Wendy Lorenzi says:

A second thought Shakespeare did not write the bible. He wrote plays for the people to enjoy. This one lent itself beautifully to the exploration of what love is all about.

Wendy Lorenzi says:

May 22, 2015 at 3:41 am

I too thoroughly enjoyed this production. Yes it was a bit of a stretch and yes the dialogue was difficult to hear but it was fun. I agree with the star review on one point which is the drunken bride in the last scene. She is meant to be a bit more mature and dignified than the younger lovers. But that is to quibble. The children added a measure of delight .

Devo Seamus says:

May 22, 2015 at 3:41 am

Put me on the side of enjoy. Seeing that it is a play about fairies, I find it hard to believe that Shakespeare would not have appreciated the use of physical humour and gender/sexual orientation bending. Evan Buliung was Titania in the performance we saw – I would like to catch it again to see Jonathan Goad in that role. I think the idea of having the two actors alternate performances in the two roles is brilliant. Does anyone know if there is a way to know who is playing what role on any given night?

Grant Campbell says:

May 22, 2015 at 3:41 am

I thoroughly enjoyed this excellent production. I felt a bit wistful, though, because every interpretation makes choices, and those choices have consequences, and sometimes it means that certain aspects of the text are eclipsed by others.

One of my chief fascinations with Shakespeare (at the moment) is his complex and rich portrayal of bullying in characters like Falstaff and his gang, or Sir Toby Belch and his gang. Shakespeare is an absolute master at showing us hi-jinks and practical jokes that start off hysterically funny, but then after awhile, start getting out of hand. We start off laughing at Malvolio in his yellow stockings, but after awhile we start feeling uncomfortable. The rough-house stuff that made us laugh in Henry IV part 1 starts to get brutal in the second part, when Pistol enters the scene. It’s all fun, until someone loses an eye.

For that reason, I’m fascinated by the potential nastiness of the fairies in MSD: the ick factor involved in the fact that Oberon tricks his wife into having a one-night stand with a donkey, in order to get hold of her page boy. The pranks that Puck describes (slipping from the widow’s bum so that she falls down and sets the mourners laughing) have a rough-house quality that reminds me of the schoolyard when I was growing up. And Titania’s magnificent speech suggests that their quarrelling has set all of nature at odds. Personal aggression, even when funny, can spread out until it screws up the whole society, and even sometimes nature itself.

Well, obviously, that interpretation wouldn’t land well in the framing device that Chris Abraham conceived, and so he and the company decided, very sensibly I think, to play up the charm and wit and beauty of the fairies instead. The charm is certainly there, and the payoff was rich: when the fairies come in at the end to sweep the hearth and clean the house and protect the couples from evil spirits, their blessing extends, not just to the couples in the play, but to the couple that the play is celebrating. As a gay man, I found that deeply moving.

It does mean, however, that Abraham did not conceive the production with my eccentric obsessions in mind, and did not produce the production that I, personally, would have wanted. That unfortunate lapse is shared by most theatre directors, and I’ve had to resign myself to that, and instead to decide whether or not the production works according to what it actually tried to do.

Since, in my opinion, the production succeeds on its own terms, I think I can forgive Chris Abraham for not personally consulting my interpretive preferences.

Sammy Deline says:

May 22, 2015 at 3:41 am

Sadly, this was the least enjoyable version of Dream that I’ve seen. More disappointingly, I bought six tickets so I could take my boyfriend and four friends along; none of whom have ever seen Shakespeare performed. This play was rendered incomprehensible by making it a play within a play, adding the modern-day elements performed in Olde English and modern clothing, and the Laurel and Hardy sight gags and pop music. It’s like the whole thing was conceived by Jim Carey. I doubt I’ll ever convince my boyfriend to take the two hour drive to Stratford again. How to make sense of a beloved old masterpiece of comedic theatre performed in old language, when a Broil King BBQ cover is a wall, light sabres are swords, characters use cell phones, and Bruno Mars songs are used?

