Note: The following review of Max Reinhardt’s 1935 film version of Shakespeare’s ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’ is part of The Movie Projector’s ‘James Cagney blogothon’ hosted by R.D. Finch.
by Sam Juliano
The advent of the shimmering 1935 Hollywood interpretation of Shakespeare’s ethereal A Midsummer Night’s Dream was appropriately enough the result of public adoration of the stage work that ultimately inspired it. Back in the days of the pre-code cinema, theater director Max Reinhardt was known for his flamboyant and controversial stage incarnations of the Bard, and his production of Midsummer was a huge hit in Vienna. Attending one of the stagings, coincidentally enough, was Warner Brothers film mogul Jack Warner, who was executive in charge of overseeing what films the studio would be producing. While at the time crime dramas and backstage musicals were the rage, Warner wasn’t oblivious to the Oscar bait films that could bring added prestige, what with the slew of successful literary adaptations crafted at M-G-M. Two such works in fact debuted in the same year as Midsummer, and both ere based on Dickens’ novels: A Tale of Two Cities and David Copperfield. While Reinhardt had long scoffed at the possibilities of cinema approaching the “superior” form of live theater, he quickly reversed himself after Warner offered him a sweet deal and the complete access to the studio’s advanced technical capabilities; that for example would enable characters to dissolve into this air. Sold into expanding the possibilities of the stage Reinhardt drastically reversed himself, stating with unbridled enthusiasm: “The motion picture is the most wonderful medium for the presentation of drama and spectacle the world has ever known. The screen has leaped further ahead in the last few years than the stage has evolved in centuries.”
After he signed on Reinhardt to his chagrin was told by Warner that New York stage players would not be considered for casting; rather, the studio stock company was asked to try their hands at Shakespeare. Demetrious was played by Dick Powell, Hermia by Olivia de Havilland, Puck by Mickey Rooney, Flute by Joe E. Brown, and Oberon by Victor Jory. By then the absolute king of the lot, James Cagney was basically allowed to pick any role; he chose Bottom, sensing that the ultimate challenge for a great actor is to play a bad one. (Accounts from the period are contradictory with some contending that Cagney really hankered for the role, while others make claim that he preferred any role to Bottom.) Warner hoped that the big name marquee would attract a public that was unpredictable when it came to the Bard on the big screen. As Reinhardt worked to create and acting style able to bridge the gap between ultramodern performances and stylized poetic dialogue, Jack Warner apparently decided that the stage veteran -who had never before directed a motion picture- needed some help, so he assigned studio stalwart William Dieterle, who Reinhardt knew from Germany, having assigned him his first role as an actor. Dieterle’s own experience enabled him to assume responsibility for the technical elements, leaving the then sixty-two year old Reinhardt to focus on issues of image and interpretation. Reinhardt’s extravagance knew no limits as he upped an already excessive one million dollar budget another half million by utilizing the largest soundstage in movie history to that point, ordering nearly a hundred truckloads of trees and shrubs, and bringing to bear an intense lighting system and a massive supply of luminous paint. Ravens, owls and turtle doves were added to complete the textural density of an alternative universe. The studio’s celebrated maestro, Erich Wolfgang Korngold wrote a score that included Felix Mendelssohn’s famed music, which was inspired by the play. Extending the parameters even further, a Bronislawa Nijinska ballet was inserted.
