The Tempest (1980 TV Movie) User Reviews

Pippa Guard Rocks!

[Dan1863Sickles · 8/10 · 8 January 2006]

Shakespeare's TEMPEST is magical, romantic, and full of delight. But the center of the play is the dynamic between Prospero, the wise old wizard, and his innocent but adventurous daughter Miranda.

Pippa Guard is PERFECT as Miranda. She captures all of Miranda's sweetness and gentleness while adding courage and spirit and passion and even daring to the surface obedience she always displays. Watch the famous scene where Prospero talks on and on about his past and his great gifts and his magical plans to bring them home. At the end of his long-winded speech, he prevents Miranda from asking any further questions by waving his magic wand and sending her to sleep! It's a scene that often makes modern audiences groan aloud. But Pippa Guard has the most extraordinary gift for putting a world of passion and deep feeling into her face as she opens her mouth to protest. Her magnificent spirit is fully displayed, even though she has no verbal comeback to Prospero's manipulative magic. Even the surprised, confused, and then suddenly very sleepy look on her face cannot conceal her growing strength and her rebellious desire to know more.

Pippa Guard is the model Shakespearean actress -- rendering the language beautifully and adding a world of meaning with just a single look or a glance.

Pippa Guard Rocks!

Perchance to dream

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 7 February 2019]

'The Tempest' is one of my favourite Shakespeare plays. It contains one of his most imaginative settings, which can be truly wondrous with the right budget. Again, Shakespeare's mastery of text is evident throughout with many memorable, iconic in some cases, lines, speeches and scenes. And the characters are not easy to forget, with the play boasting two of for me Shakespeare's greatest characters in Prospero and Caliban.

BBC's Television Shakespeare productions running between 1978 and 1985 is mostly most worthwhile and really fascinating, for the opportunity to see every one of Shakespeare's plays performed as one project the BBC Television Shakespeare series is a must. Not all the productions are great, but regardless of any misgivings with production values or stage direction it is great to see so many talented actors (some experienced in Shakespeare and some in early roles), seeing all of Shakespeare's work as one big project and Shakespeare adapted and performed relatively faithfully. The series' production of 'The Tempest' is a decent one with many great merits, but to me it fell short and somewhat disappointing, considering that this was one of the productions that should have been great.

It primarily suffers from looking woefully under-budgeted, as unfair as it sounds one does not at all get a sense of the wondrous place described in the text. It just looked too drab and sparse.

Some of the sound quality can be an issue, particularly at the start where the sound effects are far too loud and render the dialogue and action incomprehensible. Actually found the acting to be fine on the most part, but do agree with those who found David Dixon too mannered as Ariel.

However, Shakespeare's writing is out of this world and has a lot of impact throughout. Despite the low budget, there are some nice visual touches, and the understated camera work complements well here, and mostly a good job is done with the stage directing. It's coherent, is done in good taste and the committed performances and nice detail to the character relationships stop it from being static. The magic may be missing here, but the humour, emotion, suspense and romance are not. The music during the extended masque towards the end is really quite lovely.

Dixon aside, the acting is fine. The standouts being Michael Hordern's powerful, noble and moving Prospero with plenty of authority and Warren Clarke managing a perfect balance of monstrous and sympathetic as Caliban. Nigel Hawthorne also stands out, he (and Andrew Sachs) being vastly entertaining without thankfully overdoing the clownishness. His and Sachs' characters are problematic in how easy it is for the actors to do that. Christopher and Pippa Guard are appealing, not as strong as Hordern, Clarke and Hawthorne, but in all fairness their roles are not as meaty. Derek Godfrey sinks his teeth into Antonio.

Concluding, decent production of 'The Tempest' albeit not a great one. 7/10 Bethany Cox

good but...

[standardmetal · 8/10 · 17 January 2007]

The Tempest is often considered to be Shakespeare's last major play. Therefore it is easy to see why many think Prospero, the leading character, is a sort of picture of Shakespeare on the eve of his retirement; Prospero retires to Milan as Shakespeare did to Stratford and put away his magic staff as Shakespeare did his pen.

Michael Hordern was usually good as Prospero (some unfortunate line readings do not detract too much from the over-all effect.), the wizard of the island which was possibly Shakespeare's representation of the New World, then being explored. (Miranda even famously exclaims, with Aldous Huxley, "O brave new world, that has such people in't".)