Greg Givan says:

May 22, 2015 at 3:41 am

OK, I have one one more comment. As I’ve said, the show was great fun, and I certainly love bawdy fun in the theater. But the phallic bit in the “wall’s chink” episode just irritated me. It seemed wholly gratuitous and forced.

Eugene Barnes says:

May 22, 2015 at 3:41 am

For the Stratford Festival to fail to properly advise their patrons in their brochures that , “hey, this one is LGBT City, you have been warned,” shows their complete disregard for the feelings of many. Not just theater-goers, but parents taking their kids. We bought rush seats for June 7, and had no idea what was going to be portrayed. Yeah, we felt like walking out after that big languid kiss between two guys at the very beginning, but there was nothing else to do in Stratford that night, so we remained to watch the descent into Hell. (Sorry.) Turned out to be not the Hell of LGBT rights (which isn’t a Hell at all really), but the Hell of a lousy, overly busy, sophomoric production. The “King John” the night before was such a triumph, but the MND performance so very poor, we couldn’t believe it was the same Stratford Festival. And of all the acting jobs, not one stood out — not one — every one head-bangingly off the point (save, perhaps, Demetrius). However, audiences at live theatre these days will laugh at anything, so of course, this show will be thought successful. But Stratford, just look at the blank stares of the old folks exiting the theatre after this MND. It will speak volumes about your fund-raising efforts next year.

David Saraiva says:

May 22, 2015 at 3:41 am

Another vote for everything Eric said. Also, it was often difficult to hear actors on the second level.

Lee-Ann MacFarlane says:

May 22, 2015 at 3:41 am

I was so excited to see this play. What a let down. Players drinking bottles of beer before the performance just walking around, the costumes were modern day clothes not from the period that they should have been, I found it distracting, and the same sex aspect was a little surprising considering my guest was from a culture that has a hard time accepting same sex relations there should have been a little warning about that. I found it to be unprofessional. I was very disappointed. Maybe I’m just to traditional.

Bill Greenaway says:

May 22, 2015 at 3:41 am

I agree completely with Eric and Mark. This play is not Shakespeare. We left at intermission, first time ever to have walked out of a Stratford Festival performance. I have no problem with theatrical innovation in general, but Dream is total destruction, not innovation. Save your money and your time. Skip this production.

Greg Givan says:

May 22, 2015 at 3:41 am

I saw the production and I can see both points of view.

Ultimately, I (somewhat reluctantly) side with the nay-sayers. This is a highly kinetic production and great fun in spots, but overall it relies too heavily on a sort of hyper-chic slapstick. You’ll be entertained, but I’m not sure it’s Shakespeare by whom you’ll be entertained.

The production retained the charm in the Bottom-fairies relationship, which, given the choices the production made, was a relief; it could have gone otherwise.

I did think that Liisa Repo-Martell’s Helena was very, very close to perfect.

Janine Marley says:

May 22, 2015 at 3:41 am

On May 16th, I had the amazing opportunity to go and see the first preview of Stratford’s production of William Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream. I honestly can’t remember a better theatre experience than what I was a part of that afternoon.
Chris Abraham, whose production of Othello last season was also stunning, made some very interesting and calculated changes to this text, but certainly for the better. I found that the changes in terms of the frame narrative and the changes within the play itself to be fascinating and well done. In a play about love and marriage, to show all kinds of love was beautiful and firmly set the play in its modern context.
The play featured a simply stellar cast. Stephen Ouimette as Bottom was everything I had hoped he was going to be. I was also very impressed with Chick Reid, who played the mischievous Puck; she made us all laugh and want to play right along with her. The children in the play were wonderful as well. They were so sweet, and added this sense of innocence that comes with the fairy world. Overall, I was thrilled with this show. Truly, I didn’t want to leave the theatre, I didn’t want to break the magic of the place that I was in. I could have lived in that backyard for ever.
The best, and I mean BEST part about this experience was where my friend and I got to sit. We sat on these beautiful pillows and cushions along the side of the stage. Throughout the performance we sat beside some of the actors, interacted with them, and tried not to trip them as they went past us! We were totally immersed in the play: we were not given programs and were brought down separately into the theatre. It was amazing. To be that close, to be able to be a part of the show was an incredible experience.

