Many scholars find that the characters of Shakespeare’s work are shockingly sophisticated, for his or any other time. Where many plays depend on overt character revelation, his plays make the characters “grow and unfold themselves under our eye” (Hudson 173). It is important to remember this in the production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream especially because a great deal of the action takes place in a wonderland, a dream world. One must take care to prevent fantastical performance, if the goal of a traditional realization stays. These characters should be relatable, realistic; this is how Shakespeare draws the audience in so well. Instead of spectacle and “pizzazz,” visible logic and familiarity should be the goal. Otherwise, the production remains a show of entertainment, rather than the opportunity for new perspective. His plot is not exactly relevant to our lives, to be sure, but the characters represent how many of us would live if we were to be placed in a similar situation. H.N. Hudson says in his book Shakespeare: His Life, Art, and Characters that

“they are as far as possible from being mere names set before pieces of starched and painted rhetoric, or mere got-up figures of modes and manners: they are no shadows or images of fancy, no heroes of romance, no theatrical personages at all…they are not even designs of nature; they are nature itself.” (166)

Although a production must accommodate its venue and the performers’ grasp of the text and subtext may vary, the reality of the characters is perhaps the most important part of the production. Style, costuming, set, etc. have all been variable throughout history, but the personality cannot be lost. Shakespeare’s productions were popular in his time, obviously, but they were performed before rather large audiences in a relatively small area, practically outdoors (the Globe Theater has no roof).

Remember also, then, that Shakespeare’s earned status for his plays as some sort of “high art” does not elevate them beyond our own lives. No, the characters were written to mirror life. Shakespeare created characters of various classes and manners. The foul-mouthed should be played so because he didn’t make it his work to only include the “decorous.” He is known for closely mirroring human nature and the real world, so he modeled the varying characters after varying humankind (Hudson 178).

SOME TIPS

Try to keep in mind during performance what the character is meant to contribute to the show, the message and the experience. How should the character behave? What are his/her motives? What are his/her goals?

Bottom is one of the more closely observed characters in Midsummer and maybe in Shakespeare’s writings as a whole. His enthusiasm and confidence differ from most characters’, in that he feels comfortable expressing every thought and desire. He is energetic, an extrovert and possibly rather bossy (Bloomfield “Bottom in Midsummer). He is “equal to all occasions and at home wherever he may be” (Palmer 92).

The Fairies and the Lovers, in addition to exuding the real, embody the themes and motifs identified in the Analysis section of this site. Action and dialogue communicate dichotomous contrasts and commentaries on love. You’ll see Hudson’s studies have brought him to the same conclusion. He identifies, for example, Oberon and his followers as opposite to Titania and hers, and he emphasizes the recurring images of “the lofty and the low, the beautiful and the grotesque, the world of fancy and of fact” (263). How this is put across to the audience may vary, according to the discretion of the production. As far as characterization is concerned, dialogue and attitude are obvious focal points for such a message.

There are many different ways of portraying these characters.

The Fairies in particular tend to have a special interest in, almost an obsession with all things beautiful and fun and pleasant (Hudson 265). Distinguishing them from mortal characters, and even the lower-level fairies from the king and queen and Puck, can be done here. Jem Bloomfield has described them as “verbally inventive, and elusive in the best sense” (“Fairies”). He describes the infamous ambiguity of the fairies’ disposition and relates it to their radically ever-changing behaviors. These are magical beings with the option of doing and being whatever and wherever they want, whenever they want.

The Lovers share a common interest: the pursuit of love. What separates them is the approach. Hermia and Lysander love each other and are fully consenting. Helena and Demetrius, on the other hand, can’t seem to get what they want. It would most likely be fair to say that these circumstances make Hermia and Lysander far more confident and free as a couple or as individuals, and Helena and Demetrius somewhat the opposite (Hudson 272). After all, Hermia and Lysander stand up to Hermia’s father and even the Duke, whereas Helena makes several speeches about her inferiority to Hermia and Demetrius is constantly trying to prove himself. These young lovers are rather whimsical and should “contribute to the idea of the dream-like quality of love, as well as the play in general” (Fong).

Puck is a rather mischievous character. Hudson finds that most of us are drawn to him for his lighthearted spirit and youthful sport, in spite of his enjoyment in causing humans distress. He is not regretful or apologetic because pranks are his life’s joy (264).