Mia Torres
Charlie Monte
THEA 132
6 November 2022
Play Review: A Midsummer Night’s Dream
November 5th’s performance of William Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream, directed by Blake Anthony Edwards, transports the tale of four lovers’ strange night in a mystical wood to a modern, trashed city block for New Orleans’s Mardi Gras Festival. Though there were a few design elements that added to the play, for the most part, the set and change of setting detracts from the play and prevents the audience from experiencing the wonder of a night in a new place and from using their own imagination, a practice that Shakespeare’s texts traditionally allow, accommodate, and invite. The decision to change the setting posed many contradictions to the text, created an uncomfortable barrier between the audience and the performance, and minimized the effectiveness of the text.
Firstly, the most effective design element that was practical to the show was the portrayal of magic. Often the act of the fairies becoming invisible can be hard to portray, but this production used a burst of light from the string lights, lamp post, and possibly also the overhead stage lights, in combination with a snapping sound effect to represent the moment that the fairies were using their magic. This was a fantastic decision with clear significance. The first time it was used, it caused the audience to gasp, amazed at the effect it had. The audience was trained to understand the sequence’s meaning; it was a sensible and effective tool with continued use.
While the lighting design was well done, the same cannot be said for other production elements. The costume design was incohesive and did not read as contemporary New Orleans. For the scenes in non-magical New Orleans, the actors were dressed for Sunday Mass with varying and inexplicable levels of glamour. The magical Mardi Gras Festival garb looked more like costumes for a low-budget production of Seussical the Musical, not punk. It was an interesting choice to costume Hermia in high heels, as the more obvious choice is to accentuate her short stature rather than hide it, so the insults are more demonstrable. The audience's reception of the costumes was largely negative and bewildered.
Regarding the sound design, this production made the decision to play modern music and have the actors perform with it. This neither added nor detracted from the play, except for the few solo dance breaks from Puck/Robin Goodfellow, whose provocative dancing visibly upset many of the older audience members who groaned audibly rather than laugh at how ridiculous and awkward the moment was. These scenes added nothing to the play, although it can be assumed that they were added to give actors more time to change costumes.
Several issues arose with the set. First, it was intentionally littered with garbage to look more like a festival had taken place. Actors frequently tripped on the debris but then pretended that the trash was inexistent. Their tripping and recoveries were distracting, and their feigned ignorance of the garbage being there calls into question whether audiences should pay attention to it or not. Secondly, the large set also had several different levels built into it, but they were not utilized very frequently; there seemed to be no significance to the blocking up, down, and under the levels––aside from getting the cast to move around so that audiences have something to look at during the long speeches. This unmotivated blocking made the performers look like they had no relation to the set and were moving around not as characters but as actors who had memorized the steps their director had given.
The biggest issue with the production was the decision to change the location from Athens to New Orleans. This would not have been an issue if it wasn’t for the fact that the text requires the actors to name their setting multiple times. Their descriptions immediately contradicted what audiences visually perceived, and this created confusion. It would not have been difficult nor ruined the iambic pentameter to change “Athens” to “New Orleans” (locals sometimes pronounce it “nAW-lins,” so it would still be an iamb), and “Athenian” to “New Orlean” (pronounced: ə-thee-nEE-in, and nOO-aw-lEE-in). Furthermore, the large set being the play's central location contradicts the text. A significant aspect of Shakespeare’s plays is that they are designed to be performed on a stage with minimal set dressing. This is the reason for the characters’ descriptions of their surroundings, which calls on the audience to imagine the location. Building a set that contradicts what the characters say is confusing, makes plot points lose validity, and limits the theatrical experience. In addition, this play takes place in two distinct locations, the magical wood and Athens/New Orleans, but this production placed the magical scenes in the same city square as the non-magical scenes. This reduces the play’s theme about venturing into “the unknown” and returning to “the familiar” with new knowledge or experience.
One must ask “What changes about A Midsummer Night’s Dream when it’s set in present day New Orleans?” and this production’s answer is either “nothing changes” or “it’s confusing.” The biggest takeaway from this performance was that, ultimately, changing the setting was nonsensical and didn’t benefit the play. Ironically, the director’s note on the topic of using New Orleans as a setting says, “it makes sense,” and he gave no further explanation for this decision. It’s fine to change the setting of a play, but it must be reasonable and make sense within the context, narrative, and theme of the play. This production failed to execute this. On a positive note, this production’s mistake has made me realize how essential the locations are to A Midsummer Night’s Dream and that it’s better off leaving it in Athens.
Works Cited
Edwards, Blake Anthony. Director. A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Performance at Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA. 5 November 2022.
Shakespeare, William. A Midsummer Night’s Dream. 1595-6 (disputed).