For my full review, please check out my blog at: aviewfromthebox.net.

Neil Hawkins says:

May 22, 2015 at 3:41 am

Superb production staged at a backyard BBQ celebrating a wedding with an impromptu production of the bard’s playful series of stories. Gender bending approach works extremely well by introducing new paths of humor to an already funny story. (Let us not forget that in Shakespeare’s era ALL parts were originally played by men). I have seen this play four times, and this was the best production I have ever seen. Very creative. Fun. Funny. Novel. Well acted. A must see for those who prefer Shakespeare’s comedies.

Satu Repo says:

May 22, 2015 at 3:41 am

Saw The Dream on Saturday night with my husband. We loved the inclusiveness and the high spirits. The wedding frame was brilliant and original and worked well. Never have we enjoyed a Shakespeare play more.

Gloria Friedman says:

May 22, 2015 at 3:41 am

I thought it was great fun. Have no idea what all the “controversy” is over. Found it to be a VERY family friendly PG rated show.

Glen Marshall says:

May 22, 2015 at 3:41 am

My wife and I thoroughly enjoyed this production’s rowdy interpretation. We have seen several productions, and this one favorably compares. The play is highly malleable. Like many of Shakespeare’s works, the modern update that retains the period language is a common director’s choice and easily accepted.

Many of Shakespeare’s plays contain bawdy humor that is often lost on contemporary audiences (hence Bowdlerization), so the inclusion of modern bawdiness is in keeping with the play’s comic spirit. More conservative sensibilities, developed after Shakespeare’s time, may make this difficult for some. The production is PG-13, as is most Shakespeare, not R.

We especially liked the slapstick use of cake and water during the argument among the confused lovers.

Penni-Sue Smith says:

May 22, 2015 at 3:41 am

I disagree with Eric. We (family of four with kids 13 and 10) just saw the show and really enjoyed it. How often can you say Shakespeare was fun? The actors were clearly having fun and so was the audience. The actors spilled out into the audience so that you felt you were part of the wedding/show. The concept was quite original as well as the gender reversals on numerous roles, which we thought was very effective for a fresh take on on the original theme: the courage to fight to love whom you choose. Yes, a few non-original lines were sparingly dropped but with great comedic effect. We were laughing throughout. The acting of Stephen Ouimette as Bottom was worth the price of admission alone. We also thought Mike Shara as Demetrius was a standout. And while the script was played for laughs, the theme was treated quite seriously. For those families that grew up watching Modern Family, which is hilarious but also has characters with heart that demonstrate that a wide range of types of families and love are acceptable, this show really resonates. No doubt it is not perfect and not for traditionalists, and sitting in the third row no doubt helped in numerous ways. Nevertheless, this is recommended, particularly if you want a fresh, fun evening and you have kids that you want to enjoy Shakespeare in a way that resonates with the new normal.

Mark Boughan says:

May 22, 2015 at 3:41 am

I wrote a preliminary review last night as I got home and then had to erase it and wait until I was able to write coherently. What has been said so far is completely correct. Of the 15 or 16 “Dreams” that I have seen in my life, of all the amateur and professional, of all the bare-boned and elaborate, of all the pedantic and imaginative, this is the least enjoyable and most relentlessly political production that I have ever seen.

Yes, a significant portion of the audience was laughing. Some came during the crude jokes and some came during the completely over-the-top acting and knowing asides that the performers seemed unable to control. I get it, some people like the humour of Rosanne Barr. If you do, you’ll like this production.

Two conceits overwhelm this “Dream”.