When the initial public reaction was middling, Warner ordered the film cut by thirty minutes, with the ballet sequences getting most of the trimming. One major critic praised the “breathtaking set designs and cinematography” but took issue with the “monotonous howlings” of ten-year old Rooney and the “over energetic jabberings” of Cagney. The Times of London declared: “The most lamentable mistake in the cast was the Bottom of James Cagney. He seemed to me to misconceive the character, and only became tolerable in the scene where he discovers the ass’s head on his shoulders.” Cagney’s response was along the lines of “The only thing I was going by is that Bottom was the greatest ham that Shakespeare had ever written. He wanted to play all the parts. The keynote was that the son-of-a-bitch was a ham. I don’t know what the hell they wanted.” Reinhardt always defended Cagney’s characterization, stating “The part of Bottom has always been played by a stout, middle-aged man. Why? James Cagney’s type is perfect, and his performance is endlessly delightful.” Warner, ever cognizant of the production code application shortly before Midsummer completed, was anxious enough about the comical kissing between Cagney and Brown’s cross-dressing companion in the play within a play to suggest adding a wife for Bottom, defusing any possible confusion about the character’s sexual identity. One critic insightfully opined that Cagney’s Bottom blended “innocent weaver, Chicago Hood and Ugly Duckling.” Reinhardt remained constant in opposition insisting that Shakespeare’s text remain intact, at least that part of it he himself didn’t truncate. Warner relented, but conceded this was his riskiest project.
In any event Reinhardt’s visually resplendent film imitates the remarkable amalgamation of of disparate elements present within the play. The shimmering production numbers choreographed by the aforementioned Bronislava Nijinska and Nina Theilade bear more than a striking resemblance to the Busby Berkeley creations for the Warner musicals of the early 30’s. The design of the forest blends Arthur Rackham’s illustrations for the play with Teutonic, Grimm’s fairy-tale fantasy. Indeed the pervading German Expressionism was a way for some of the film’s American artists to give the picture a profound visual element that might obsfuscate the long held theory that only English actors could play Shakespeare. The number of visual metaphors employed in this most intricate of the Bard’s creations were in the service of the alternating and concurrent themes of madness, the moon, enchantment, metamorphosis, imagination, love, death and dreams. Like real dreams A Midsummer Night’s Dream is both mysterious and lucid, lyrical and grotesque, liberating and frightening, benevolent and vindictive. Reinhardt’s and Dieterle’s magical forest with white balletic fairies racing through the trees and up moonbeams to the delicate strains of Mendelssohn’s music, carries on the spectacular stage tradition. The animals and a unicorn inhabit a world of intensely back-lit ferns and rushes, lush grass and pools, flowers and massive oaks. The film is one of carefully choreographed movement, where the swirl of Tirania’s fairies around a tree matches the swirl of Puck as he spirals upward on a branch to fetch the “love-in-idleness,” where the flow of Titania’s white veil is echoed in the billowing black cape of Oberon. The lines and shapes of the film are fluid in the way music is negotiated, with crescendos, cadenzas and largo passages, creating an orchestra for the eyes and ears.
Reinhardt and Dieterle’s film is remarkably interpretive, and it combines the qualities of the idyllic with the darker side that considering it’s source is largely inevitable, but marked by a profundity that would be discernibly absent if all the activities and underlying mood were upbeat. Shakespeare’s play might have it’s fill of innocent playfulness, genial humor and fantasy, but one would be hard-pressed to deny there are erotic undercurrents and a generous helping of grotesqueness in these proceedings. Hence one could make a compelling case that there is a Macbeth-like quality in the work and in this 1935 film, with pangs of murderous hatred, envy, the threat of rape and sexual humiliation. This journey through heaven and hell passes through a limbo where both gentle birds and gruesome beasts co-exist. Much of the energy of the film is generated by this clash between Reinhardt’s and Dieterle’s style, the former a kind of ornate escapist fantasy, the latter a vision of darkness. Against the sticky sentimentality of the little Indian boy lost and abandoned and the “true love” between Hermia and Lysander are set the troll who spits water in the boy’s face and Puck who gleefully terrorizes all the mortals in the forest and mocks their sufferings. While riding on weeping Helena’s skirts, he wipes his nose on them. Against angelic Titania gathering flowers, singing, weeping with the moon for “some enforced chastity,” is set fierce, jealous Oberon with his black stallion, and virile, bat-winged train. Against Bottom’s idyllic reign as King of Fairies is set his terror when Puck makes him aware of his transformation. Even Titania’s embracing an ass is both hilarious and grotesque. Only Olivia de Havilland’s Hermia reveals the underpinnings of sensuality. There is nothing especially erotic about the lovers, Oberon, Bottom or Titania. The dance to Mendelssohn’s “Nocturne” however, yields a distinct strain of eroticism.
