fairies. As for the last "world", the costumes the actors wear when they are in Athens make them look tense which represents well the place where the characters are expected to follow rules. However, as the others said, since the same actor plays both Oberon and Theseus and Michelle Terry plays Titania and Hyppolita, it conveys well the link that is present between the fairies and the humans and the similarities between the different relationships. For example, Philostrate and Puck are both to follow the orders of a more important figure and still, both seem to defy the authority. Moreover, some actors who play fairies also play the Mechanicals. In this way, they manage to reinforce the idea that the different worlds are all linked together and are not just randomly associated.
Furthermore, the gaze and tone are well used to represent the interpretation of Hyppolita and Theseus' relationship of this adaptation as Hyppolita's and Theseus' facial expressions and tone show that their opposition and debates are not a form of hostility but seem to be a challenge that merges into sexual tension.
However, I thought some important parts of the play were taken too lightly, although it is a comedy, it seemed to me that some of Shakespeare's important views in the play were lost. For instance, Helena's first soliloquy was too exaggerated and important ideas on love and illusion were lost in the comical effect.
I still laughed a lot and really enjoyed watching this play.
In the whole, I too enjoyed this performance of A Midsummer Night's Dream. From cast, to staging, to props, to language, this adaptation was in my eyes a big success. Yet, even though it mostly had positive points, I must admit there were some disappointments.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I like how emphasis is laid on the parallelism between the Fairy world and the mortal world. This is mainly thanks to the fact some actors had 2 “parallel” roles: Titania and Hippolyta were played by the same actress, Oberon and Theseus by the same actor and Puck and Philostrate were also played by the same man. This helped the audience perceive the differences and similarities between the Fairies and the mortals more easily. For example, while the Fairies enjoy lyrical music, the mortals enjoy listening to the howling of their dogs; and yet, on the other hand, both Fairies and mortals seem to enjoy having power over the other (which is why there is always a conflict between the different couples).
Secondly, to continue on with this idea of power, I was surprised to see every character showed the same amount of power on stage than in the book: it was an unexpected characterisation of almost all characters. For example, Hippolyta and Helena seemed to have gained power while Demetrius and Oberon seemed to have lost some: in the end, all characters had more or less the same level of power.
Thirdly, for me, the enjoyment of this performance was mainly thanks to the emphasis on comedy with mispronunciations of words or nouns, use of puns, dramatic pause, addition or repetition of lines or words, the fact some lines weren't said by the original characters, characters which seemed more childlike etc. One example which illustrates this comic side is that the mechanics don't succeed to pronounce any name correctly, even not at the end even though in the book it is written correctly: Thisbe” is pronounced “Thinge” or even “Pisbe” while “Pyramus” is said “Thyramus” and “Ninny's” is pronounced “Ninus”.
Finally, when I first saw the costumes of the Fairies I must admit I was a bit shocked and disappointed. Since I am used seeing very gracious, light and colourful fairies, the Fairies from this performance were quite the opposite: their costumes are a bit barbarian and these Fairies seem to be closer to the fauna instead of the flora. But, since it was only due to the fact I had never expected to see fairies dressed up like they did and overall the costumes and staging were very well selected, I was quickly accustomed to it.
To conclude, as I've previously said, I truly loved this play (even when reading it) and the performance of it only made me more fond of it.
P.S.: the ending still puzzles me, was it an ode to Shakespeare? (the actors turned and stretched out their hand to the portrait of Shakespeare hanging from the balcony, or they simply wanted to turn our gaze to the musicians standing behind it to applaud them as well by pointing at them...)
I was thrilled by this adaptation, in my sense, it really lived up to Shakespeare’s text. Dominic Dromgoole found the proper balance between staying authentic to the original play - with all the grand Renaissance costumes and scarcely no additional text -, and making more singular choices by playing with the characters’ attitudes, the props and the general staging, and even the audience.
