charlesem The spirit that animates this version of the play is not that of William Shakespeare but Felix Mendelssohn. Shakespeare's text has been trimmed to a nubbin and hashed up by the "arrangers," Charles Kenyon and Mary C. McCall Jr., and it's gabbled by the all-star cast. Strangely, Olivia de Havilland as Hermia and Mickey Rooney as Puck are the worst offenders, and they are the only members of the cast of Max Reinhardt's celebrated 1934 Hollywood Bowl production, which inspired Warner Bros. to film the play, who made it into the movie. De Havilland delivers her lines with heavy emphasis on seemingly random words and with odd pauses, while Rooney punctuates every line with giggles, chortles, and shrieks that affect some viewers like fingernails on a chalkboard. Nobody in the cast seems to be aware that they're speaking verse. Fortunately, the decision was made to use the Mendelssohn overture and incidental music (along with snippets of other works by Mendelssohn), and to have it orchestrated by Erich Wolfgang Korngold. The result is an opulently balletic version of the play, taking advantage of what can be done in movies that can't be done on stage. Is it good? Maybe not, but it's much more fun than the stodgily reverent version of Romeo and Juliet (George Cukor, 1936) that MGM came up with the following year. Casting James Cagney as Bottom/Pyramus and Joe E. Brown as Flute/Thisby was a masterstroke, and if they had been directed by someone with a surer sense of American comic idiom than Reinhardt, the Viennese refugee from Hitler who spoke very little English (Dieterle acted as interpreter), the results would have been classic -- as it is, they're just bumptious fun. Much of the movie is sheer camp, reminiscent of the twee illustrations for children's books in the early 20th century. But there is a spectacular moment in the film when Oberon (Victor Jory) gathers the fairies, gnomes, and bat- winged sprites to depart, under a billowing black train that sometimes resembles smoke. The cinematography by Hal Mohr won the only write-in Oscar ever granted by the Academy. (charlesmatthews.blogspot.com)

audiemurph Don't get me wrong: this is a fine movie, and often a dreamy and captivating one at that; but, if you are expecting to see an interpretation of a Shakespeare play, you will be disappointed. What I mean is, Warner Brothers decided that the movie should focus primarily on what movies do best, which is to create a magical experience for the viewer; hence, the overwhelming majority of the movie is spent on phantasmic and mystical sets, wondrous special effects, and outrageous costumes and dance numbers, all for the goal of transporting you into a dream-world of fairies and gnomes and star-crossed lovers.For a secondary goal, the producers wanted to show off their two major stars, James Cagney and Mickey Rooney. Rooney, only 14 or so, was a young man of incredible talent, possessing perhaps the finest natural gift for entertainment in all of American cinematography. Does he over-act here, as many have complained? I don't think so; he is appropriately exuberant, and, well, Puckish. A worse problem is that his voice was just changing, and is awfully harsh and grating at times, caught as it is is between childhood and adulthood.Mendelssohn's music is featured heavily also throughout, being used to enhance the spectral quality of our film.But what about Shakespeare? The play itself is one of the Master's shorter plays, and can be read through out loud in about 2 hours. A Shakespeare play is primarily about the words, and the poetry. Unfortunately, the producers of this movie version easily cut out over 80% - I am not exaggerating - of the lines of the 4 lovers and Theseus and Hippolyta. Almost no speech of more than 4 or 5 lines remained unmassacred. As a result, the script is choppy and unpoetic, dreadful really. A lot of the logic of the speeches and the story are completely lost, due to the devastating excising of the script; just one example: Theseus overrides Egeus' wish to have Demetrius marry Hermia, without him ever actually being told that Demetrius no longer loves her, and has fallen for Helena instead.If you are a hard-core Shakespeare reader, you will also note, frustratingly, how just about all the "thees" and "thous" have been changed to "you-s". One of the great pleasures of reading Elizabethan drama is to follow how playwrights' characters switch back and forth between thee-ing and you-ing, depending on the relationships between the speakers; "Thee" is used either to express closeness, or deliberate informal insult and contempt; "You" is subtle, defining a respectful relationship, or helping to preserve distance between speakers. All of this is lost in the movie.And why do so many of the characters have to laugh uncontrollably while they are speaking? Just another minor irritation, I guess.So, while this version of MND is great fun as a movie, don't expect to get to hear a lot of the poetry of the Bard.