The film’s most scathing critics have dismissed this early version of the beloved play as a film with little or no regard for Shakespearean poetry, with only actor Ian Hunter (as Theseus) who has “the slightest idea of proper Shakespearean diction and bearing.” While purists will rally around that position, there still can be no questioning that the work is a bold effort to interpret and translate Shakespeare in cinematic terms, and as such it’s certainly the liveliest Bard transcription until Olivier’s Henry V in 1944. Despite the phantasmagoric excesses, the directors and cinematographer Hal Mohr skillfully wed the traditional view of the play as idyllic fantasy with the darker elements that elevate the themes that have challenged critics since the play was written over 400 years ago.
I agree that this film was bold and ambitious for its time, but I find it really difficult to watch. Jimmy is never a bore, but somehow he seems to have landed in Fairyland by way of Delancy Street.But, nothing irks so much as Mickey Rooney’s Puck. Ouch.; Thanks for an interesting look at a film that is a must see (at least once) for any Cagney fan. Well done!
but somehow he seems to have landed in Fairyland by way of Delancey Street
Ha Flick Chick! Love it! True, Rooney has divided critics and audiences. I’m definitely with you in that all Shakespeare fans and Cagney lovers do need to take a single look at this film at some point. Thanks so much for the very kind words!
Sam, a marvellous piece where all your passion for and knowledge of Shakespeare comes across loud and clear. The main thing that impressed me about this film is its astonishing visual quality, which really does create a dream landscape, and I’m fascinated to learn more here about how it was all achieved, with the blend of German expressionism and the ultimate Hollywood glamour. Your mention of Busby Berkeley is spot on and I loved this line: “The design of the forest blends Arthur Rackham’s illustrations for the play with Teutonic, Grimm’s fairy-tale fantasy.”
I must say that for me, as far as I remember since it is a while since I saw this, some of the actors’ performances don’t altogether live up to the stunning visuals and, although it is great to see him taking on a Shakespearean role, I do feel Cagney was somewhat miscast as Bottom. Some of the time he seems to take the part too seriously and try to find inner depths which aren’t there, while in other scenes he spends too much time laughing. Plus it is a shame when that ass’s head lands on his shoulders and you can’t see his expressive face – of course, this is a problem for any actor playing the role! I do also feel that Mickey Rooney grates rather. But anyway thanks for the wealth of information in this piece, which I will definitely be returning to after watching the film again.
Great point about the obfuscation of Cagney’s face during that famous sequence Judy, and I completely understand your issues with the casting in this film. As a lifelong Bard admirer with an incomparable experience quotient I take your assessment most seriously. I guess in the end it comes down to whether or not one is willing to set aside their own expectations, and while there is much here to recommend visually the casting comes down to taste. Rooney’s performance seems to the one that has turned off many. Thanks so very much my friend!
When I think of Shakespeare James Cagney does not spring to mind. I saw this a long time ago and remember mostly how much Rooney’s Pick annoyed me. It is a visual treat–who knew the Bard would go so well with German expressionism? Still, I was not enthralled by the acting. Well-written and researched article.
Thanks for the nice words Kim! Yep, as I say this adaptation has pretty much split the population. The visual look will continue to fascinate but the casting is really a matter of taste.
A fine review. Thank you.
I love this film . The cast, the music, the sets. It’s perfect.
Vienna’s Classic Hollywood
Thanks so very much Vienna! Yes, I’d say most are satisfied with this visual treat of a film.
I’ve never had a problem with Cagney’s Bottom and I think the film is one of the greatest fantasies ever put on film. Just a gorgeous film to look at and listen to. I don’t have a problem with the cast either, and with its somewhat unorthodox casting, the film may be ahead of its time. A wonderful post, Sam.