David Dixon was the spirit Ariel and, he "almost has on" a sort of thong like the other spirits (dancers) that bring and then deliberately remove a magical meal before anyone has a chance to consume it. Alas, Mr. Dixon isn't that convincing as an actor here; too often he merely throws his lines out in a thoughtless manner. Both he and these other spirits seem more campy than sincere, more softcore gay porn than Shakespeare.

I'm not suggesting that other productions may not have similar displays of near-nudity which W.S. himself might well have appreciated once he got over his initial shock, but a bit more dignity might also have been in order. The "masque" towards the end was both more extended (though slightly abridged in this version.) and better done in my opinion and the music by Joseph Horovitz in this section was quite good.

Pippa and Christopher Guard were good as the young lovers Miranda and Ferdinand but they are cousins in real life and not siblings as someone else stated. The other characters were also well done including Nigel Hawthorne as the drunk Stephano and Warren Clarke as Caliban.

The opening ship scene was almost totally inaudible with the actors' lines overpowered by the sounds of the storm. But I thought that the scenery was perfectly adequate for the purpose of this TV production.

An imperfect storm?

[hte-trasme · 4 September 2011]

Although The Tempest is among Shakespeare's most popular plays and considered by many to be among his greatest, this reflective, thoughtful fantasy is not among his most frequently-filmed. This solid production, made for the BBC's series encompassing television versions of all of Shakespeare's addresses its theatrical and fantastical elements squarely, and comes off well without being great.

Michael Hordern is an excellent actor, playing his fretful, merciful old magician compellingly. His is an avuncular Prospero, and he doesn't really transmit the power or danger of the character. David Dixon, painted gold, gives a very eccentric performance as Ariel. His intentionally mannered speech patterns succeed in their presumed cause of transmitting a primary impression of otherworldliness (with also makes the fact that he's so strongly associated in my mind with The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy less of a problem). Derek Godfrey just sneers and slithers his way through Antonio. The highlights may be the scenes with Warren Clarke's excellently fierce-yet-innocent Caliban and Nigel Hawthorne excellent as always Stephano.

Camera tricks are employed in force and tread a line between distracting and effectively understated. In all, the story is told through mostly very strong performances and adequate design in which must be considered a success, but not a runaway one.

a bit disappointing

[didi-5 · 7/10 · 9 October 2005]

I love The Tempest as a play - its magic, its fun, its emotional impact. All these should be present in a good adaptation.

The problem with this version is twofold. First, it is very studio-bound, giving a feeling of flatness to the proceedings (compare to the Derek Jarman version a year earlier, or the 1950s version with Maurice Evans). Second, it suffers from inappropriate casting in key roles, notably real-life siblings Pippa and Christopher Guard as lovers Miranda and Ferdinand, and David Dixon as Ariel (the potential was there but it just didn't work).

Michael Hordern is however fine as Prospero, and Nigel Hawthorne and Andrew Sachs provide some comedy. Warren Clarke is a monstrous and diverting Caliban, devoid of magic but with some sense of the injustice he feels at his treatment on the island.

Some clever ideas and some very good scenes (notably when the goddesses appear, singing), but this Tempest is too dry and flat to be really engrossing.

Impressive performances despite weak design choices

[gross-6 · 7/10 · 30 January 2002]

The production values are weak, the handling of the spirits is laughable, the wedding masque is tedious, and Ferdinand's hairstyle seems, to our current sense of fashion, ludicrous. BUT this television of Shakespeare's play is to be prized for some excellent performances, most notably Michael Hordern's restrained, intelligent, compassionate and emotionally profound performance as Prospero. Listen to him handle the difficult exposition in Act I, watch how he gives his approval to his daughter's marriage, how he releases Ariel, and the wonderful transition he makes into the final epilogue. There are some fine performances here--you just have to look past some unfortunate design and directorial choices.

A wonderful video representation of a PLAY

[januaryman · 9/10 · 15 April 2005]

Not sure what to make of the negative comments here, but the contributors were perhaps brought up on Star Wars special effects and feel that they were sorely misused with this poor representation of the cinematic magic put forth therein. Please be assured that this taping of a stage play is very good and compared to what it might have been at the Globe is quite magical with invisibility and storms at sea well represented.

But WONDERFULLY represented are the words of the play and the art of the actors far surpass that of the usual movie fare. The amazing Michael Hordern (who also plays Capulet in the BBC's R&J) is the perfect Prospero, and from his performance I glean most enjoyment. Miranda leave something to be desired in the acting, but nothing in the appearance.

