|
A Mid Summer Night's Dream Film Analysis A Mid summer Night's Dream is
another entry into Shakespeare's recent rebirth on film. Michael Hoffman's film
dose not stay true to the text, but he must take liberties to allow for this
classic story to be entertaining to today's audience. In this essay I will
discuss the differences between the text vision and the film vision of this
story from the historical setting, the time placement, Hoffman's personal
adaptations, and finally Hoffman's character adaptations. In Michael Hoffman's
film of William Shakespeare's a Midsummer Night's Dream, Hoffman has made some
changes to the location and historical aspects of the play. Shakespeare drew
upon classical mythology, English literature, English folklore and contemporary
English life.
So Hoffman had to try his best to update it to today's views on
mythology, folklore, and life. Hoffman's film is set in Italy, instead of Greece
like in the text. Hoffman may have chosen Italy instead of Greece, because Italy
overall has a universal romantic feel to it. Also Hoffman may have chosen Italy
because it is much more well know to the general moviegoers. Unlike today, in
Shakespeare's time Greece was the center of classical history, and would be know
to most of the people of his day. Hoffman did include a Greek theme when he
invented the town of Monte Athena located in Tuscany. The town is made-up but
still connects the text with Hoffman's film. For the parts of the movie that
would be filmed in the woods, they had the filming done indoors at a studio.
They would need room to maneuver people and cameras, so the real outdoors would
not do. The director would not have to deal with the weather, or having enough
sun light. Also the indoor setting in allowed the fairies to observe the morals,
in a believable setting. So now that I have show you the setting of the film,
let me show you how time was a factor in Hoffman film. In Michael Hoffman's film
the play took place in the turn of the century. Telling the story using the
costumes of Shakespeare's day would have alienated the viewer of the film. Also
modern clothes would jar the mood, so the actors were costumed in clothes of the
1900's.
The turn of the century was far enough back to support romance views yet
close enough so that the suits and dresses looked something like our clothes,
and would feel comfortable to us. Unlike other films that copied the plot of
Shakespeare's work, but did not use Shakespearean language. For example, the
film 10 things I hate about you that is a modern version of Shakespeare's Taming
of the Shrews. Hoffman's film follows the Shakespearean format, just like the
last few Shakespearean films: Othello, Much Ado about Nothing, etc. In a
historical context it was the middle of the suffrage movement. So the woman of
the time were more independent then in Shakespeare's day. Also in Michael
Hoffman's film the used bicycles as a form of transporting. The bicycle was a
new invention that would allow anyone the freedom of movement. It was a
liberating experience that was expressed by the main charters in the film.
So
now that I have shown you how time was a factor in Hoffman's film. Let me show
you how Hoffman adapted the play to his liking. In Michael Hoffman's adaptation
of the play many of the long speeches were shortened or left out. It is possible
that Hoffman had to get the film in a two-hour time frame that most modern film
fit into. Any longer and filmgoers would get bored, and restless. Usually large
audiences see ether the film version or the stage version of A Mid Summer Night
Dream. While the film is seen on the screen, the play is seen in real time,
live. Although in the feel version Hoffman had the ability to use special
effects to display he view on how the magic would look like, instead of walking
off stage. Hoffman added a character of Nick Bottom's wife. She had only a few
lines, in which all were in Italian.
Also Nick Bottom's wife was looking for her
no good husband in the beginning of the film, while Bottom was trying to be
covert, and not be seen by her. I Hoffman possible added this character so have
a conflict between Bottom and his wife, so when Titania falls in love with
Bottom, there would be a cause of the affair. In Hoffman's film, when Bottom was
transformed in to the ass. Instead of putting a mask on Bottom, like in many
plays had the ears, hair, and a few other changes so that you could still tell
that it was Kline. Possibly Hoffman thought it would be good to have an n
attractive figure of a man as Titania's lover, even with an ass's head. Also
Kline was the perfect candidate to play Bottom. Other than Kline and the actor
who played Oberon, all the other the players in the film seem to be struggling
to say the Shakespearean lines. So Hoffman instead of using classically trained
actors, he allowed these stars like Calista Flockhart, Anna Friel, and Christian
Bale to be in the film, too possibly to gain ticket sales.
So now I have show
you how Hoffman adapted his film from the play, let me talk about how he
changed, and added characters into the play. In Hoffman's film an older man
plays Puck. In the play Puck has been played as a mischievous young child. It is
possible that Hoffman did this so at the end of the play when Puck has his last
statement for the audience, the audience will be more conformable with an older
adult, than a young child. Also Hoffman may have had the belief that the fairies
are immoral, so how old someone looks isn't important. Hoffman also incorporated
the fairies into the film as secretive beings that live among use, but we do not
notice them. Right at the beginning of the film, you can see these little people
stealing everyday objects.
They take the objects back to the fairy world, as
wonders of the outside world. Hoffman possibly uses these film moments as a way
to incorporate the faries into the real world, so the view will not just have
these fairies pop out of no were in the film. At the end of the film the fairies
go around and bless the wedding. After the blessing one of the fairies who I
believe it is Titania visits Bottom. It may be a way for Titania to say good
bye, and that she stills has a place for him in her heart. Michael Hoffman's
film is a well done film, but is not in the class of great Shakespearean films
like Kenneth Branagh's Henry V, Richard III, and Much Ado About Nothing. Branagh
who has made Shakespearean works accessible to a wider audience. Hoffman has
made to many changes to this classic. Although it is a well-done movie, to the
die-hard Shakespearean faithful, it would be to their best interest to see it
done on a stage.
|