Kevin, there are actually quite a few critics and movie buffs who are in agreement with you. And for the most part I’d say I liked him in this role as well. It is a ravishing watch without a doubt, and I was thrilled to look at it again before posting. Many do feel it was visionary as well. Thanks very much my friend.
I think the Warner’s company of actors handled themselves quite well in this adaption and the music and design never fail to impress. I find it very entertaining, especially the “players” who remind me of the community theatre groups I have been involved with. A ham actor is a ham actor be it now or 400 years ago.
Excellent points here Patricia, and thanks very much for stopping in. Even with some acting choices that didn’t please everyone, this mid-30’s adaptation has delighted most.
While I find the film a hit-or-miss with many of its actors (Dick Powell? Are you kidding?), I’ve always find Cagney’s performance wonderful. It may be unconventional, in terms of accepted Shakespearean style, but Cagney seemed able to use his background and own acting style to fit the play. Thus, his breathlessness in speaking the verse becomes Bottom’s breathlessness, the character’s excitement at being in the mechanicals’ play so intense that his speech can barely keep up with his thoughts. And there are lovely touches the actor adds, such as the scene with the children who play the small fairies: Cagney reacts to each child individually, which lets us see how Bottom is marvelling at this strange new world he entered. Pauline Kael pointed out that the mechanicals were played by real clowns, such as Joe E. Brown, and that really showcases the comedy (I haven’t seen a stage production of this play that could match for laughs the film’s Pyramus & Thisbe presentation). Thanks for such a perceptive analysis of the beauty of this film, which I think has never been given its due as Shakespeare or cinema.
GOM—-
Thanks for the very kind words! You size up the essence and appeal of Cagney’s portrayal most accurately as far as I am concerned, and your your own perceptive analysis is most appreciated here! I do well remember Kael’s review, and looked at it again this week.
Brilliantly written review Sam! I’m inclined to give this film a pass. It comes down to style and visual interpretation rather than fidelity to the source. Some people don’t care for Taymor in the same sense. But I prefer creativity when films are made of Shakespeare’s plays.
Great point Peter! Basically I’m in agreement with you here. Thanks as ever for the very kind words!
Sam, the last time i watched this film was back in the mid-1960’s giive or take so I really don’t remember much other than I found Mickey Rooney annoying (just like Kim), then again, I have found Rooney annoying in other films too. That said, i enjoyed reading your essay. Well done as always!!!
John, be rest assured you are hardly the only one who has found Rooney annoying. I can go either way with him, but I know his performance in MIDSUMMER has sharply divided viewers. Thanks for the kind words and great response as always!
Hi! Sam Juliano…
Thanks, for sharing a [very] descriptive, candid, and thoroughly insight-ful [Sp] review Of a play [by “The Bard”] adapted to the big screen by…Warner Bros., Reinhardt and Dieterle.
“After he signed on Reinhardt to his chagrin was told by Warner that New York stage players would not be considered for casting; rather, the studio stock company was asked to try their hands at Shakespeare.”
Hmm… Sam Juliano, do you think he [Reinhardt]should have seen that coming?
“While at the time crime dramas and backstage musicals were the rage, Warner wasn’t oblivious to the Oscar bait films that could bring added prestige, what with the slew of successful literary adaptations crafted at M-G-M…”
This information wasn’t over—looked as I posted information about “A Midsummer Night’s Dream…” “Warner not being oblivious to the Oscar bait” returned a small deposit too—with The film winning Academy Awards for Cinematography and for Film Editing.
“Hal Mohr skillfully wed the traditional view of the play as idyllic fantasy with the darker elements that elevate the themes that have challenged critics since the play was written over 400 years ago.”
I can even see from the images that I have posted and the film clips that I have watched from the 1935 film “A Midsummer Night’s Dream…” “elements Of idyllic fantasy with the darker elements” in which you have pointed out in your review.
Unfortunately, I have never watched A Midsummer Night’s Dream…” However, after reading your words here:
“Like real dreams A Midsummer Night’s Dream is both mysterious and lucid, lyrical and grotesque, liberating and frightening, benevolent and vindictive.”
