The Production

In retrospect, I should have done this differently.

My intention for my analysis of A Midsummer Night's Dream was to complete it and post it all in one big post. I think that was a bad idea for two reasons: 1) it was a little too much to chew, and think that it would be all ready to go by last Friday, and 2) it would have, in some ways, defeated the usefulness of the blog format. I have been working to illustrate some of my ideas with the play, but it has been more time consuming than I had expected and I have had some frustration with the effectiveness of my approach (I will discuss this later). On top of that, I now think that using the blogging platform to my advantage would have been the best way to go. Blogs are iterative—they allow you to write and formulate ideas and analyses, then update and change them as you work. We were told to blog our process, but I guess I didn't fully understand what that meant or how to do it. I think I do now.

In somewhat of a penitent attitude, I have decided to complete my assignment in iterations. The vast majority of these will be completed and posted today, with some other additions coming throughout the week as follow-ups to today's posts. By doing things this way, I hope to take better advantage of my blog and use it as a way to develop my thoughts rather than simply present them. I hope, too, that I can make better use of feedback and comments to further develop my ideas. Thus, three days late, so begins my analysis.

THE PRODUCTION—

As part of my analysis of Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream, I elected to view the 1999 film by the same name. Directed by Michael Hoffman, the film's cast was full of several actors that I know of and enjoy: Kevin Kline, Michelle Pfeiffer, Rupert Everett, Stanley Tucci, and Christian Bale. Because of the quality of actors, I anticipated an adaptation that I would enjoy. I wasn't disappointed.

Obviously, there are specific adjustments that need to be made in order to adapt a theatrical drama to the medium of film. I think I was most impressed with these adjustments and the way that they were handled. It was apparent to me that the director and others involved in the production knew and understood both the play and medium that they were presenting in.

On Film Acting—

Stanley Tucci as Puck

In a stage drama, the acting is often exaggerated and played up in order to appeal to a live audience. Similar to the way that clowns wear greatly overdone makeup in order to make their facial expressions more visible, stage actors must be very extravagant in their body language and their speaking of the text in order to be understood. In many cases, the text itself is written so as to cater to the medium of stage acting. Film, however, is quite different. Because the audience isn't live and the performance is caught on camera, the acting can be much more personal. The camera can be focused in on the face of a performer, allowing the audience to see emotion and understand speech softly spoken. This allows for more feeling and a deep understanding of the character itself. I believe that this can yield a great amount of authenticity to a performance. In our own lives, we interact with people and understand them in several different ways—all of which influence our perception of people and why they do what they do. These might include language, body language, tone of voice, facial expressions, etc. While many of these do factor into stage performing, they are able to be produced in a much more realistic manner on film. Because this is the same way that we understand people in our real lives, we can better understand a character based upon their more personal performance. I think that the director of the film I watched understood this.

On Soliloquies—
For example, Shakespeare often uses soliloquies from major characters to explain to the audience the way that a character is feeling or why he is acting in the manner that he is. In A Midsummer Night's Dream, there are several instances when the soliloquies are completely cut out or handled in a very different way because that exposition is no longer necessary—we, the viewers, were able to glean that information through the performance already, without the need of explicitly telling us. At the end of Act I Scene I, Helena makes a speech concerning her problem of loving Demetrius without that love being reciprocated. This is completely cut from the film, yet I found it to have to problematic effect to understanding the character of Helena. (A couple lines from the soliloquy are actually used in a minor cut back to Helena later in the film that explain her decision to alert Demetrius of Hermia's flight into the woods, but this does not affect my point.) There are other lines left out throughout the play as well, but in most cases, they were lines that were obviously catering to the needs of stage actors and often the same information is conveyed through the acting itself. (For example, the players line, said in unison, "That would hang us, every mother's son!" is removed in favor of a shot of the players uneasily tugging at their collars and rubbing their necks—a much more realistic and fitting way to present the same information.)

On Settings—
Another adjustment made in film adaptations is that there is now a much broader stage—in fact, there is no stage. The set can be much more open and extravagant. The film I watched did a great job of establishing a believable but very whimsical setting. The colors in the film itself were treated well—sometimes very saturated, sometimes very monotone—and helped establish the mood and fantastic quality of the story. The palace of Theseus was very picturesque and the grassy stairs leading into it, at least to me, did an excellent job of adding an element of fantasy to what was supposed to be the "real" parts of the play.

On Bicycles—

A bicyle.

Finally, I wanted to discuss the inclusion of bicycles. From the beginning, bicycles are a major part of the film. They are being sold in town, the Athenian lovers ride them into the woods, and Puck even steals Lysander's bicycle and rides it around as he performs his mischief. They do an excellent job of adding a romantic and whimsical prop that is unique but fun. I can't help but think that Shakespeare would approve of such an addition. What I think it interesting is that a bicycle requires balance in order to stay up and let the rider move forward. So does a romantic relationship. And so does the outcome of a Shakespearean comedy. I think it is the perfect image for A Midsummer Night's Dream, which itself is, in many way, full of imagery relating to the concept of balance (which I will be addressing in one of my later posts). I find it particularly relevant that Helena often crashes her bicycle when pursuing and arguing with Demetrius, whom she loves, though he loves another. There is a great lack of balance in this relationship, and so too is there a lack of balance in Helena's bike.

UP NEXT: Balance in A Midsummer Night's Dream