georgana I bought this movie because I want to see as many Joe E. Brown movies as possible. Joe, and other Warner Brother's actors/actresses, didn't want to make this movie because they were not getting paid to act in it. Instead of cash, Joe was allowed to take the afternoon off any time he wanted to go to the races. That was his payment for his participation in the movie. Joe played the flute player. In the version of the video I saw, there was no scene in which he played the flute. Joe also was forced to dress like a woman and play a female part in the play. He did it reluctantly but it horrified him when a critic implied that he was a female impersonator. Joe said "I was shocked, horrified, and embarrassed when I was taken for a female impersonator."

MartinHafer This obviously was a quality production for Warner Brothers and had it been made just a few years later I am sure they would have done it in Technicolor (1935 was still a bit early for this). It begins with a very long overture--a sure sign of self-importance for the film! Then, you see that practically all the A-talent (aside from Bette Davis, George Raft and Edward G. Robinson) were assembled for this film--Dick Powell, Olivia de Havilland, Frank McHugh, Hugh Herbert, Joe E. Brown, Arthur Treacher and James Cagney. The last five are certainly odd-ball choices for a Shakespeare play--that's for sure! And, on top of all this, the film has amazing costumes and sets as well as a two-hour plus running time! Wow. Unfortunately for the studio, while the film was critically successful, it baffled audiences of the day...and continues to do that to this day.Now I must stop here and confess two things that you should consider as you read my review. First, I never have read or seen this play up until now. Second, I enjoy Shakespeare about as much as I enjoy an outbreak of Herpes! And, before you write to me about how great The Bard is, understand I have read at least dozen plays (even some obscure ones like "Henry IV, Part One")--all thanks to overly conventional high school and college teachers who considered Shakespeare to be a close second to God (or first in a few cases). This review, then, is probably more for the common man...as well as the uncommon man (or woman) who is actually willing to face scorn by admitting they hate Shakespeare! I am sure this last statement will generate a heap of 'not helpfuls'! Now if I have to endure a Shakespeare production (other than the wonderful one by The Reduced Shakespeare Company), this isn't a bad film. After all, this is one of Shakespeare's 'funny' plays (of course, Shakespeare was to humor what Genghis Khan was to opera). And, of all his funny plays I've seen on film, this one certainly is more enjoyable than "The Taming of the Shrew" and "Othello" (at least I think "Othello" is pretty funny--I have heard rumors that it was supposed to be a tragedy--go figure). Also, it's so surreal seeing these many non-Shakespearian actors doing their craft! I also should point out that this might be the most beautiful Shakespearian production ever mounted. The camera-work is simply brilliant and I cannot think of any other black & white film that can stake the claim as being better than this one in this regard. Second, apparently the Warners really, really wanted to gain a lot of respect as an artistic studio (instead of the most fun studio--which it really with all its gangster and adventure films) and used amazing sets--ones that make the film worth seeing for this alone! Heck, keeping the volume off and just watching would be worth while. However, DON'T do that, as the music is quite luminous (can something visual actually be luminous?!)--and sets the perfect stage for the film. Seeing pixies and nymphs and elves and other magical creatures cavorting about set to this music is just wild! So what you have is a film that may or may not be Shakespeare (I dunno--as I said, I've never seen or read this one) but it ain't bad--and a visual delight as well. So, if you MUST watch one of his plays, this is a great bet. However, you also might try watching Akira Kurosawa's "The Bad Sleep Well" (it's a re-imagined 20th century corporate version of "Hamlet") or "Throne of Blood" ("King Lear" in medieval Japan)--these are both brilliant films AND YET they still have the snob appeal of regular Shakespeare! Or, you could take my advice and try "Strange Brew". This Doug & Bob McKenzie film from the 80s is "Hamlet" as well...but you have to pay VERY close attention to see this.