I will look forward to “shaking hands” with “The Bard” and The all-star cast for this Shakespearean fantasy which includes James Cagney as Bottom, Mickey Rooney as Puck, Olivia de Havilland as Hermia, Joe E.Brown as Francis Flute, and Dick Powell as Lysander.
[postscript: I hope to also return and share my [open and honest] opinion… too!]
deedee 🙂
Dee Dee—-
I can’t thank you enough for this wonderful response to my review! Yes I would say Reinhardt had to know beforehand that he would be wagering a losing battle with Jack Warner and the studio brass as to the way they would go with the casting. Above all they sought to bring Shakespeare to the masses, and the only way to insure solid box office was to feature some marquee names like Cagney, Rooney and others. I have seen the ravishing images you have posted, and just earlier today tried to join the NING, but kept getting questions that I nonetheless answered in the positive. I am wondering if there is anything additional I need to do. But again I thank you profusely for again bringing attention to my review, the blogothon and to me as a person. Yes there is so much in this early Shakespeare to delight and entertain, and even with many updates there is still a place for this marriage of Hollywood, the Bard and German expressionism. I know you will really love this one my friend! Many thanks again for the ever-perceptive response here.
*Snaps fingers…* I almost fail to mention the reason that I decided to post a comment about your piece…That’s Of all the stars that appeared in the film that actress Olivia De Havilland and actor Mickey Rooney… are still living.
[I like “The Mick” as an actor over-all, but I must admit at times he could be quite “hammy”[for lack Of a better word, in reality, he appears to be a very energetic or very hyper-person] in some Of his film.
However, I found him to be quite effective in the 1950 film noir “Quicksand.”]
Quicksand (1950) is a United Artists film noir starring Mickey Rooney and Peter Lorre in a story about a garage mechanic’s descent into crime. The film has been described as “film noir in a teacup… a pretty nifty little picture” in which Rooney “cast himself against his Andy Hardy goody goody image.”[1]
“Wiki-Quicksand…”
Once again, Thanks, for sharing your contribution to R.D. Finch’s James Cagney Blogathon… too!
Dee Dee, it is indeed incredible that both De Havilland and Rooney are still living. But it’s a blessing for sure. De Havilland is 96 and her “younger” sister Joan Fontaine (REBECCA) is 95. The two haven’t spoken for about 45 years in one of the most famous feuds in history. Rooney is 92, and has been married 8 times and has 9 children. Ha! I have seen QUICKSAND and agree with your assessment! I also liked Rooney in THE HUMAN COMEDY, IT’S A MAD MAD MAD MAD WORLD and THE BLACK STALLION, but there were some earlier films he was most fine in. Thanks for adding the capsule on QUICKSAND my friend!
Sam, not only a great post on the movie, but a great explication of the text of the play. It’s been many years since I saw this, but what I most remember is those sumptuous visuals you paid so much attention to in that beautifully written paragraph that begins “In any event…” The cinematographer, Hal Mohr, did win an Oscar for his gorgeous photography. He wasn’t even one of the three nominees that year but won as a write-in nominee during one of the years this was permitted, the only time it ever happened. Like nearly everyone else, I also remember how much Mickey Rooney grated! As for Cagney, he was Cagney trying his best to do a good job at playing Shakespeare. Also like others, I liked him best during the parts with the ass’s head. I also liked Olivia de Havilland very much. There was a gentle restraint to her acting that wasn’t present in some of the other more emphatic performances. Anyway, thanks Sam for writing with such erudition about what is surely the most unusual movie in the Cagney filmography!
Thanks so much R.D. for the typically towering response and for the exceedingly kind words! It’s a fact that the visual design is what distinguishes this film first and foremost, and even for those who find some of the casting problematic, they are easily seduced by the eye candy. Thanks for adding that information about Mohr’s write-in triumph, which in this case was richly deserved. Too bad they discontinued that early tradition, as it left open the possibility of righting some omissions. Excellent discussion too on the three most famous performances in the film.
