Three brilliant perspectives pieced together to form an amazingly delightful story, entertaining for all spectators. Lovers, actors, and fairies strung together into one plot line ending in passionate romances, trances, along with marriages. All a part of Shakespeares A Midsummer Nights Dream. The film version of the play A Midsummer Nights Dream was a poor representation of Shakespeares play because it was altered in many different ways. Such as; the language , the characters/setting, and the plot/props.
In the movie remake for the play, they altered and switched back and forth from using Shakespeares old English and poetry phrases, making the context of the play change entirely. By doing so, the originality is lost, making the audience confused, harder to understand and accept the dialogue, not catch valuable information, concepts and lessons; and a roadblock to following the plot line. From making many alterations, viewers dont receive the same benefits and feelings expressed to them, for the feel of the characters emotions and attitudes towards one another. In other words, conflicts may not seem as clear or as appealing, if a person is not clued into what is happening within the story. Although adding present day English may help some people understand better, the purity and passion is lost when the script is edited.
They added and removed parts in the movie version, at the same time altering the order of some events which took place. The movie version added multiple actors, characters and settings, as well as an over-exaggerated version of an expensive banquet and palace were brought into place, making a crucial indent in the perspective of things. There is a written introduction and a variety of market places shown in the partaking of the movies start up. Different screens were changed frequently throughout the plays production, like the attributes and physical bearings of Bottoms character were modified. Having alterations like these dont allow audiences to fully see and/or experience the true moving and meaningful image of Shakespeares art.
Moving on to additives; props, objects and placements used in the movie were not from the right time period of the 19th century, as mentioned. Headlights were prominent on bicycles, but everywhere else people used candles as a light source. Bicycles were not used as a transportation method in the compact novel/book, as well as no dog was ever mentioned or described. Appearances and personality traits of the actors were not accurate, and the actors were never said to have bared intimate moments in the forest. With such details added and subtracted, the movie is not quite essential and provides too much false inquiry.
In an overall conclusion and reasoning, the play by Shakespeare, A Midsummer Nights Dream, is a much more empowering, embarking adventure and representation than the modified film version. It could have had a better prepared representation, and should have an improved, rewritten script for a movie with something more explosive, excellence, a fresher taste, and up to date according to the basics. That way, everyone could enjoy Shakespeares fine poetry to a much greater extent.