ReplyDeleteWhat struck me as a distinctive aspect of this production is the way the actors manage to create a sense of complicity with the audience. As A Midsummer Night’s Dream is also a reflection on metadrama and the nature of drama, playing with this « fourth wall » that separates the actors from the audience seemed particularly fitted. For example, we are directly involved in Bottom’s soliloquy at the end of Act III Scene 1 ; after his awakening, Pearce Quigley calls each of the mechanicals by their name, and explains to us their occupation in an aside (« Snout! *to the audience* He’s the tinker. »). The very secretive and self-satisfied tone that the actor uses, as if he were our point of reference in the play, enhances the comical and even grotesque aspect of the situation, as Bottom is far from radiating wisdom. Furthermore, throughout the play we learn to associate some distinctive gestures, sounds or features of speech with each character, thus reinforcing our familiarity with the different plotlines and actors. The mechanicals are often announced by the clumsy yet gleeful rumpus of their tap-dancing, the fairies by their airy and savage screams, while Bottom’s contented clap of the hands always succeed in triggering the audience’s laugh. Through these recurring motifs, we relate more to the play and feel some sort of connivance with the actors, which is one of the reasons why I found this adaptation so engaging!
Though this production is extremely well crafted, it is true that the director could have made some more adventurous choices to invest the play in an even more personal way. The character of Hippolyta, with her rather imperious tone, conveyed a clearly feminist interpretation of the original text, but other than that this version did not really explore completely new ideas or approaches.
I found this interpretation of the play by Dominic Dromgoole to be very successful in the emotions it produced on the public (based on my reactions) as well as on the fact that it is faithful to the play while adding some interesting staging decisions. First of all, I was pleasantly surprised to see how the play managed to squeeze the comic out of the situations that are often complicated and almost tragic. Indeed, the actors sometimes overplayed their role to produce a comic effect like when on the first act of the first scene, when Demetrius and Egeus come to denounce Lysander to the duke, Lysander manages to raise fun out of the situation by playing goofily and in an over-the-top manner, he seems very excited to be the one chosen by Hermia. Another example of it is when in the 5th act Theseus delivers his speech on the “madman” and the “poet”. He seems very serious and enthralled by his long and philosophical speech and Hippolyta, by a subtle intention in her sight manages to show that she finds this speech quite boring. Another way to turn intense situations into comical ones is by playing on contrast. In the first act, when Lysander and Hermia meet Helena and tell her about their plan, a great comic is produced by the contrast between Hermia and Lysander’s joy (shown by a very merry acting) and Helena’s despair shown by her sad and sorrowful acting. Moreover, the contrast produced by this different acting is not the only one that brings a new breathe in the sometimes complex situations, and the contrast between the mechanicals and the Athenians plays a big role. Even though it comes from the script directly and not from a particular interpretation of the staging and the acting, this contrast is displayed with brio in this play and the final act is to me the most representative of it. When the mechanicals come to play in front of the duke, the duchess and their guests, the little scene on which they play (which recalls the scene of the Globe theatre through the columns and the leaf patterns on the curtains), the costumes, the acting and the little additions like the gag of Bottom breaking the floor make this scene a peculiarly funny one. Overall, I found that the play really achieved the goal of displaying a true comedy from the beginning to then end, even if some scenes are given the intensity and serious they deserve, making of all the situations a possibly comic one. I liked the additions made in the staging as well as the sense of details in the props and acting.
ReplyDeleteI thought this adaptation of A Midsummer Night's Dream directed by Dominic Dromgoole was absolutely fantastic. The cast was amazingly well chosen, the sound effects were very well used, and the way it was directed was very interesting.
ReplyDeleteWhat I enjoyed the most was the way the interpretation of the text kept surprising me over and over agin, firstly through the use of humour. The actors managed to take the lines from the original play, and interpret them in a way that is funny to a modern audience, through their tone, facial expressions, body language and amazing acting skills in general.
The second thing that surprised me was how the way the actors were portrayed differed from my interpretation of them when I read the play, and how those differences changed an important part of the way I experienced the play. For example, when I first read the play, I imagined the character of Hippolyta as very submissive to the power of Theseus. However, in this adaptation, she was introduced as a very independent character or at least seeking independence, not through her words but through the way she was portrayed.
Finally, one of the aspects that struck me the most was the fact that pairs of characters were associated by being played by the same actor or actress. This was the case of Titania and Hippolyta, Oberon and Theseus, as well as Puck and Philostrate. I thought this was a very interesting and innovative way to show clearly the links between the fairy world and the mortal world. It allows the audience to make connections as well as see the difference between the two worlds, opposing them and linking them at the same time.