Above all I want to thank you for again lighting up the blogosphere with another magnificent venture that has attracted some great writers and essays, and has reminded us of how great and diverse the incomparable Cagney is on the profession and our culture. You need to take a bow my friend!
“and just earlier today tried to join the NING, but kept getting questions that I nonetheless answered in the positive…”
Hi! Sam Juliano…
I have sent you an email…However, I plan to sent you another more detail email discussing the future Of Ning.
“But again I thank you profusely for again bringing attention to my review, the blogothon and to me as a person…”
You’re very welcome!
[postscript: I’m not sure if you noticed, but an incredible amount Of Spam from France is being allow to escape the long arm Of the WP Spam capture.]
Dee Dee—
I have indeed seen the spam flying through, and am not sure what to do. I can’t say my French is good enough to figure much of it out (ha!) but I have noticed we’ve been inundated.
I look forward to the new e mail on how to negotiate NING. Thanks again my friend!
Very interesting Sam and a well written piece that gives great background. I have never seen this one. I guess it just never crossed my radar until now. I will have to seek it out. I am a big Shakespeare fan, but have found adaptations to be very hit or miss. This one seems worth a look. Thanks!
Thanks so very much Jon! I agree that this mid 30’s Hollywood classic is an essential view, whatever your summary judgement falls. There’s much to be enraptured with here, and I’d be more than curious to learn what you think.
This is a wonderful review.
The fact that the film itself is an adaptation of Shakespeare, involves the Warner studio at the height of it’s power and is as unlike anything that had been comitted to celluloid at the time made this a perfect subject for the author.
Knowing Sam as I do for 20 years now (yes, 20 this year), I know that his unbridled passion for the immortal Bard is as ripe today as it was when I first met him. He frequently presents Shakespeare adaptations on film for his students at school, takes in off-Broadway productions whenever they avail themselves and is ALWAYS present when the METROPOLITAN OPERA decides to stage any one of a number of adaptations (I was with him the first time he sat through Verdi’s OTELLO-with Placido Domingo in the title role-and I rememeber how moved we both were by the sweeping music and intense emotion evocated by Shakespeares words and plotting). Sam is always best when he is given certain subjects to write about (that’s not to say that his pieces on other subjects are bad-quite the contrary)… MUSIC would be his claim to fame (I’ve championed his CD and Opera reviews every time out the gate). However, if there were a close second to the classical form, then the work of Shakespeare would be breathing down the neck of Wagner, Mozart and Bach… Simply put, Sam is always on fire with material like this…
Well Dennis, I must salute you for that overly-generous assessment, and for your sponsorship of the most motivating kind of positive energy. I do indeed remember that staging of OTELLO with Domingo and will never forget it! I am hardly the only Bard advocate in our circle–Judy Geater and Pat Perry both come to mind, and of course Allan has seen just about every production that has made it to DVD. But I know you have also shown a passion for his work, and I can’t count the number of times we’ve engaged in discussions of the most successful adaptations. I got to watch this delightful Reinhardt/Dieterle collaboration again this week, and for that reason alone I was grateful for the chance to review it for this blogothon. Thanks again my friend!
Never seen this one, but if I can take Rooney as Mr. Yunioshi in ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’s’ I can probably take him as Puck. Great writing as usual, Sam!
Thanks very much for that Mark! I like what you say there in that Rooney comparison! Ha! How about Rooney in IT’S A MAD MAD MAD MAD WORLD?
One of the few Cagney’s I haven’t watched yet–it’s been sitting, waiting for me, but I’ve been hesitant. Great background enhanced by those Cagney’s quotes in reaction to the reaction to his performance. You’ve piqued my curiosity more than it ever has been for this title! I’m intrigued by the opportunity of seeing Cagney and Rooney together–I actually like Mick’s early stuff–so I’ll be curious to see if Rooney rubs me wrong as he did others. Thanks for putting so much into this one, looks like this title found itself a perfect match for this event!