The entire play is herein represented. Most characters are well, if not wonderfully enacted. I further disagree about Caliban who captures very well the fine line between beast and man, touching on the viewers' pity, ire and loathing at various times. Do we really need to judge hair styles when watching this play on video? Are we truly a people best represented by "People" magazine? Judge for yourself if you are lucky enough to borrow or own this DVD, or fortunate enough to have seen the BBC presentation originally. This is Excellent Shakespeare, do not be misled.

The Stuff of Pleasant Dreams

[Joseph_Gillis · 7/10 · 10 May 2016]

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.

O brave new world that has such people in't

[GusF · 10/10 · 7 August 2015]

Generally believed to have been William Shakespeare's final play, this is a typically excellent BBC production which is very well directed by John Gorrie, one of the corporation's best drama directors from the 1960s onwards. This is another Shakespearean play with which I was familiar only through reputation but I understand that it is a very faithful adaptation. While it is not on the same level as his absolute best work such as "Hamlet", "Macbeth" or "King Lear", it is a wonderfully told tale of sorcery, vaulting ambition, power and control.

Michael Hordern may not have been as good a Shakespearean actor as Laurence Olivier or John Gielgud but he is terrific as Prospero. Exiled to an island after being usurped as Duke of Milan by his treacherous younger brother Antonio, he is nevertheless not a terribly sympathetic character. He abuses his great power and is cruel and vindictive, threatening to return Ariel to the prison in which he found him when he reminds him of his promise to free him. He enslaves Caliban and Ferdinand and is very controlling towards his daughter Miranda. However, as the play progresses, he becomes a better man as he renounces magic - which was of course considered a great evil in Shakespeare's time - and forgives Antonio for his betrayal 12 years earlier. His final speech has often been interpreted as representing the Bard's farewell to the theatre.

Caliban is the most interesting character in the play after Prospero. At turns, he is both monstrous and pitiable. Warren Clarke is very good in the role. He serves as a very effective contrast to several other characters. For instance, in his first scene, it is mentioned that he attempted to rape Miranda, which is the antithesis of Ferdinand's sweet, pure love of her. He wants to gain control of the island in much the same way as Antonio seized the dukedom of Milan and Sebastian seeks to usurp his brother Alonso's throne. He is in many ways a dark reflection of Ariel, who is effectively played by David Dixon.

The gentle, innocent Miranda is under her father's thumb for much of the play and, in that sense, she is well matched by the equally passive Ferdinand. Pippa Guard and Christopher Guard play their respective roles very well but I wish that I had not known that they were cousins in real life before I watched this as it made their professions of love a little...weird. Then again, they were playing royalty so it was pretty appropriate that they were blood relatives. Derek Godfrey gives an excellent performance as Antonio, being at his best in his interplay with Alan Rowe as Sebastian. As Trinculo and Stephano, Andrew Sachs and Nigel Hawthorne are often hilarious in their dealings with each other and Caliban and provide another great contrast, in this instance to the scheming lords Antonio and Sebastian.

Overall, this is a first-rate production. It was made as part of the BBC Television Shakespeare series from 1978 to 1985, which will serve as my main source for many of his other plays, particularly the more infrequently adapted ones.

An Insufficiency

[tonstant viewer · 5/10 · 17 March 2007]

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.

Stolid storm

[sashank_kini-1 · 8/10 · 9 November 2010]

The Tempest is a beautiful tale set in the enchanting, vivid panorama of an island holding Prospero, his daughter Miranda and the respective consequences when usurped by a congregation of ship waders. What struck me most was the allusion in the end to Shakespeare's own seclusion from play-writing and the feeling of emptiness and dolor at being forgotten by his own patrons after his decline.

This version strictly focuses on the performances and the theatricality of the play. The film has no artistic vision. The island seems empty and desolate, which seems incongruous since Prospero is a magician. The adaptation also never touches the soul, it manages to stay complacent and prosaic mainly because everyone is acting.

However, the performances are commendable, especially from Pippa Guard, Michael Hordern, Andrew Sachs and Warren Clarke. Though the play itself acts supercilious in conveying the emotions and the performances lack the emotional intensity (In Sophie;s Choice, Meryl Streep gave a consummate effort by including all aspects of a performance. Everything was perfect yet imperfect since she just let out all the inner feelings of an actor at the right time i.e the Choice scene where she did the genius work of not improvising). Here everything looks improvised, meticulously done and relied on the vastly spectacular script by the veteran Shakespeare.

