The Making of a Midsummer Night's Dream

by David Selbourne

Describes the rehearsals and preparations for Peter Brook's notable 1970 Shakespeare production, and explains how Brook's treatment was developed

327 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1983

Reviews

[Henry Begler · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’ve been fascinated w/ Peter Brook’s famous production of this play and being in Midsummer in high school is one of my favorite memories, so this book was aimed squarely at me (I was Flute, I just missed out on Bottom which still slightly stings ten years later). Selborne has a good eye though he tends to spiral out into observations that I didn’t find that profound or interesting. Peter Brook the legend comes off somewhat badly in this book— he bullies and cajoles actors, changes his mind every ten seconds, and speaks mostly in gnomic pronouncements. But he clearly has some sort of magic touch, it’s just not something that can necessarily be captured in print. The book does get a bit repetitious — rehearsals go well, then badly, one day the play is charged with energy, the next limp and dragging — but of course, that’s what rehearsing a play is like. And I was surprised to find that even at the highest level of Shakespearean acting, there’s an all-is-lost moment two or three days before opening night, where the play seems like it will never come together, before the presence of an audience somehow focuses everyone and makes the disparate elements cohere. That’s been true in every play I was ever a part of. If you’re looking for directing tips through observing one of the greats, you won’t find much of that in this book. But as a historical document and record of the process of constructing a play, it’s an interesting read.

[Daniel Gallimore · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a brute of a book, a record of eight weeks over the summer of 1970 during which Peter Brook and his actors at the Royal Shakespeare Company created what was arguably the greatest Shakespeare production of the 20th century. At one level it is refreshingly normal, made more so by Selbourne's background in mid-century naturalist drama. The actors are frequently demoralised and confused by what Brook expects of them. One telling episode occurs when David Waller as gentle Bottom, rehearsing the ass' head scene when his companions flee from his sight in terror, lost his temper: 'Pushing the spirits aside, he broke out of his role and began shouting that he did not know what he was doing. It was as if, in his shouts of anger, all the fears and hopes and confusions of the actors were confounded, while his voice seemed still to speak from deep within the disordered world of terrifying enchantment which, moments before, he had himself created.' (p. 147) A few weeks later Waller has found his mojo, although the mood of the cast as a whole remains unsettled through to the first performance. What the director seems above all to be looking for is to release the joy and vitality of Shakespeare's verse and prose within the challenging but ultimately liberating confines of the designer Sally Jacobs' famous white box. For me an interesting detail is the comparisons Selbourne (and sometimes Brook) makes with 'Japanese' acting, referring perhaps to Kurosawa Akira's 1957 'Macbeth' adaptation ('Throne of Blood', arguably the greatest of Shakespeare films) and which I take to mean a certain selfless style of acting and directing that is freed from personal hangups and prejudices. Brook is able to achieve something like that himself, but within the context of Shakespeare's original language.

[Morelia · Rating 3 out of 5]

it was ok bexuase it was funny messed up and awesome all at the same time.like how the sort girl is relly mean like me its so funny