mhk11 When I first saw this production many years ago, I was repelled by the sight of Ariel and some of the other male fairies in jock straps. My dismay at that feature of the production blinded me to the excellence of the acting. However, having watched this DVD (along with each of the other DVDs in the BBC Shakespeare series) several more times subsequently, I now can recommend this production enthusiastically. I still wish that the fairies had been better clothed, but I ignore their attire and concentrate on the quality of the acting and the overall staging.Michael Hordern is outstanding as Prospero. His peroration is deeply moving, and throughout he captures the nuances of the role superbly.Christopher Guard and Pippa Guard are fine as Ferdinand and Miranda. Some of the other reviewers on this site have criticized them for blandness, but any blandness lies in the roles rather than in the performances.Likewise, although I find the characters of Stephano and Trinculo tiresomely unfunny, the fault lies not with Nigel Hawthorne and Andrew Sachs but with Shakespeare's writing of the roles. At any rate, the magnificence of the line "Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows" is more than sufficient to offset the tedium of many of Trinculo's other lines.Derek Godfrey (who died only a few years after this production was staged) is entertainingly psychopathic as Antonio, and he is well paired with Alan Rowe as Sebastian.David Waller is a bit wooden as Alonzo in the first half of the play, but he raises his level of acting much higher in the final Act. John Nettleton is memorably poignant throughout the play as Gonzalo.Most of Shakespeare's beautiful wording is included in this production. The main excisions (reasonably well-judged excisions) are abridgments of the exchanges among Gonzalo and Antonio and Sebastian in Act II, and curtailments of the pageant in Act IV. The whole of the preliminary portion of the pageant has been removed.I'm glad that I waited for several years before writing a review of this production. Having now become attuned to the many merits of this rendering of Shakespeare's magical play, I can recommend it warmly.

Joseph_Gillis Second in my viewing of BBC Shakespeare adaptations: as with the previous 'Measure for Measure', I'd not previously seen any version of the play, and was only vaguely acquainted with the plot.Although the vengeful wizard, Prospero and to a lesser extent his sprite aide/conscience, Ariel, are the key characters, the title is an apt one in that it is the eponymous tempest, or storm - brought about by Prospero - which drives so much of the plot in that it causes to bring to Prospero's island those who had most wronged him. Not surprisingly, given that it is one of Shakespeare's later plays, I found it to be one of his most satisfying and intricately plotted, and although officially classed as a comedy, I'd probably also consider it a moral tale, in the choices and decisions it ultimately has Prospero make when he finally has his hated opponents at his mercy. Although I haven't done any further research or re-reading since my only viewing of this production, I was also interested with one of Prospero's speeches where he seemed to be suggesting that much of his situation might be entirely a dream, which would make the plot richer still (And, incidentally, the actual quote "We are such stuff As dreams are made on" was the source for Bogey's similarly memorable "that's the stuff that dreams are made of", from and about 'The Maltese Falcon')As regards the production itself, I'd absolutely no problem with any of the sets, which more than fulfilled their functions, and allowed for the intelligence of the viewers to flesh them out; the scene where Nigel Hawthorne and Andrew Sach's character first appeared reminded me of various sets for Beckett's 'Happy Days', which is no bad thing. Acting- wise, Hordern was supreme, and well-nigh faultless; I don't understand some reviewers problem with David Dixon's Ariel, as he seemed to me to fit all the requirements of the role. Similarly, Hawthorne and Andrew Sach's characters' interaction with Warren Clarke's hirsute and mildly scary Caliban provided the necessary comic relief, ably, as they did their roles. The remaining performances and characters I'd largely consider functional.Now I can't wait to compare and contrast with Julie Taymor's much- maligned adaptation; on the evidence of her enthralling and visually arresting adaptation of 'Titus Andronicus', I've no doubt that it will make for a worthwhile watch. On a side note, watching Andrew Sachs in this version, I was reminded of his recent very public 'spat' with Russell Brand and, given that they both played Trinculo, it should be interesting to see whose characterisation is the better one.