Lucky you. You missed the bit after intermission where Bottom starts humping Titania. Crude, salacious, disgusting, just the thing to make the unskillful laugh while the judicious grieve. This is the deplorable influence of Jan Kott, who sees bestiality in the Titania-Bottom relationship, while the Bottom that Shakespeare created is interested only in making friends with his little fairy pals and getting a nice supper of hay.
Everyone on stage was trying desperately to be funny, and the audience wasn't laughing. Instead during intermission I heard kids on a school trip saying they were totally confused. You get the impression that the actors could be capable of good things had they been better directed, but a few clever moments aside, the whole thing felt heavy-handed and slow. It's not that a small cast can't work; the Fiasco troupe did a Cymbeline that was a revelation with just six actors, so good I saw it twice, and their Two Gentlemen was pretty good too. I even saw a college production of MND at Hofstra last spring, cut to an hour for high school audiences, that was so deft and funny as to run rings around this disaster. This is the second production I've seen from Hudson Valley; the other was a staggeringly inept Tempest, and between the two I'll know to stay away in the future.
2
I saw this at Hudson Valley Shakespeare and loved it, but it does require familiarity with the play beforehand. The play takes the notions of dreaming and metamorphosis and runs with them in exciting ways. The actors kept on astonishing me--they are superb. The one flaw: costumes so unbelievably awful they hurt to look at. I had hoped they'd be changed for the New York run, but I guess they weren't.
It felt cookoo watching Shakespeare mess with his own wits. Yes, his brain was febrile, fetid and fertile, and after this show, I can now imagine how chaotic it was for him to imagine the characters and all the confusions, but I truly, deeply madly (?) believe he wanted to entertain a crowd of people. I also think he actually liked having a full size cast. It's fun to investigate all the layers of meaning in Shakespeare's texts in acting class, but if you want to watch that going on, go to an acting class. This type of production is the stuff an academic's dreams are made on.
I saw the performance at the Hudson Valley Shakespeare Theater with my husband and 2 kids (13 and 19) last month and we all thought it was great! It was helpful that we went over the story before the show started, and I would suggest that to anyone is a little rusty or never saw the play. The acting was fantastic, the movements, the transitions between characters, everything flowed and we had a great time. I definitely recommend it.
1
Glad to see that this performance has risen to its usual exceptional standard! I happened to be there for the first preview night, and the theater was a little too warm, and one of the main actors was played by an inexperienced understudy. You could see the bones of a good Bedlam event, but without the IT! factor, that usually closes their performances. I look forward to their next production!
Ben Brantley said: "And you’re seldom in doubt about who’s who, or about what they’re doing."
I couldn't disagree more! It was very difficult to tell who was who with only five actors playing all the parts -- sometimes more than one part at a time per actor. To my mind, the production was confusing in every possible way. I found it very hard to follow and self-indulgently avant-garde to the point of seeming to be a mockery of itself.
The one good thing I can say about it is that the actors were obviously extremely talented. Their ability to keep track of their own many roles and to slip in and out of their different characters so easily was remarkable. If only it were as easy for the audience to follow what they were doing!
I couldn't disagree more! It was very difficult to tell who was who with only five actors playing all the parts -- sometimes more than one part at a time per actor. To my mind, the production was confusing in every possible way. I found it very hard to follow and self-indulgently avant-garde to the point of seeming to be a mockery of itself.
The one good thing I can say about it is that the actors were obviously extremely talented. Their ability to keep track of their own many roles and to slip in and out of their different characters so easily was remarkable. If only it were as easy for the audience to follow what they were doing!
Saw this over the weekend and loved it. We have seen Mr. Tucker's inventive stagings before. That coupled with the great Pearl rep company made this one a keeper. Highly recommended
Please disregard - and delete, if possible - my confusion of the names of the performers in MND. It was indeed Jason O'Connell who starred as Bottom. My apologies to Ben Brantley, who reigns even more impeccable.
Dan Richards
Dan Richards
The usually impeccable Ben Brantley a made major goof here (we can forgive him if there was fairy dust in his eyes): The role of Bottom in the Pearl Theatre’s production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream was played by Mark Bedard, not Jason O’Connell. Mr. O’Connell was superb in his multiple roles. But he was not Bottom.
P.S. I was at the same performance that Brantley was at.
Dan Richards
P.S. I was at the same performance that Brantley was at.
Dan Richards
"and less as the usual 'knavish lad' that as an embodiment of id run rampant." I think "that" should be a "than." Yes?
Saw the show this afternoon and, much as I enjoyed it, this is one of the rare reviews that makes me enjoy it even more in retrospect. A fine piece of criticism.
Saw the show this afternoon and, much as I enjoyed it, this is one of the rare reviews that makes me enjoy it even more in retrospect. A fine piece of criticism.
2
A clever idea, but it didn't even work as an exercise.