Cliff, thanks so much for stopping in and for the exceedingly kind words and observations! I do hope you get a chance to check it out, and would be quite curious as to what you will conclude. As I say I know there has never been unanimity in regards to the acting, but the film for me has always been delightful and audacious. Thanks again my friend! And kudos on your fantastic essay on G MEN, a real highlight of the blogothon!
Admittedly it’s been 20+ years since I’ve seen this film, so my memory is dim. But I do remember admiring its look and atmosphere, with the acting spotty. However, I give Warners and all involved credit for trying something new and making Shakespeare cinematic in a bold way.
Brian, that is pretty much the way I feel too, and while I recognize reaction to some of the performance is divided, the adaptation purely as cinema is one that is worthy of considerable praise. Thanks very much for stopping in my friend! And great work on YANKEE DOODLE DANDY at your place!
Hi! Sam Juliano, Allan, and WitD writers and readers…
perchance to dream…and lo and behold…
I’m so sorry,but while over there on you-tube in search Of the 1945 film noir “Detour…”
I by chance stumbled upon the 1935 film “A Midnight Summer Dream” in its entirety…Just in case readers/film viewers want to check-it out for the first-time or revisit the film for the 100th time…
I Of course, will be doing the former this week-end…*fingers-crossed*…
[One more note: Try to watch the film as soon as possible because “the tube” remove the film[s] in a “blink Of an eye!”]
You can watch “Summer Dream”
Here—> “A Midnight Summer Dream”
…and it’s the 3rd film on the play-list Here—> “A Midnight Summer Dream”
Thanks,
[another note: I have submitted a ticket to WP about all Of the Spam that is inundating “Wonders…”]
deedee 🙂
Dee Dee—
Thanks so much for including that you tube on A MIDSUMMER NIGHT’S DREAM!!! Definitely just what the doctor ordered for this thread! And yeah I do well know that many you tube postings are temporary, and are removed at the bat of an eyelash. I hope some will avails themselves of this opportunity!!! And thanks very much for submitting a heads up to WP for the incredible barrage of spam that seems to be coming from France of all places. Let’s see what happens. Thanks again for everything my great friend!
Sam, I’ll admit that I’ve had trouble watching this film from start to finish. However, I haven’t seen it for many, many years and your well-considered and exquisitely written review is a persuasive argument that it’s time to give it another go. I do remember it as visually opulent (literally “shimmering”) and you’ve piqued my interest in re-exploring its other attributes – and “phantasmagoric excesses.”
Eve—
Thanks so very much for your appreciation and kind words! I hope you do get around to given this visually rapturous early Bard adaptation, and would have to believe you will be mostly enchanted with it. I appreciate the visited my friend.
I really want to see this film, and judge myself how Cagney’s performance was. The 1909 version of the story is one of my favorite silent films, so this is a must-see to me, specially with an all-star cast.
Don’t forget to WATCH my contribution to the blogathon! 🙂
Greetings!
Hey Le, thanks for stopping in. I’m sure you’ll find much to revel in this early adaptation. The cast alone makes one viewing essential. I will definitely be looking forward to your own contribution! Thanks very much my friend!
Hi! Sam Juliano…
I watched “A Midnight Summer Dream” [over the week-end and earlier in the day] and I like the film…Especially, Mickey Rooney’s mischievous court jester… Puck.
Because I think he liven up the film with his mischief that he inflicted on the other characters and I do plan to re-visit the film again..and again…and again…and again…and
Thanks, for sharing!
deedee 🙂
Dee Dee—
I’m thrilled to hear of your banner response of A MIDSUMMER NIGHT’S STREET, and of your determination to watch it several more times. Rooney has his share of fans of course, and Puck will always be considered one of his most famous performances. I may be watching yet again later this week! Thanks so very much again my excellent friend!
[…] G Men James Cagney appeared in The Irish in Us and A Midsummer Night’s Dream, both later in 1935. The following year Cagney sued Warner Brothers for breach of contract, a case […]
Great review!
We’re linking to your review for Shakespeare Comedies Tuesday at SeminalCinemaOutfit.com
Keep up the good work!