Its still beautiful as the screenplay is original (thank God there was no sloppy editing). Nigel Hawthorne unfortunately did not seem to be drunk in any way, just a deluded, pompous butler. But Andrew Sachs cleverly played Trinculo. Pippa Guard gave her best shot and so did Michael Horden. Warren Clarke played an egregious, sycophantic and contemptible Caliban spot-on, especially that silly dance sequence where his ghastly steps seemed apt for the loathsome monster. Others were forgettable and Christopher Guard was unforgivably bad and clumsily dazed. Ariel's character was a shocker (a flesh-colored dress would have been better) and so was the dance of the spirits, that was uncomfortable. 8 out of 10.

Loyal to the text, but dull and uninspired.

[general-melchett · 3/10 · 8 February 2007]

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

excellent acting in a good production

[mhk11 · 8/10 · 3 July 2016]

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.

The Play Deserves Better

[tedg · 24 June 2000]

I am not only a Shakespeare enthusiast, but one who values this play highly. I am puzzled why it is getting high ratings by imdb users. I rank it a six, and that only because it includes the whole text, relatively clean where you can hear it. (Much of the first scene is unintelligible because of the storm noise.)

As a film this is lousy. The production values are mid-TV level.

As Shakespeare, the director follows the stand-and-talk tradition aka "teapot" acting. Tapes of various productions are hard to find in my location. But I expect this to be near the bottom of what I find.

An easy measure of success is whether you can tell something of Caliban. If man or magical beast or something in the middle. He's just a silly distraction here. In a real production he is an important fulcrum.

excellent

[decoats · 10/10 · 10 November 2006]

This is an excellent Tempest. I have just seen the Patrick Stewart in Ann Arbor with the Royal Shakespeare. Poor by comparison, but good enough in an of itself. Good storm here. In RSC this year (Michigan residency) they use a curtain with a CB radio, with a hole where the dial might be, and all the storm is sound effects, and all action for the storm is limited to what can be seen through this hole, 10 feet in diameter. A little weak for a storm. Stewart was rather good, but Miranda was weak, Pippa Guard here more qualifies as a goddess. See the play first, then see this DVD. Always read them first, so you know what you will see, then the play or DVD will flesh out the story for you. Ann Arbor Caliban was good, but Ariel was spooky, more frightening or threatening than ephemeral. 1980 Tempest (BBC) Dixon is an excellent Ariel, almost not clearly male or female, a spirit. Flying all the way to Ann Arbor to see the Tempest (also Julius Caesar) was a long trip. But worth it. Enchanting snow flurries there, nice to come back to warm L.A. RSC was very good, very well done, but you do not get the facial close ups like on the DVD. Shakespeare will live forever, because it is such intelligent thought provoking material. The plays are like children. There must be no favorites, just further study and thought on them. The question must never be, "did you enjoy the play (dvd)", but what did you THINK of the play. A massage is to enjoy, Shakespeare is to make you think.

I'd have liked to have liked it.

[chaswe-28402 · 5/10 · 1 July 2018]

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 ?

Michael Hordern is the perfect Prospero. A complete rendering of the play and its themes. Not the most exciting though.

[mickman91-1 · 9/10 · 7 February 2022]

This is not the most exciting or engaging version of The Tempest, but it is an excellent one in terms of its portrayal of the characters and realising of the themes of the text. Michael Hordern is a particularly memorable and engaging Prospero. Wise and dependable, but also flawed and Machiavellian, both at the same time. David Dixon also does a really camp but really captivating Ariel. I would say this is the one that should be shown in schools as it is a complete and 3-dimensional rendering of the play. But there is a more exciting version if you can get your hands on it: the 2017 RSC version.

misguided series

[Phillim212 · 1/10 · 8 September 2021]

Theater is not a museum piece. These productions purport to give us the plays "as written" without directorial interpretation -- and the result is deadly dull. Meant to clarify the literature for students, it is more likely to put them off Shakespeare for life. Hard to watch, the eyes glaze over -- competent actors doing a shallow, predictable, insufficiently imagined provincial stage performance: a lot of empty shouting and presentational hackery -- nobody's cup of tea. Aimed low, and missed . . .

