The Tempest (1980)

Why so much hype?

Very disappointing...

hyped garbage

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

There are problems with this play. It's somehow inherently downbeat. Of its numerous productions available on DVDs, and its reworkings under different titles, Forbidden Planet, Prospero's Books, none seem truly satisfactory. Something is always lacking. Its supremely quotable, memorable poetry appears at odds with its curiously artificial plot and story. Its clowns are not funny; its plotters are inane, its slaves are repellent or disturbing. I thought Ariel was quite good, once the embarrassing bikini could be overlooked. In this version, Hordern is too avuncular, insufficiently vibrant and intense, and lacking in dramatic and magical, masterful charisma. Difficult to suggest an actor with the right personality for the part. It's as if Shakespeare baulked at self-presentation. I don't see Gielgud as ideal for the role. Miranda and Ferdinand were not bad. The other parts are forgettable. The overall direction is competent, but I wouldn't say inspired. Is any other version any better ?

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.

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.

Letting the class watch this in English was a bad idea. Films that are serious and more educational can have an effect, but it appears this one didn't have any effect whatsoever on the class - whenever the teacher left, conversations quickly started - and I didn't hear the words "Shakespeare" or "Tempest" being used at all. And when you look at this, it is easy to see why. The acting is nothing special - everyone seems bored to bits, just reading from the page without a care in the world. Shakespeare always did prefer expository dialogue to action and death, but I just couldn't understand a word anyone was saying. The costumes aren't too bad and neither are the special effects - the class may not have loved the film, but they weren't exactly taking the p*ss either. But it is hard to joke at a film that is devoid of any sort of inspiration or joy. The scenes on the ship at the start of the film weren't too badly done - though the rain looked a bit unrealistic, everything else was done well and good. But where were the severed heads and exploding masts? Where was the death? Where was the inspiration? The character of Ariel would have been taken a lot more seriously had he been wearing clothes - but as all was on show, he was just another excuse for a joke. This film is not in any way appealing to either sex. The women and girls won't have any romance or comedy to enjoy, and there is an abundance of naked men and lack of action or death that will put most men and boys off. The Tempest wasn't badly done, but this felt like something the producers HAD to make, not something they wanted to make. And the general boredom and lack of inspiration show. 3/10