Personally, I prefer the original play of “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” only slightly more than the film adaption that was recreated in the late 1990’s. Not only had William Shakespeare managed to fully grasp the meaning of true love, but had also comprehended the dark times that came alongside such an influential and overpowering emotion. Although the movie had effectively and humorously portrayed the problems that were brewing amongst the fairies, workers, and lovers, it still missed the raw, poetic depth that the play embodied. Also, the film had strayed from the original story line more times than was acceptable. For example, the play was set in the 1500’s, which was long before the time of bicycles and flashlights that the movie had put as a frequent prop. Similarly, Bottom was never mentioned to have a significant other, though in the movie he was wedded. This only presents his character even more filthy and repulsive then would have been already thought with his enflamed ego and belligerent attitude, as he cheats on his wife for a woman he just met. Yet, the most significant mistake was with the little Indian boy. The plot of the play was built upon the idea of Titania surrendering the boy in her spell-induced state to her selfish husband, Oberon. In the movie, he begins with the same intentions, albeit all mention of the Indian boy is dropped after the initial confrontation and is never resolved, which is clearly illogical as it is the whole ordeal of the play since the very beginning. In conclusion, while the film had the look and undeveloped sense of what was meant to be presented, it doesn't capture the heart as enchantingly and adeptly as the original screenplay did.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document