The first will undoubtedly be used to explain all of the sophmoric production values and giddy adolescent bawdiness. As Eric Bow mentioned in his review, the actors are really supposed to just be guests at a wedding putting on an off-the-cuff production of “Dream” for the wedding couple. See- we aren’t supposed to see something that actually deals with the material or that is presented in a professional manner. It’s all okay.

Second, the Director’s notes in the program reveal that this production was meant less as entertainment and more as a sexual-political statement about changing mores concerning same-sex marriage. Leaving aside whether or not “Dream” is the right vehicle for such a statement, this second conceit leads the play completely astray for it Christ Abraham forces gender confusion into every aspect of the performance. Yes, confusion- and I am not making a sexual-political statement here.

In almost every nook and cranny of the play, actors play opposite gender roles. In some cases, as in the choice of a female lead to play Lysander, the early portions of the play seem to indicate that it is merely a woman playing the role of Lysander but by the end, it is clearly deemed to be a woman’s role. Titania and Oberon are both played by men. Of course, in Shakespearian times, this was the norm. How can I complain?

But aha, these leads change to the opposite role on alternate nights. Acting tour de force? Perhaps. Heavy-handed external allusion to a position on the nature of gender identity. Certainly. Even the changeling child- identified by the text to be a boy – is a little girl. Of course, any dismay that I might have at this constant barrage of identity politics also clearly identifies me as transphobic of cissesxist, doesn’t it?

You see, this is not a play meant to entertain or to explore Shakespeare’s rather complex reflections upon the nature of love. The issues of obsession, courtly love vs. peasant love, themes of obligation and the transfer of bonds from family to the beloved, are all muted or lost in the politics and silliness. This is a play that demands acceptance and celebration of a particular stance on gender identity. Shakespeare is lost. The correct title word for this production is not “Dream”….

Eric Bow says:

May 22, 2015 at 3:41 am

“A Midsummer Night’s Dream” was a big disappointment. Chris Abraham’s interpretation has turned something wonderful and magical into a farce. He starts with a gay wedding in which the friends of the couple put on a play of the newly weds’ choice. In an effort to be inclusive he makes Hermia’s father Egeus a deaf character, the Hermia Lysander relationship a gay one. A female Lysander just doesn’t work. Titania is played by a male in drag and that makes her laughable – is Chris Abraham punning on the word fairy? The beauty of Shakespeare’s language is spoilt by unclear pronunciation. The actors, well aware they are in a play within a play and meant to be amateurs, take every opportunity to ham it up. They slip in modern language and pronuciations. Every scene is played for laughs. It was like a high school play with rather raw humour. The audience today included many school kids and they got all the crude visual jokes. My wife and I left after the man in the moon’s dog tried to hump the lion. The lighting was geared to it being amateurs putting on a play for newly wed friends sitting in front of a natural stage. Three hand moved spot lights which frequently strayed and blinded audience to the right and left of the stage. (If you go don’t accept seats in aisles 1,2 8 or 9.) The actors also carried flashlights to light their faces Lighting was very annoying. Definitely not worth the price of the ticket even though we got a sizable discount.

Scott Spillane says:

May 22, 2015 at 3:41 am

I totally disagree with the negative voices. The play is fun and lots of it, glad I saw it. If you need your Shakespeare in period this is not your thing. However, this successfully pokes fun at modern marriage and especially weddings. We still look at obsession in Helena, insecurity in a heart broken Hermia and jealousy in Titania and Oberon. However, some negative voices here are acting like this is some sacred text not to be played with. Nonsense, sure it is a thoughtful play, however, it is also a play where a fairy princess falls in love with a donkey. Chill out, you might enjoy yourself.