To conclude, I thought this adaptation was wonderful, thanks to the amazing actors, and the unusual and intriguing way it was staged and directed.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely loved this adaptation of A Midsummer Night's Dream—it really reminded me of just how much I love drama, how even though Shakespeare has written those plays about four centuries ago, new interpretations are still being conceived.
ReplyDeleteI feel, I must say, bittersweet about the representation of female characters. Reading Shakespeare's text, I didn't particularly see the whole play as unfair to/celebrating women, which left a lot to ponder on for the director. The way Hippolyta was played pleased me a lot; everything in her demeanor screamed independence, a resistance to Theseus's social power over her, even though her words, especially in the first scene, expressed little of these feelings. I was, however, disappointed by the way Hermia was played : she seemed like a child, whose only real function here was to love Lysander and to trivially fight with Helena—I may be pushing it a bit (but great was my disappointment). Hermia, when I read the play, seemed to me to be the strongest character, and the one whose strength is most disregarded during the whole play—by her father, then by Lysander when she is abandoned, and in act 5, of course. She clings to her love for Lysander, she fights for it, she stands up to two authority figures in the first scene, and her character felt underdeveloped in this interpretation (I'm not sure if it was for the sake of the comical aspect of the play).
Ah, act 5. Here again I was disappointed (let me clarify that the only reason I felt so disappointed was because most of the play was done so well, my expectations were set high), because I felt the balance between the dramatic aspect of this final scene and the comical aspect wasn't... as well done as it could have been. I realize that in a comedy, delivering a philosophical soliloquy effectively may be the hardest thing to do, but during Theseus’ speech in the beginning of act 5, the fact that Hippolyta seemed to be mocking him belittled Shakespeare’s words so much it seemed pointless to even deliver the soliloquy. Now, what I reproached to act 5 was the fact that women are almost completely wiped out of the action (if we can call it that), and it’s all a very manly thing—noble men joking together about the idiocy of the people below them, mechanicals being very funny and clumsy, Hippolyta occasionally speaking up to add on to men’s remarks, or to talk about feelings, the other two women with not a thing to say in this social gathering. This last fact is not something Dromgoole could have changed, but I still felt like it rendered Helena and Hermia less important to the whole play, to verbally erase them from the conclusion.
Here I wanted to go on about the interesting interpretation of Bottom, but alas, that may be too long for a blog post. Overall, I felt there were disparities in the actors’ playing, but this made me see Shakespeare’s play in a whole new light, which makes it impossible for me to declare this play as anything but striking.
I thought this adaptation of A Midsummer Night's Dream was a very interesting adaptation to watch.
ReplyDeleteThe actors were extremely good players and the four lovers were made more interesting and more alive by the way the actors played. I especially liked how Demetrius interacted with Helena in the beginning. While in the book I had read it as hostile and clearly violent, I saw it there as a dialogue that expressed how conflicted Demetrius was - in love with Helena, but having to marry Hermia out of duty.
Going on with the actors, I enjoyed seeing the actors taking muktiple role, for Titania / Hippolyta, Oberon / Theseus, Puck / Philostrate. I thought it conveyed very well the portrayal of the characters and actually gave them more depth than in the book, or at least that's what I thought. The actors' mannerisms made the play more alive and also funnier, when the written part was already funny.
I liked the way the mechanicals were portrayed, especially the relationship between Bottom and Quince. When reading the book, I thought that Quince was sort of "controlling" Bottom and keeping him in check. But the play made me see it in a totally new way and I now think totally differently of Bottom.
The sounds that were added (sounds of nature, animals' screams mixed with humans' shouts) made it even more real, while still mixing a touch of supernatural and surreal in it, well encompassing the play and its' spirit. I really liked how the director chose to interpret the relationship between the fairy world and the mortal world, with the last scene being a dance where all characters are present. I thought it added to the play a sort of unity, where all characters, even after all the events that happened, were capable of joy and happiness. I thought it embodied well the spirit of a comedy, especially of Shakespeare's comedy.
