Saturday, September 11, 2010

Moviethon: Midsummer Night's Dream

*scene: Mad's livingroom, still. Cheddar popcorn and facial masks. No wine, but we'll get to work on that.
For Midsummer Night's Dream we watched the 1999 version with Michelle Pfeiffer, Kevin Kline, Rupert Everett and others.

ii: Oh, gosh! They elaborated and ruined the whole thing! You don't elaborate on Shakespeare! Why? Why?!?
Other than that, well, it was a silly little comedy, so what do you expect? But they made it boring.

M: If it wasn't apparent from my constant crys of "when is this going to end??" and "I'm soooo bored!!", I thought the movie was incredbly boring. They should've shaved off 30-45 minutes, than it might've been tolerable. Kevin Kline was marvelous as Bottom/Ass though (tell me Shakespeare did that with the names on purpose?!).

ii: What? You weren't completely captivated by it? I never would have guessed! Seriously, though, I'm not too sure I liked Kline's take on Bottom (now that sounded dirty!). I didn't picture him quite so ... well, odious. I also didn't like Christian Bale, despite his rather shag-worthy physique. There's just something fundamentally wrong in the combination of Christian Bale and Shakesperean language. It's like ... me quoting the Stepford Wives Code of Conduct, and not in the mocking kind of way.

M: I thought Kevin was hilarious. The players were one of the highlights, but they managed to drag that thing on way too long as well, so they kinda spoiled that too. Oh well, there's one thing this movie is good for; it'll come in handy if you have to read the play but can't be bothered to, the movie is very true to the original play. Apart from the bicycles. I have no clue what the bicycles were doing there?! They served no purpose what so ever.

ii: The players were okay, I guess. I also liked the four lovers stuck in the wood all night. It's just that Shakespeare kind of wrote that complete, there was nothing left for interpretation or explanation (assuming you got the language) so none of the elaborations of the movie were needed. And I certainly didn't get the bicycles either! I think that based on our conclusive take on Shakespeare-in-movies (grand total of 1) we can say that Shakespeare is meant to be read, not watched. No?

M: Hear hear sisterfriend!! I vote for the book in this one! The movies are not doing too well in comparison... It'll be very interesting to see how are we going to like the next one since we both disliked the book! (Can you guess what it'll be??)

ii: Ah, yes. Does it count against the movie or the book if I dislike the movie for having a similar end to the book and thus ending in a completely crapola way?

3 comments:

  1. I definitely have to throw out there that my opinion is Shakespeare is certainly meant to be read. Actors and producers get in there and screw with his stuff and its ruined. Not cool. All the movies adaptations with the exception of one (1960s version of Romeo and Juliet) has shattered it.

    I say get over it and read it or just leave it be.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hannah: So true, sisterfriend!

    Your Blog sucks ass: Could you please elaborate; if you're referring to us, our posts on this particular topic, Shakespeare in general, this particular play or this particular movie as being boring, just so we know how to answer your insightful comment. Thankyoueverso.

    ReplyDelete