“A Midsummer Night’s Dream” Play and 1999 Reproduction

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Character Changes Integrated into the Movie
The Impact of Altering the Film’s Setting
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

The works created by William Shakespeare remain a topic of incredible interest despite their considerable age. Even though Shakespeare’s dramas were written more than five centuries ago, their captivating plot lines and fascinating relevancy to modern life still inspire numerous authors throughout the world to develop play reproductions. As such, a particular type of reproduction that is extremely popular in the current age is the film adaptation of Shakespeare’s various works, which allows demonstrating the plays’ content in a cinematographic format (Gerzic 11). A relevant example is the movie A Midsummer Night’s Dream, directed by Michael Hoffman and released in 1999. Based on the play by the same name, this reproduction adapts the original storyline to be presented on cinema screens; however, the discussed representation is drastically different from the original version. Specifically, the 1999 film poorly demonstrates the primary characters and introduces a novel setting, which tremendously changes the audience’s perspectives on the work and contributes to an unsuccessful reproduction.

Character Changes Integrated into the Movie

The film A Midsummer Night’s Dream, although based on the play of the same name by Shakespeare, adopts a different approach to the storyline. Such a decision by the director Michael Hoffman resulted in a number of striking contrasts between the drama and the movie. One of the most noticeable distinctions was the lack of details present in the cinematographic reproduction, as the film was significantly shorter compared to the play (Gerzic 26). Considering that the cinema format significantly restricts the timing of the works, the film A Midsummer Night’s Dream has a length of one hour and 56 minutes, while the drama itself is typically about two hours and 30 minutes, excluding the intermission. Therefore, several events present in the play have to be removed from the movie, which negatively impacted the story’s pace and led to the elimination of certain characters’ appearances.

A perfect example of this contrast is the role of the Changeling boy, which is significant for understanding the relationship between Titania and Oberon. During the play, Titania and Oberon discussed the Changeling boy several times, and it became evident that Titania was irrationally invested in this character (Shakespeare). As such, Titania refused to give the boy to Oberon:

Oberon. I do but beg a little changeling boy,
To be my henchman.
Titania. Set your heart at rest:
The fairy land buys not the child of me.
His mother was a votaress of my order: […]
But she, being mortal, of that boy did die;
And for her sake do I rear up her boy,
And for her sake I will not part with him. (Shakespeare 159)

Thus, the Changeling boy became the symbol of Titania’s desire, which further forced Oberon to value the young changeling and diminished the suffering experienced by the woman after the boy’s apprehension (Jackson 135). In contrast, in the film, the Changeling boy is discussed only briefly, and all mentions of him are discontinued after the confrontation between Titania and Oberon (Mayo 312). Such sequencing negatively impacts the complication between these characters, making it less relevant to the plot. Following that, the tragedy of Oberon’s jealousy becomes less obvious, and the Changeling boy’s overall presence becomes too insignificant to impact the audience’s perceptions of the work.

Another feature of Shakespeare’s drama misrepresented in the cinematographic reproduction was the behavior of the fairies. In the play, fairies are represented as free-spirited magical entities who are in love with life and maintain a peaceful attitude towards the world (Shakespeare). Not only do these magical creatures appear kind and friendly, but they also provide comedic relief, falling in love with the wrong people and performing small mischiefs throughout the play (Jackson 143). Nevertheless, in the movie, these characters become rather frivolous and arrogant, becoming tremendously less charming and amusing for the viewers. For example, Puck was originally represented as a young, charming boy, while in the film, he had the appearance of a rude, middle-aged man (Hoffman). Therefore, the audience’s understanding of fairies changes drastically, negatively impacting the play’s truth of coherence.

The Impact of Altering the Film’s Setting

A crucial aspect of the movie to be discussed is the change in environmental characteristics. Similar to the alterations in certain events and character roles, the location was also changed in the cinematographic reproduction, leading to several inconsistencies between the play and the film (Buhler 51). A critical difference can be noticed between the setting of the drama and its cinema counterpart, with the events of Shakespeare’s work transpiring in Athens, the capital of Greece, and the movie being set in Italy.

In order to create a perception of a magical land filled with myths and legends, Shakespeare chose Athens as the primary location for the plotline. Being the country of ancient mythology, gods, fairies, and other magical creatures, Greece establishes a feeling of magic and supernatural in the audience, allowing them to understand the play’s events better. Such a decision also led to a seamless integration of conventions related to magic, such as fairies, potions, and mystical occurrences into the story (Gerzic 38). However, in the movie, the production is moved to twentieth-century Italy, a rather contemporary setting more familiar to the viewers (Hoffman). Although this choice might allow the audience to understand the surrounding environment better, it contrasts with the nature of the transpiring events, resulting in confusion and misunderstandings.

Given the importance of magic for the storyline, the viewers must be able to easily comprehend the surrounding circumstances and make quick connections between the drama’s location and characters. Nonetheless, with the action of the film being set in relatively modern Italy, the audience is much more likely to encounter issues when trying to link the appearance of mythological creatures to the surrounding environment during exposition (Mayo 304). Even though Italy possesses a rich history and is a beautiful location for cinematography, it is not innately related to magic or myths, which incredibly decreases the immersion into the drama.

In addition to the lack of a mystical background, the modern setting also creates a crucial issue connected to the properties utilized by the actors. Considering the contemporary environment, the movie incorporates modern inventions, clothing, language, and even behavior, swaying from the original interpretation of Athens toward a more current perspective (Hoffman). For example, in the film, the characters used bicycles to transit through the city, which reduced the impression of a magical setting and led to perceptions of a contemporary environment (Hoffman). From this perspective, the film does not represent the work as it was intended by the author, misinterpreting the overall ambiance and introducing novel inventions which disrupt the climax.

Conclusion

To conclude, the primary contrasts between the play A Midsummer Night’s Dream and its cinema adaptation were discussed in detail in this paper, explaining how the differences between the works’ events, characters, and environments negatively impact the viewers’ perceptions. Despite being based on Shakespeare’s drama, the 1999 reproduction of A Midsummer Night’s Dream does not successfully retell the story as intended by the author, integrating significant changes. The contrasts in the Changeling boys’ role, the behavior of the fairies, and the events’ setting contribute to the removal of essential plotlines and magical aspects, weakening the story’s impression. As a result, both the comedic and the tragic characteristics of the work are lost to the audience, decreasing the catharsis effects.

Works Cited

Buhler, Stephen M. “Textual and Sexual Anxieties in Michael Hoffman’s Film of A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” Shakespeare Bulletin, vol. 22, no. 3, 2004, pp. 49–64.

Gerzic, Marina. The Intersection of Shakespeare and Popular Culture: An Intertextual Examination of Some Millennial Shakespearean Film Adaptations (1999-2001), with Special Reference to Music. 2008. The University of Western Australia, Doctoral Thesis.

Hoffman, Michael. A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Fox Searchlight Pictures, New Regency Productions, Taurus Film, 1999.

Jackson, Russell. The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare on Screen. Cambridge University Press, 2020.

Mayo, Sarah. “A Shakespeare for the People’? Negotiating the Popular in Shakespeare in Love and Michael Hoffman’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream.”Textual Practice, vol. 17, no. 2, 2003, pp. 295–315.

Shakespeare, William. A Midsummer Night’s Dream. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2020.

Click Here To Order Now!

“A Midsummer Night’s Dream” Play and 1999 Reproduction

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)