The stage was very well used and the decorations were really interesting. I was amused by the fact that Bottom's as head was a real mask, which I did not expect, and even though it wasn't what I had imagined for the character, I still found it enjoyable.
To conclude, I really enjoyed the adaptation, mainly because of the actors' amazing talent.
-- Juliette
ReplyDeleteDominic Dromgoole did a dazzling job staging Shakespeare's "A Midsummer Night's Dream". I decided to focus more specifically on Act 3 scene 2 from line 1 to line 407, in which Oberon learns about Puck's "mistake". Indeed, I thought this scene emphasized the characteristics we noticed regarding the character of Oberon -his power, and authority- through his physical appearance, the way he acts as well as his relationship with other characters.
Firstly, I thought the character was very well chosen and close to what I have pictured when reading the play; his sharp lines, and developped musculature and height go along with his status of figure of authority. However, I thought it could have been interesting for Oberon to be less imposing for comic purpices and to emphasize his powerlessness towards Hippolyta (as she is played in this representation). Here we can say that Puck almost acts as a foil to Oberon, at the visual level, as he is very thin, but also regarding his attitude and the way he acts.
Thus, Oberon's attitude is harsh, he occupies the space in a very heavy way whereas Puck has a lighter way to behave and to move on stage. One example of this comes when looking at the way they walk; Puck walks with a slight bounce in his steps and is always moving whereas Oberon's feet are anchored to the ground and engaging, leading us to believe that he knows where he is going and adding to his credibility. Furthermore, their voices differ, Puck's is high-pitched and osciliating while his master's is softer and low-pitched. Also, Dromgoole illustrated the word "sport" in this scene, Oberon takes advantagee of this to once again show his strength, whereas Puck is more delicate and does a few moves of classical dancing. Thus, Puck helps dedramatizing the situation and Oberon tend to be more serious. If these characters hold many differences, their way of interacting highlights them and puts an emphasis on Oberon's power.
Indeed, when it comes to interacting with one another, Puck seems to adapt and react to Oberon's initiatives. First of all, he is the one initiating the conversation by ordering the fairy to "Come hither", he also invades Puck's personnal space multiple times; when he kisses him as well as when he bears him. Furthermore, the magical Oberon's magical powers are highlighted by the staging for example when he stops Puck who is trying to escape simply by moving his hand. Another interaction showing Oberon's power, which is not present in the written version of the play is the interactions with the Athenians. Indeed, in the text it is said that the fairies are on stage but not visible by the mortals, and I thought that Dromgoole took full advantage of this particularity in terms of plot, as it enhance the comical effect and enables us to see the fairies reacting to what they hear, but also in order to highlight their superiority and divine powers. We can see this when they keep Demetrius from falling on the audience; this move illustrates the fact that they (and especially Oberon) can alter the human's life without efforts.
Although I didn’t have the chance to watch the final act of Dominic Dromgoole’s version of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, of which I have only heard enthusiastic descriptions for the moment, I greatly appreciated the adaptation of the first four acts, finding it accurate and insightful. The director took a play with much ambiguity and skillfully turned it into something which suits modern audiences, yet hardly changing the text at all while doing this. I’d like to comment more particularly on the interesting portrayal of Oberon and Titania’s characters, which I found surprising at first, but ended up appreciating.
ReplyDeleteOberon’s portrayal was the one which struck me the most, as John Light, the actor, didn’t stop shouting until around the third act during which, although he’d calmed down a bit, he would continue to unpredictably yell certain lines, seemingly at random. While reading the written version of the play, I hadn’t imagined such anger contained in a character of such importance, as king of the fairy world, but the lines do indeed leave such interpretations possible. I believe that showing so much anger was, obviously, first to emphasize the strong conflict between Oberon and his fairy Queen, which may be slightly difficult to understand at first in a text hardly modified from its original, 16th-century edition. But beyond simply practical purposes, showing such anger contained in Oberon was also a way to emphasize the difference between him and Titania: although Oberon tries to show his power throughout the play with his anger and his loud voice, Titania manages to stand up to him and sustain arguments in a much calmer, cooler manner. This difference between the two characters is also reflected in the relationship between Theseus and Hippolyta, a similar case of a politically powerful man trying to use his physical power to stand up to his mentally powerful wife, obviously developing the theme of gender at the same time.