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU One of the most mysterious plays by Shakespeare that will remind you of other plays they may be remakes of, like "Twelfth Night" and a shipwreck there too. The usurper is also common in "As You Like it" for example, or "Hamlet" in a tragic mode. The use of fairies, spirits and even monsters are not uncommon in his plays like "A Midsummer Night's Dream", or "The Merry Wives of Windsor", or "Macbeth" of course in a tragic mode.But this play is special because it actually starts the action on the ship when it is being shipwrecked by a storm. The situation on the absolutely isolated island is difficult for the "survivors" because it is in the hands of a "sorcerer" who has enslaved some monster, Caliban, and has put to his service Ariel and his band of spirits. That gives the island a magic look and sound that is charming and disquieting, and the master, Prospero, can control the tempest, the shipwreck and the survival of the victims.In fact he knows who is on the ship and he manipulates the elements to both get a husband to his daughter, get reinstated in his position of Duke of Milan by forgiving the people who ousted him, get his real vengeance from the manipulators and plotters, and go back home after liberating Caliban and freeing Ariel of his dependence.All together it is a simple play, a comedy of sorts and hence there would be little to say about it. And yet it is somewhere more complex than that. What makes it different, deeper? It is the belief that if you have the proper knowledge, the necessary books, the patience and the peace of mind necessary you can control the world both in its physical essence and in its supernatural dimension. And that is not only a simple trick used on the stage. The whole plot, the whole play cannot work if those spirits do not exist. Somewhere there is a real belief you can move tempests and mountains with proper spiritual faith.There is also the exploitation of the local and slightly underdeveloped native enslaved to do all the hard work and difficult tasks. Colonialism is all contained in that attitude that considers that local native as not being in anyway able to get to the civilized level that might provide him with a soul. And he insists on the vicious nature of this native who can get drunk easily and then become murderous, and who can only dream of killing his master out of some vengeance.Then the rest is more common with the social vignettes on the political plotters, and on the servants that only dream of getting drunk on their master's wine and of stealing all they can from their masters or anyone else. There is a deep social pessimism in this play: the social servants are unredeemable and are unredeemed even if they are redressed.Finally this play does not work at all like many others. It could have been a tragedy but it was made into a comedy and there are no tricks like four weddings or whatever. Just one plain and simple wedding. There is no vengeance really since it all ends up in forgiveness and some verbal repentance. And the tempest that comes out of the mind of one man is there to bring that fake justice. It repairs nothing and it does not re-establish the balance of before. It is very fine and dandy to go back to Milan but you have lost so many years being no one in an island lost in the middle of some ferocious ocean. It is not even a comedy because the end is just a dull rebalancing act that brings no fun and no justice, and there is no justice if there is no punishment and reparation, and no fun if there is no justice.I like the play because of its mysterious and magical atmosphere and because of the pure and virginal love affair it contains, but it is like some after thought or testament, a regret before going for good, or whatever you may think, but after such a play that ends in such a flat leveling there is nothing to add or say and you could add long dancing interludes or singing intermezzos that would not add one iota of depth to this play.I have seen that play so often and in so many countries and places that I start knowing it by heart, and yet I do not discover anything new in it any more, as I do with practically all other plays by Shakespeare. It is a case where I would easily accept that this play was written in the circle in which Shakespeare was shining, but maybe not by the master himself.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

tonstant viewer Any theatrical repertory company that attempted a full Shakespeare cycle would have some winners and losers. The same is true of the BBC's attempt to commit the Bard to video. This is one of those occasions where nothing much goes right, and the results are a good deal short of satisfying.Michael Hordern is a choleric Prospero, emphatic in his anger, but he is cold and unpoetic in reconciliation. Perhaps because he was substituting for an unavailable Sir John Gielgud, Hordern goes too far in the opposite direction. This series gave him King Lear, in which he gave the performance of his life, but this Prospero can't be regarded as a success.The rest of the cast ranges from decent to annoying, but no one emerges covered with glory. Christopher Guard as Ferdinand is well enough, but his cousin Pippa Guard as Miranda winds up with all her stage tricks mercilessly exposed by the camera, without an honest moment ever. The Ariel and Caliban are absolutely predictable, no surprises here.A word about the physical production: these days we no longer see much in the way of TV studio design, but this series has moments of serious visual beauty. Even at it's most workaday, the BBC designers generally support the play.Here, unfortunately, the island is ugly. It is not Bermuda, as in the shipwreck that inspired Shakespeare, nor is it some Mediterranean isle between Naples and Tunis, as the text suggests. It is a Northern island, with basalt cliffs and weak winter sun. As a viewer, you wonder why anyone would stay there, and how come they're not working harder to get off of this repellent and most un-magical bit of frigid rock.The production design does not support the play, it sinks it further. All in all, a tedious misfire.Teachers should note that Ariel's Catering Service is seriously underdressed. If your class will find a clutch of nearly nude male dancers distracting, at least you'll know they're awake.