Midsummer Night's Dream: Play Vs. Movie

Essay by PaperNerd ContributorHigh School, 12th grade September 2001

download word file, 2 pages 0.0

Downloaded 6086 times

Movie vs. Play Most parts of "A Midsummer Night's Dream,"� the movie, met my expectations. Many of the characters were well fitted to their part. Calista Flockheart was a great choice for an actress to portray Helena and her jealousy towards the beautiful Hermia. She played Helen's part just as I had imagined. Hermia, on the other hand, was not as well casted, in my opinion, because I expected Hermia to have long, straight hair not curly and short. Someone like Gwyneth Paltrow might've been more efficient. Both the actors for Demetrius and Lysander met my expectations somewhat. However, Lysander was more resembling to the Lysander I had imagined than Demetrius, because before actually watching the movie, I pictured Demetrius to be a blond. Therefore, an actor much like Matt Damon might've been better at this part; however, Christian Bale is accomplishing his role quite convincingly to change my mind.

Theseus and Hippolyta were very well casted because in truth, while reading the play, I never really pictured their appearances to resemble anyone in particular; therefore, watching the movie really helped me to get an idea of how those two might look like. Bottom was greatly played since he was much like I pictured. So far, of all the fairies, I think Titania was characterized the best because she is beautiful and elegant like I had anticipated. Michelle Pfieffer plays Titania's part radiantly. Oberon and Puck were not as great because they gave me a dingy feeling and fairies are supposed to be "glowing."� I did not understand why Puck had horns and I didn't think that really corresponds to the role of a fairy because it sort of gave a devilish feeling. However, I guess it was somewhat appropriate because Puck is supposed to be the "mischievous fairy."� Plus, I totally did not picture Puck to be bald. I had imagined a cute little fairy with brown hair like Freddie Prinze Jr. Nonetheless, I believe all these characters just need a little getting used to. In general, I think that there were minor differences between the play and the movie. Obviously, the biggest change was the time period that the movie took place in and the invention of the bicycle. In the real Shakespearean play, the bicycle was not even invented and the lovers travelled on foot. Plus, in the movie, I got the impression that Bottom did not have any respect and he was a lonely loser with an unfulfilling life. It really makes the audience feel pity for him; however, in reading the play, Bottom was boastful and seemed to deserve the asshead in my opinion. Furthermore, he didn't seem to have any respect by his co-actors unlike the play in which he seemed to be more appreciated. I also noticed that the changeling child was not an Indian but instead he was blue and the lines in the movie were switched around from the actual play, plus, different characters said some of the lines. All in all, despite the changes, I thought the movie was quite similar to the actual play and the changes did not really affect the play.