A Midsummer Night's Dream (1935)

Shakespeare Collides With Ziegfeld's Follies

Now I know why this movie failed in the theaters. First of all - Shakespeare's plays with their Elizabethan English are too hard to understand by semi literate American audiences, especially of the 1930's. Second of all, there were way too many special effects, music, and dance numbers right out of Vaudeville. Thirdly, some of the fairies looked like something out of a nightmare of Dante's Inferno, appearing quite grotesque. Fourth, the adults and children were so scantily clad I imagine the Catholic Church and other churches had fits when it was released. Fifth and finally, there was not enough of the Bard for the play to make sense. It came off as Shakespeare collides with Ziegfeld's follies. The acting to say the least was over done, exaggerated, and hammy at best. To borrow a title from another Shakespeare play, it was really MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING. I am grateful the director did not succeed in making another movie about one of the Bard's plays. July 6, 2008

Enchanting and funny

I was fortunate to be able to see this version of A Midsummernight's Dream on the big screen of the local university's auditorium, many years ago. It was absolutely wonderful. I have seen many other versions since, but this black-and white rendition remains the best, to this day. I own a copy on VHS, but I'm happy to see that it is now finally available on DVD. July 3, 2008

Good for the time in which it was made.

A Midsummer Night's Dream I laughed at this very funny movie but doubt I will ever watch it again. While I love many of the stars in it it was just a little bit crazy for me.

If you like old movies and love to see the advances they made for this year this really does show what you want.
June 12, 2008

Shakespeare's Phantom Menace?

Reinhardt's A Midsummer Night's Dream has it all wrong. While the mechanicals and fairies are both strong, and important, aspects to the play, they ultimately are subordinate to the story of the lovers. Reinhardt plays the lovers down, plays them loosely, cuts their lines, allows them to ham it up, and all to serve his interest in making the fairy-scenes the apparent matter of his production.

The fairy scenes are pretty, and the music (though not originally written for this film) is wonderful. However, they were never designed to carry the weight of the play. Here, it may seem to a person that the true conflict of the play is that between Titania and Oberon, as the lovers get short-shrift and every fairy scene is drawn out to unnecessary length. It makes the entire production feel over-long, and Reinhardt's penchant for dialogue-less scenes of ballet and dance do not help matters. Plays, in general, find their energy in the delivery of their dialogue. Shakespeare is renowned, even among playwrights, for his dialogue. Cutting it up in favor of long sequences of imagery destroys the vital tempo which is so important to a work of this kind, even if that imagery is glorious.

Many people come away from this film remembering only Rooney's portrayal of Puck. There is good reason for this: Reinhardt takes every opportunity (and creates several from thin air) to shove Puck into scenes where he does not generally belong. Puck is then given the opportunity to mug ad nauseum, even when not to the point of the scene, and even when taking away from what point there might have been. Reinhardt actually rearranges a particular sequence of events (Oberon's discovery of Puck's error in identifying the "Athenian youth") so that Puck can intrude in yet another scene, for no discernible reason but to be obnoxious on camera. And obnoxious he is -- the laugh that Rooney creates for Puck is awful the first time you hear it, and he does it again and again, even in scenes where Puck is undoing the once-done mischief.

For modern viewers, we can look at Puck as being Reinhardt's Jar-Jar Binks. Like Lucas was with his unfortunate CG Gungan, Reinhardt is so enamored with Puck that he throws the camera to him as much as possible, and gives him line after line that Shakespeare did not intend. I do not hold Shakespeare to be infallible, or unamendable, but Reinhardt does us no favors in his edit, and makes me hate Puck like I've never hated Iago.

Puck isn't the only one to have an obnoxious laugh. Indeed, it seems to have been a requirement for the cast: you must develop such a laugh for each character, and then use it as much as possible whether the scene calls for it or not. At one point, Reinhardt abridges an entire scene between the lovers and reduces it to nothing but 2 minutes worth of laughter. Another lover's scene becomes a rash of talking over each other... another reviewer here said that Reinhardt "played the lovers for laughs." Not so! *Shakespeare* played the lovers for laughs, through his dialogue; Reinhardt kills the dialogue, and so "makes up for it" by having them laugh obnoxiously, shout Tourettes-like for no reason, and make faces.

Reinhardt so feels that his comic-sensibilities outweigh Shakespeare's that he interjects all sorts of devices into the mechanicals rehearsals and performance. Well... by "all sorts of devices," I mainly mean more out-of-place laughter, and having them repeat lines, but there's also a sword-gag in the final Pyramus/Thisbe scene that I suppose comes off alright.

All-in-all, this production of A Midsummer Night's Dream is a bit of a mess. The visuals are very pretty, and for that reason I grant it two stars, but Reinhardt presents them at the cost of the story, which really ought to be the central focus. What story is there is chopped, and presented so that the mechanicals and fairies seem more central than the lovers, all of which has the effect of destroying the tempo and making it feel a very long experience in the watching. The actors' performances are very inconsistent, and replace the humor inherent to the dialogue with overdone mugging and obnoxious laughter. Worst of all in this respect is Puck-Puck Binks, who must find a way into almost every scene, filling the soundtrack with a pointless and distracting braying.

Classic due more to its age than its content, this is a disappointment -- Shakespeare should never be two stars.
April 27, 2008

WARNER'S "PRESTIGE" FOLLY - ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL !

A beautiful print with excellent extras. One could certainly quibble about whether or not it's "Shakespeare" - But who cares, it's fantastically conceived and BEAUTIFULLY photographed. The cast is eclectic, to say the least - But in nutty sort of way, inspired (Rooney). The Korngold score is a treasure from beginning to end (adapted with great skill from several of Menddelssohn's works - A not totally successful reconstruction of the score can be had on CD {CPO}, but there ARE pleasures to found in it).
It's amazing that Warner Bros. could be "tricked" into spending so lavishly on a work so out of their "MO" - but they were, and we're the benefactors 73 years later! It's to be enjoyed again & again. March 8, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...