In any case, the result of such conflicts between male and female leaders in the play is a situation which greatly resembles common modern marital conflicts, although they conserve the initial Shakespearean text – proof of the quality of Dromgoole’s adaptation, and his accurate modernization of an old classic.
I have to say, like most people who have already commented on this, I absolutely loved this adaptation of the A Midsummer Night's Dream. The fine balance between dramatic tension and comedy, the outlandish and original way of portraying the fairies, and the startling and perfectly chosen music especially made me enjoy watching it, as well as the brilliant rendering of Act V as an ending to the comedy which, in the book, was my least preferred part, but in the performance became my favourite. However there is one specific detail which really caught my attention.
ReplyDeleteMy reading of the play is one that is particularly focuses on Puck and on the role he plays in the action, mostly on the question of whether he is in control all along or merely mistaken and subordinate to Oberon (I think I mention this quite often - I have a bit of a fixation on it). Furthermore, my favourite character in the play and the one I would like to say is the most important (as he at first glance clearly is not, being the one with the least amount of speaking time) is Philostrate, Theseus' "master of revels". So you can imagine that with these two key interests of mine combined in the same actor, I was very satisfied by the choice made by the director. I had upon reading the play seen this link between the two characters - Philostrate who manages the festivities for Theseus, Puck who leads along the lovers all for the sport of Oberon - but I found that this adaptation brought the association to a whole new level. While I might certainly have considered using the same actor for both characters, it did not quite have the effect I expected: I thought it would merely bring the audience to realise the proximity of the characters and their control over the events as a whole, but instead when I saw how similarly the character of Philostrate was played in relation to Puck it made me think that perhaps they are in fact one and the same. That is to say, that Puck, ever mischievous and seeking entertainment, takes on the role of Philostrate in the mortal world (this would not be surprising really as given the many abilities of the fairies in the play they could hardly be begrudged the power of, say controlling time in order to take on several roles at once). This creates an even greater parallel between the mortal world and the fairy world than I had envisaged, and raises even more discussion on the issues of power and of illusion in the play. Although I still do not think I would interpret the characters as being identical (I want Philostrate to be an independent, important character in and of himself...), this way of seeing it has certainly opened my mind to other readings of the play a great deal. I didn't expect it at all, and was presently surprised.
That was extremely specific but it applies to the other aspects of the play too; I was intrigued, highly amused and given a lot of food for thought. So the performance did everything it was supposed to! :)
I really enjoyed Dominic Dromgoole's adaptation of A Midsummer Night's Dream. I liked its originality, and what struck me the most was how some of the characters were explored. Whereas Theseus, Oberon or Titania's characters acted just how I imagined they would when I read the book, I was really surprised by Puck and Bottom's characters, who both brought a real originality to the play. I imagined Puck as being always excited and mischievous, but in this interpretation he is more serene and discreet, and above all very strange and out of phase with the other characters from the human world, which could maybe emphasize the opposition between the mortal and fairy worlds. Moreover, I really did not think of Bottom's character in the way he is presented in this adaptation. I was convinced this character could only be played in a overrated way to be the most humorous to the audience. That is why I was pleasantly surprised to see that Pearce Quigley explored his character in a more subtle and innovative way, making him so self-absorbed and arrogant that he doesn't even bother trying to show some emotions when delivering his lines as Pyramus, which makes this passage even more comic for the audience. In my opinion, the way those two characters are explored is what makes this great originality in this adaptation a Shakespeare's play, and what I found the most interesting when comparing it with the book. On the overall, I found this performance of A Midsummer Night's Dream really comic, very well played by the actors and perfectly well designed by Jonathan Fensom.