Jerry Andritsis says:

May 22, 2015 at 3:41 am

Disgusting! A modernized version pushing a gay social agenda and, totally amateur and un-professionally done, to add. The cast was toting beer, slipping into the pond, messing up their lines. The cast was obviously having a “ball” reliving some sort of high school era, let’s be young again, sloppy kind of half Shakespeare half, God knows what kind of “production” Worst of all, there was NO WARNING in the play description that this was going to be a modernized, butcher’ized version of Shakespears classic that we paid hundreds of dollars to see. We really wanted to walk out at intermission. Luckily, and to the credit of the theater, we got vouchers for another play.

Ann Fox says:

May 22, 2015 at 3:41 am

Some love Shakespeare for his beautiful language. Legions of others, past and present, suffered through school English classes and found him boring and incomprehensible. They would equate attending a Shakespearian play about as appealing as a root canal appointment. Now imagine, somehow, they attend this year’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream; they guffaw at the broad humour, ‘get’ the meaning of many lines, then tweet that they can’t believe how much FUN they’ve had. There’s the hook. When we enjoy something we want more. I hope those who were disappointed will consider their ticket a downpayment for a new generation, who will mature and just possibly, decide they too love Shakespeare.

Amanda Wilk says:

May 22, 2015 at 3:41 am

Back in 2010 Mr. Cimolino gave a talk entitled ‘Who’s Afraid of the Brave New World’ in which he stated: “The worst thing you can do to any work written for the theatre is to lay it reverently on a shelf to be admired, out of reach of grubby and sacrilegious hands that might want to play around with it. That’s what plays are for: playing with.” Play is exactly what Mr. Abraham does in his production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream.
Is it filled to the brim with physical comedy? Yes. And yes it does take liberties with the text. But a season in which The Stratford Festival takes no chances and chooses not to play with Shakespeare to discover something new would be a season in which something very profound is lost.
Though this is a very physical production, the acting is not over the top and there are moments of quietness and understanding presented from all actors. My heart breaks for Liisa Repo-Martell’s Helena and Jonathan Goad’s Oberon who though immortal appears to identify too too much with her pain.
Evan Buliung’s Titania is a revelation, and after his take on the fairy queen, I cannot imagine the role played another way.
When Chick Reid speaks the evening’s final lines: “While these visions did appear. And this weak and idle theme, No more yielding but a dream, Gentles, do not reprehend,” she speaks not of the liberties taken with comedy, but love, daring us to imagine a world where people are free to live and love as they please. Sadly, this is not the world we today live in, but with productions like Mr. Abraham’s Dream, perhaps it will one day be a reality.

Ken Harvey says:

May 22, 2015 at 3:41 am

I am very much looking forward to seeing both Dreams on the same day in a few weeks. I can’t imagine NOT approaching theater with an open mind. I’ve attended Stratford for over 30 years, and yes, there have been some productions that have disappointed me. But nothing would have disappointed me more than a “warning” for the Festival Theater Production that let people know that a gay wedding (which I like to call just a wedding) was part of the play. My husband and I have two children. Could any of you who wanted a warning begin to fathom what it would be like to explain to your children that their family needed a warning?

Barbara Budd says:

May 22, 2015 at 3:41 am

Here’s what I love love love about theatre….good theatre. It makes you think. It makes you feel. It makes you Laugh, and cry, and sometimes makes you angry. But the best theatre provokes discourse. Okay , so this was a brave interpretation of A Midsummer NIght’s Dream….brave. But no braver than what it must hav e seemed to the folks in the Globe Theatre when it was first produced. An ass sleeping with a Queen? IN front of THEIR Virgin Queen? Outrageous! And count on it , there would have been folks who found that crass beyond belief. And d’ya think, that maybe there were a few adlibs from time to time from the actors back then? OOOOO I would imagine. Some of them maybe ill-placed. Some of them maybe a bit jarring too. However…. And I just bet the Shakespeare POlice were out after old Will when that was first produced. (Sexual innuendo. Inappropriate pairings.)But beyond it being brave, I found it delightful. It was like being at a family wedding where your quirky aunts and uncles feel comfortable enough to act like themselves…warts and all (and sometimes embarassingly so)…and in front of your friends too! The mother of the groom dressed to the nines, gets drunk, and the kids are allowed to act like little imps….and nobody stops them from grabbing the microphone….but… But. watching it all, we accept that we are part of a family. I love when a director takes chances. NOt just by using expensive spectacle…but by turning our gaze in another direction to view a rather un-serious Shakespeare work in a different way. Sometimes taking chances works. Sometimes it doesn’t. This Dream , for me and hundreds of others works! I think everyone should see it to make up their own mind. You haven’t seen a production of Dream like this one. And that is more than enough reason to go! Besides, it’s fun.