Good dramatic treatment but the play is disappointing

[Dr_Coulardeau · 2 September 2011]

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

The Tempest (1980) BBC Michael Hordern

[Bernie4444 · 10/10 · 12 April 2024]

By now we all know the story of "The Tempest." It is a play by William Shakespeare, probably written in 1610-1611.

This production does not cut corners on the dialog as it lasts two hours. Even though there is no mumbling it is wise to use the subtitles.

Keep your finger off the fast forward. And no popcorn. Now learn proper English in iambic pentameter.

Prospero (Michael Hordern) is being deposed by his brother Antonio ( Derek Godfrey.) Prospero is sent to a remote island with his young daughter, Miranda (Pippa Guard.) There they live in exile for 12 years.

An opportunity with the help of a spirit Ariel (David Dixon) and his magic books, Prospero causes a "Tempest" to shipwreck his brother and cronies.

Watch as the story unfolds and see if Prospero accomplishes his plans or does something miraculous happens.

"There Stand, for you are spell-stopp'd" - Prospero

Just a note while watching the different Tempest versions it is easy to overlook Prospero's Books (1991).

Too disturbing and weird

[jgobindah · 8/10 · 15 February 2019]

All the spirits and Ariel (himself) was dancing in a disturbing manner and in my favorite scene from the play (the Harpy scene) it was really STUPID because I find it was just a man in his speedo shorts with a blanket as wings. Could be better and can use better props

The Tempest

[eparis2 · 8/10 · 17 September 2022]

The BBC Tempest does almost all of the lines and does them with intelligence and skill. No one is an embarrassment to Shakespeare, and some cast members are at least minor ornaments.

Nigel Hawthorne's Stephano is agreeably disreputable, and Warren Clarke's Caliban has the right blend of stupidity, simplicity, and ferocity.

Michael Hordern's Prospero, however, is almost as difficult to praise as to fault. He does not have the majesty and benevolence that Prospero sometimes has, nor does he suggest the scholarship and wisdom which are also part of the character. Instead, Hordern attains a schoolmasterish authority, which contains a touch of darkness. He sometimes seems to be more Miranda's teacher than her father, but throughout the production, he never loses control of his classroom.

Impressive retelling of the story

[alainenglish · 9/10 · 30 November 2009]

The 1970s/1980s BBC adaptation of all of Shakespeare's plays would be done very differently today. Back then, nearly all the actors and most of the stories were played in an old-fashioned Elizabethan style that you just wouldn't see nowadays.

This is exactly what plagues "The Tempest", one of Shakespeare's last plays and a story that just cries out for modern special effects to really add life to it's language and it's characters.

The story tells of Prospero (Micheal Hordern), the deposed Duke of Milan, reclaiming his Dukedom on the island where he's been exiled and he uses his powers of magic to whip a storm (the tempest of the title) to bring those who ousted him to the island, where they can resolve their differences. Complications arise with Prospero's daughter Miranda (Pippa Guard), the sailor Ferdinand (Christopher Guard) with whom she falls in love and the machinations of Ariel (David Dixon), a spirit of the island and Caliban (Warren Clarke), Prospero's slave...

It is as always very well acted, with notable performances from Hordern as Prospero and Pippa Guard who makes a very pretty Miranda. It is wonderful to see Nigel Hawthorne and Andrew Sachs pop up as clowns Stefano and Trinculo and they are good fun to watch on screen.

The design of the play is a perhaps a little bit too stagey, and not enough is made of the character of the island itself. Caliban's speech in Act 3, Scene Two tells of the wonders of the island but there is too little of these wonders on screen and a parade of naked man masquerading as spirits does not compensate for this.

Good to watch, but definitely for Shakespeare buffs only.

awful!

[issi_85 · 8 July 2003]

This must the worst move I've ever seen! I thought that by the fact that it said BBC on the cover, that it had to have some kind of quality or at least be ok. This is ridiculous! some excuse it must get since it was made in 1980 but still. To actually dress up the air and water sprites in thong and cover them with baby oil and glitter is not the best way to take a dramatic play of Shakespeare seriously. The one actor I could actually watch without getting attacks of laughter was the drunken servant! And the scenography looked like it had been brought in from a school play. Everything look as if it were made of papier-maché! well maybe I do ought to recommend it after all, not if you want to see a good Shakespearian play but if you would like to get hysterical laughter attacks from oiled men in thongs crawling over each other...erh...wait a minute...was this a PG-13 movie? I think not....