Deciphering a "Dream"

It may not yet be midsummer, but anytime is a good time to indulge in Shakespeare's "A Midsummer Night's Dream," which was adapted into a charming film in 1999. CineVerse engaged in a well-rounded group discussion on the merits of this movie last evening. Here are some of the highlights:

WHAT IS INTERESTING ABOUT THIS FILM, ESPECIALLY AS A SHAKESPEARE ADAPTATION?

• It updates the time and setting of the story, from Ancient Greece to Italy in the 1900s
• It has more modern sensibilities (slight nudity) and more contemporary props (bicycles, opera records, etc.), yet keeps much of Shakespeare’s original poetic language. The dialogue is straight from the text, but is possibly more easily understood and appreciated because of the distinctive visual design and cinematic approach from the film’s director.
• Although it appears to be a fairly big budget film infused with more contemporary sensibilities and esthetics, it doesn’t over-rely on special effects and elaborate sets: Bottom’s donkey ears could have been CGI’d on, but instead they’re low-tech, as is the forest set, which is kept looking relatively simple
• It can be difficult to keep all these characters straight, especially the young lovers manipulated by the forest creatures, but by casting fairly well-known and easily recognized actors, this is arguably not as difficult.
• The cast includes a wide aray of American, French and English thespians, including TV actors and classically trained Shakespearean actors, which produces a disparity in acting styles, for better or worse.
• While this film adaptation is fairly true to the original text, it truncates speeches and removes smaller sections and material to make it more cinematic and “sitworthy” as opposed to having a long, rambling 3-plus-hour movie that is an unabridged, verbatim adaptation.

THEMES EXPLORED IN THIS MOVIE

• Love is blind: Romance is random and dependent on chance and luck.
• The difficulties that come with love, examined via the motif of love that is out of balance, in other words, romantic relationships where an inequality or discrepancy or inequity complicates the balance or harmony of that relationship.
• Dreaming, and the otherworldly, magical nature of dreams.
• Contrasting characters and personalities. The play features groups of doubles and opposites, and most characters have one. For example, Bottom is victimized by pranks while Puck likes to pull them; Bottom is ugly while Titiana is attractive; Hermia is diminutive while Helena is tall.

WHAT ARE THE INHERENT PROBLEMS THE FILMMAKERS FACED IN TRANSLATING THIS PLAY INTO A 1999 FILM?

• While this is one of Shakespeare’s more lighthearted and comedic plays, the tone of the play is so whimsical and the conflict so light and inconsequential that it can be difficult to take as seriously as one of Shakespeare’s heavy tragedies or plot-thickened dramas.
• Indeed, the fantastical elements of this story can arguably be challenging to take seriously for modern audiences. This isn’t an historical drama based on a real-life ruler or a timeless tale of unrequited lovers; this is a somewhat silly, irreverent, yet romantic and capricious tale of fantasy.
• As with any work of Shakespeare, it can be very difficult to adapt it cinematically—in other words, transform an otherwise stage-bound play into a flowing, visually fluid, interesting film, especially considering Shakespeare’s flowery language, long soliloqueys and speeches, and numerous and complex characters to distinguish among. Films need to be able to tell a story visually; Shakespeare plays rely on their language and interesting characters to tell their story.
• Modern filmmakers, like Michael Hoffman, may feel inclined to update the time and setting and contemporize the personalities and situations of the characters, as Hoffman did here. But it’s easy to lose the whimsy, charm and magical elements of this play if you tinker with it too much. 

WHY DO FILMMAKERS CONTINUE TO ADAPT SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE LANGUAGE DIFFICULTIES AND ARCHAIC TIMES AND SITUATIONS PRESESNTED IN HIS WORKS?

• Because his plots, characters and situations are timeless and endlessly fascinating to audiences of any era.
• Because, as Roger Ebert put it: “He is the measuring stick by which actors and directors test themselves. His insights into human nature are so true that he has, as Bloom argues in his book, actually created our modern idea of the human personality. Before Hamlet asked, "to be, or not to be?," dramatic characters just were. Ever since, they have known and questioned themselves. Even in a comedy like "Midsummer," there are quick flashes of brilliance that help us see ourselves.”

OTHER NOTABLE SHAKESPEARE FILM ADAPTATIONS

·       Orson Welles’ Othello (1952) and Chimes at Midnight (1965) The script contains text from five Shakespeare plays: primarily Henry IV, Part 1 and Henry IV, Part 2, but also Richard II, Henry V, and The Merry Wives of Windsor.

·       Olivier’s Richard III (1955)

·       Forbidden Planet, based on The Tempest (1956)

·       Zeffereli’s Romeo and Juliet (1968)

·       Akira Kurosawa’s Ran, based on King Lear (1985), and Throne of Blood (1955), based on Macbeth

·       Kenneth Branagh’s Henry V (1989)

·       Branagh’s Hamlet (1996)