Aidan Fullerton says:

May 22, 2015 at 3:41 am

I have now seen The Dream twice, once with three of my friends, and again yesterday with another. We are a diverse group ranging from a non-theatre goer to a once or twice a yearer to avid stratford fans. One member of our first party has played puck in an amateur production of The Dream. I can say with absolute conviction that every one of us loved the production. To me, that is where the greatest strength of this show lies; it is funny and interesting to such a wide range of people.
The modern bawdy humour and slapstick comedy, whilst funny for everyone, especially enhanced the play for the less avid theatre goer.
I was particularly fond of the gay relationship between Lysander and Hermia. It appeared that Hermia’s father was unable to accept her sexual orientation. This is a very relevant issue in todays society. Furthermore I find Mr. Bows allegation that the decision to portray Hermia’s father as being based solely on the idea of inclusiveness. The choice symbolized Egeus’s deafness to his daughter’s heart; to her wishes. Perhaps it is ironic that the deeper message of this decision fell on deaf ears…
Overall I thought it was an interesting and tremendously funny production. If one wants to watch the same old version of The Dream, I’m sure that one can find it on VCR, but lets not forget that Shakespeare was an innovator.

Alicia Robson says:

May 22, 2015 at 3:41 am

If we hadn’t have driven for nearly and hour and a half to come see this play, we would have left. The gender swapping characters and in-your-face stance on gay marriage weren’t the issues here. The problem is that you come to expect a level of sophistication from the Festival Theatre, especially with a Shakespearean play. It’s as if the director threw all of these expectations out the window, which is a risky feat at $100/ticket.
This play was already a comedy, and a successful one at that. I see no reason to make as many changes as he did, all for the sake of a cheap laugh. Speaking of cheap, I feel for the costume designer on this one. Half of those props, wings, and outfits could have come from the dollar store, and I’ll bet they did..
Sorry, but an Ipad, toy light sabre, cell phone, sneakers, and a children’s plastic BBQ set belongs nowhere near a Shakespearean script.
At least warn the crowd that they’re coming to a “modernized” version of a classic.
It was also as if the entire play was being used as a tool for social acceptance of gay marriage. Lines were even added to promote this. Actors frequently broke character, and it seemed very rushed in places. The DJ on stage was extremely distracting as well.
All in all.. Was it humorous in some areas? Yes. But at the cost of robbing the guests from an authentic experience. Some jokes are not worth the loss of respect. This is a case where the director took his “artistic freedom” and ran with it in tackiest direction he could think of. Complete mockery.

The New York Times - Charles Isherwood

Both beyond Shakespeare’s wildest...

Charles Isherwood of the NY Times on the Chamber play “I emerged stunned and disoriented, partly stimulated and partly exhausted. Theater rarely makes you feel any of these things consistently, let alone simultaneously.” and this of the other “Mr. Abraham’s production ranks among the most purely enchanting I’ve seen”

Read Full Review

Blogging Shakespeare - Rob Ormsby

Shakespeare wrote the play to...

“Abraham emphasizes his concern with Dream’s and its source material’s representation of ceaseless metamorphosis in the unfolding of true love’s unsmooth course…Whatever loose ends or conflicts may remain between spouses, the director appears to want to accommodate them on behalf of what the Wedding Couple represent along the way to normalizing the new normal.”

