To start off, I'd just like to say that I really enjoyed the production Chicago's Shakespeare Theatre put on of A Midsummer Night's Dream. While I could go on praising the play as a work of literature, and commending Shakespeare brilliance, that wouldn't do his particular production justice. The play is without a doubt a fantastic work of poetry and writing, and truly entertaining, but I think what set this production apart from most others in just any old theatre is the unique interpretation of the director, and the caliber of the actors' portrayal of Shakespeare's characters.
It was easy to tell that both the actors and the director were very familiar and comfortable with Shakespeare. I was looking through the playbill and I noticed a section that said the director chose to switch the order of the first two scenes, making the meeting of the Mechanicals happen before we're introduced to Hermia who's asking for her father's permission to marry Lysander. This change didn't really change the plot or feel of the play at all, but the fact that the director was able and wanted to switch around some scenes obviously showed that he had a clear vision and direction for the play, and that he was making conscious, knowledgable decisions as a director, which is something I really appreciated because it's easy for a director to be outshined by his cast or the original writer, but I had a lot of respect for this director's vision and get an idea of how his thoughts worked without ever actually meeting him. The actors too seemed very at ease with the language and atmosphere of Shakespeare, allowing the play to open up and develop itself without having to force entertainment or make the characters seem to distant from real life. I was a little caught off guard in the beginning, but they did a fantastic job of easing the audience into the story and letting Shakespeare's shenanigans unfold naturally.
The unique setting of the play was initially a little off-putting, usually when we (or at least I) picture a Shakespearean play in my head, it's not set in the 1920's. I did come to appreciate this aspect though, for a number of reasons. First of all it showed the director's creativity and his ability to bring his own interpretation to an audience (something I really envy), and it also gave him the opportunity to introduce a modern connection to the 400 year old play: Sigmund Freud, doubling as the mischievious fairy Puck. The first character we see in the whole play is Sigmund Freud, and in some respects the last character we see in this particular production is Sigmund Freud (Puck took the last bow). The decision to have Puck emerge out of Sigmund Freud's image was not only chilling but brilliant. The synthesis between Freud's analysis of dreams, and Shakespeare's play on the interactions between our dream state and our realities seemed flawless. Using Freud's face as a way of showing the proposed relation between our conscious aspirations and what is acted out in our subconscious not only displayed the director's creativity, but also seemed to breathe new life into a quickly aging play, kept young by Shakespeare's (and in this perspective Freud's) ability to speak to human nature as a whole, not just individual characters.
The play would be lost, however, without it's individual characters solely because of how much entertainment they provide. Usually my mindset when going to see our read Shakespeare is, "he's a master of the human mind so be on the look out for cool ideas/archetypes he points out." All of this was forgotten in the second act of A Midsummer Night's Dream, not because it became irrelevant, but because I was absolutely laughing my face off. The Bard's writing is hysterical, but the actors that brought it to life and made the 400 year old jokes work today deserve a lot of the credit. Some of the looks you could catch the actors giving the audience (particularly the actor's who played Odeon and Titania/ The Duke and Hippolyta) brought not only more modern relatability to the play, but also a slightly satirical comedic flare that's usually not associated with stage productions. Overall, I really did appreciate the way the director injected some modern elements, and his own modern backdrop to the play, and I was more than entertained by the hilariousness of the plot and the actors who brought it to life. It's a shame that we saw the play on the last day of its run, because I'd even consider going back to see it a second time, but I look forward to the Chicago Shakespeare Theatre's next production, as I'm sure it will be equally impressive and I'm really starting to like that place; hopefully I can look forward to more fieldtrips of their productions (ehem ehem Academy teachers).
These trips to the Shakespeare Theatre are really fostering my appreciation and enjoyment of Shakespeare and, of course, it's always nice to spend a day with the Academy
April 6th, 2011
Jack, I also found myself looking through the playbill when writing the Midsummer blog entry because I wrote about the choice the director made to set the play in the 1920s. I noticed that the director had chosen to switch the first two scenes of the play, too, but I didn’t write about it, and I really didn’t know what to think of it until I read your blog.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I agree with you that this is clear evidence of the director’s comfort with Shakespeare and that he was making conscious decisions. This means that the enjoyment of the production doesn’t solely rest on the shoulders of Shakespeare and the actors.
So in terms of altering Shakespeare’s plays, how far is too far? How much can a director push the conventional interpretation of Shakespeare to the forefront of his or her imagination and creative interpretation? What you picked up on is that as long as the director is knowledgeable and making a conscious decision, chances are the production is going to be set for success.
By changing those first two scenes, the director really improved the play for modern times. I think a 21st century audience would have had a bad first impression of the play if it had opened with Act I, scene I. It simply would have been too boring. I don’t think Shakespeare would roll over in his grave for this choice.