ReplyDeleteI must admit my first reaction to the adaption was: What is that? What are we looking at? Indeed the beginning was quite odd and raised lots of questions and I didn't understand the extent of the message and the interpretation right away. However once I found some landmarks (which occurred quickly), I enjoyed it until it finished.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found particularly effective was the interpretation, the way I had portrayed the play while reading it seemed so different in some aspects from what I saw that I loved it even more. It was not just a performance the play, it was a different approach to it. First I loved how Hippolyta was played, she had nothing to do with the submissive wife I assumed she would be, she was independent and mostly amusing: she had personality! Then I would like to emphasises the comical aspect of the representation, first with the mechanicals that were side-splitting, thanks to their acting but also all the play on tone, gesture and sound that were an important part of their success. Indeed sound and gesture are not detailed in a play obviously, you have to imagine them, I had absolutely not dreamed of those dances and sounds for a second but they created an atmosphere that was completing characters' personalities. Moreover they were drawing a certain line between mortals and fairies but were also creating links between these two "worlds". It was of course reinforced by Michelle Terry and John Light playing both Hippolyta and Titania and Oberon and Theseus. I liked this idea of mixing two characters in one actor because it made me imagine that actually the fairies could be a part of the mortals, like if Hippolyta and Titania were two persons into one, completing each other. To conclude if I had one negative point it would be on the way Puck was portrayed, I liked it but something seemed missing Puck was not mischievous he was more playful, his "dark side" was not represented and I thought it was too bad.
Overall I absolutely adored the adaptation of Dominic Dromgroole for thanks to its accentuation of the comical and humorous aspect and its unexpected interpretation proving what we have been told since two years: there are lots of different interpretation for one text!
I personally really liked this adaptation of A Midsummer Night's Dream by Dominic Dromgoole. The play is very well enacted, and its adaptation includes situations that have a sense of modernity, so that nowadays' audience can stick to it. The play in itself is already very good, but the way it is enacted makes it better : Oberon and Puck seem even closer than we thought they were, and Hippolyta is as witty as I imagined her. The adventures of the lovers are very well represented, with their clothes and skins getting more and more dirty and ripped off. However, Puck did not seem malicious enough for me; I imagined him trying to bypass Oberon's commands a little, whereas in this representation he seems to be following his desires as if he was in love with him (idea confirmed when they kissed, even though it was more to bring relief than to show a real outburst of loving feelings). The mechanicals are very good; or well, actually they are not. That is what makes their actors good. To make them bad. Especially Bottom, which I imagined a bit younger, but actually the image of a more mature man suits him well; just like Quince. The other mechanicals are as simple as I supposed them to be. Their play is a complete disaster, even their stage does not hold up to the stakes of the court : it is shaky and fragile. It is, as Julie wrote it, a miniature of the Globe's stage, making it nontheless a play within a play, but also a stage within a stage that is identical to the stage that contains the stage within a stage. The fairies, however, are scary sometimes; and they are not as quiet and introvert as I thought them to be : they are all over the place, and seem a lot wilder than Oberon and Titania (maybe Puck as well). Their screams and movements are similar to those of wild animals, living in the jungle. But this enacting of the fairies is very interesting nontheless, since it gives another look into the fairy world, which, even though it controls the human world on a certain scale, is very wild and not as calm as the latter. As a conclusion, this interpretation of Shakespeare's most famous comedy surprised me; and this made it a lot more interesting and fun to watch.
ReplyDeleteI really liked this movie with its interpretation of A Midsummer Night's Dream.
ReplyDeleteI especially liked thew the oposition between the fairy world and the mortal world was presented in this adaptation.
First of all, we were all surprised by the choice of the stage director who represented fairies as part of nature, with costumes made out of wild animals and plants. They aren’t all delicate and graceful fairies and they are usually very noisy on stage, making strange, loud noises. This isn’t really how we would imagine fairies in traditional fairytales. The fairy world being so closely linked to nature added more sense to the fact that Oberon and Titania’s fight has had an effect on the weather in the mortal world.
I also found very interesting that the same actors played two different characters from the two worlds. For example the fact that the same actor played Oberon and Theseus showed a parallelism between the two characters. They both represent power and authority in their own world and they both want power over their partner and explore the themes of gender. In the end, they both get or achieve what the want: Oberon takes the Indian boy and Theseus marries Hippolyta. This parallelism also appears with Titania and Hippolyta, also played by the same actress. In this adaptation of the play, we can see two strong women who are sometimes defying this patriarchal society with the use of irony in their manners and gestures.
Finally, I noticed that when the fairies are on stage, the mortals couldn’t see or hear them while the fairies are watching them. This helps understand the power of these magical creatures over humans and how they can control this world.