Read Full Review

The New Hamburg Independent - Scott Miller Cressman

Well worth one of your summer nights

“Director Chris Abraham’s update on the 420-year-old story is a home run…performances are strong throughout. Chick Reid plays the fairy Puck with mischief and a touch of the otherworldly.”

Read Full Review

The Chicago Tribune - Chris Jones

Stretching Shakespeare

“Abraham is making a statement. Good for him, say I. There is great value in a production that takes such joy in the sudden changes in the world. The moment should be marked…But whatever the gender or the soundtrack, you still have to believe in the complexity of the relationships.”

Read Full Review

The grid - Martin Morrow

Bard may be the quintessential dead...

“[Director] Chris Abraham’s exuberant version…is a glorious rainbow…framed as the entertainment at a modern, multiracial gay wedding, this inclusive Dream has it all: same-sex lovers, a drag fairy queen, adorable kids, funny old folks, a Deaf character speaking in sign language, and a May-December marriage.”

Read Full Review

The National Post - Robert Cushman

Wentworth and Beaty exquisite

“[Scott ] Wentworth himself moves naturally into the role of Theseus; Maev Beaty is his Hippolyta, and theirs are the best performances of these roles I have ever seen.”

Read Full Review

The Bard and the Boards - Robyn Godfrey

Bard dropped for Bruno Mars Lyric

“Dream has some of the finest poetry in the entire Bardic canon, and such lines were sacrificed so that a food-fight, wet-t-shirt contest and cheesy 80’s ballads could be inserted while a group of diminutive fairies sings Bruno Mars.”

Read Full Review

The Slotkin Letter - Lynn Slotkin

A joyous production

“Abraham has made bold choices that enhance the play; asks the audience to suspend its disbelief just a bit, trust in the words and believe in that world…The transformative power of love and wonderful, thoughtful, joyous theatre.”

Read Full Review

Capital Critics circle - Jamie Portman

Depressingly foolish and self-indulgent

“An audacious concept fails to reach its potential — perhaps because Abraham had no real idea what to do with it. Instead both it and the play itself are pulverized into stupidity by a director who should know better.”

Read Full Review

Globe and Mail - J. Kelly Nestruck

Love is in the air

“there is something about Abraham’s Dream that makes you feel as if you’ve been set free, particularly after an opening week of solid, but stuffy versions of classic plays at Stratford.”

Read Full Review

Broadway World - Lauren Gienow

Beautiful design

“Designer, JULIE FOX outdoes herself…he Festival Theatre stage is transformed into a beautiful and lavish ‘enchanted forest’ of sorts. Green grass covers the stage, lights dangle throughout, and in the centre is a small pond that is used to hilarious effect in the second act.

Read Full Review

Donald's Dish - Geoff Dale

Outrageously daring adaptation

“lighten up and remember what the impishly sly Puck says:
‘If we shadows have offended /Think but this, and all is mended / That you have but slumber’d here /While these visions did appear.'”

Read Full Review

The Examiner.com - Christina Strynatka

Abraham draws out timeless themes

“Thanks to Abraham, Stratford’s production of “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” is exactly why Shakespeare’s works continue to endure almost 400 years after his death. If kept in their original form, his plays would grow continually out of touch with modern audiences, despite the depth and beauty that lays in them.”

Read Full Review

The Stratford Beacon Herald - Bruce Urquhart

Exhilarating!

“There’s love on stage – a love for Shakespeare, a love of theatre and a genuine love between friends – that elevates this Stratford Festival production…Abraham has tried to do something different, interweaving Shakespeare’s greatest comedic love story with this warm show of love between friends.”

Read Full Review

The Toronto Star - Richard Ouzounian

First ever review 1/2 star review

HalfStar “Let me make it clear that my dislike of the show had nothing to do with its central framing device (that it’s all being performed to celebrate the marriage of two men) or its selective use of gender-blind casting (Titania is played by a man, Lysander by a woman).”