A Duke usurps his brother's land and power, banishing him and his entourage into the forest of Arden. The banished Duke's daughter, Rosalind, remains with her cousin Celia. She has fallen in... Read allA Duke usurps his brother's land and power, banishing him and his entourage into the forest of Arden. The banished Duke's daughter, Rosalind, remains with her cousin Celia. She has fallen in love with Orlando.A Duke usurps his brother's land and power, banishing him and his entourage into the forest of Arden. The banished Duke's daughter, Rosalind, remains with her cousin Celia. She has fallen in love with Orlando.
J. Fisher White
- Adam
- (as Fisher White)
W.K. Clark
- Guard
- (uncredited)
Featured reviews
10clanciai
This is very much in the same style as Max Reinhardt's ambitious rendering of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" a few years earlier, it's the same playfulness, the same fantastic imagination and innovations, the same good humour and the same kind of gorgeous sets with a number of sumptuous crowd scenes, and instead of Mendelssohn's music you have William Walton, who actually proves just as appropriate. This is one of those plays that are almost impossible to fail in, as it is so ingenious and well written with such adorable characters, and both Elisabeth Bergner and Laurence Olivier do credit to them indeed, Bergner actually almost outshining Olivier, whose fírst Shakespeare film this was. In comparison with Kenneth Branagh's version 70 years later, this is actually so much more enoyable, although it's without colours and much shorter, but Branagh's production is heavier, he has the tendency to always overdo everything in his films, and in this version everything is convincing and true to the original character of the play, while Branagh always must modernize and almost screw it up. The doiminating trait of the film is a very playful direction, you feel throughout that the director enjoyed doing this, perhaps even more than Reinhardt in the midsummer night play with Mickey Rooney as Puck and James Cagney as Bottom, and later on Paul Czinner made some of the best ballet films ever made. In brief, in spite of its early age and lack of technical maturity, this is a perfect Shakespeare film.
Laurence Olivier in his first Shakespeare adaptation on screen. This is the first motif to see this old film , good kick to discover the root of classic performances from Shakespeare universe.
The second virtue - the noble effort of Elizabeth Bergner to create a beautiful Rosalind portrait , using her experience in polish of it on German scene. Her accent ? I saw it as good point , defining exactly the determination to propose a professional performance.
Yes, not great but profound charming, offering a seductive return to the connection between rosalind and Orlando and decent solutions for a real seductive adaptation.
The second virtue - the noble effort of Elizabeth Bergner to create a beautiful Rosalind portrait , using her experience in polish of it on German scene. Her accent ? I saw it as good point , defining exactly the determination to propose a professional performance.
Yes, not great but profound charming, offering a seductive return to the connection between rosalind and Orlando and decent solutions for a real seductive adaptation.
The main role, Rosalind, is well-played by the cute, vivacious Bergner. Olivier is good with the physical stuff (very graceful) and the repartee. He tends to fall flat on the soliloquies and extended reveries, though. (And he's wearing way too much makeup, including at times some very crooked lipstick.) The costumes and sets are vivid, probably meant to suggest a fairy-tale, and thus account for the ridiculous plot devices.
And despite the comments of another reviewer, the camera-work is not all "point-and-shoot." It is a bit static by today's standards, but not by those of 1936.
The biggest liability is the muddy, distant sound.
All in all, I liked it more than the average filmed Shakespeare, though it's not great by any means.
And despite the comments of another reviewer, the camera-work is not all "point-and-shoot." It is a bit static by today's standards, but not by those of 1936.
The biggest liability is the muddy, distant sound.
All in all, I liked it more than the average filmed Shakespeare, though it's not great by any means.
This is a decent adaptation of Shakespeare's "As You Like It", with the main reason to watch being a young Laurence Olivier as Orlando. The rest of the production is adequate, although some aspects of it are a bit routine. The story follows the play closely, except that of course a good proportion of the lines, plus occasional scenes, are deleted to bring it down to its movie length of about 90 minutes. You can definitely see its age at times, even more so than with most movies of the era, but it does have some positives too.
Very few performers come near Olivier's standard when it comes to doing Shakespeare, and even though this was one of his earliest efforts, he is still pretty good, delivering the lines well, although perhaps more brooding than necessary. The other lead, Elisabeth Bergner as Rosalind, does give her character a distinctive turn, but it does not always work as well. Still, she has plenty of energy, and that helps a lot. The production actually seems to highlight her performance more so than Olivier's. The rest of the cast is OK, but does not always have a lot to do.
The best productions of Shakespeare enable even those not familiar with the play to appreciate it, and this one probably does not do that. It will be best enjoyed by those who like the play and who also are already used to movies of the era.
Very few performers come near Olivier's standard when it comes to doing Shakespeare, and even though this was one of his earliest efforts, he is still pretty good, delivering the lines well, although perhaps more brooding than necessary. The other lead, Elisabeth Bergner as Rosalind, does give her character a distinctive turn, but it does not always work as well. Still, she has plenty of energy, and that helps a lot. The production actually seems to highlight her performance more so than Olivier's. The rest of the cast is OK, but does not always have a lot to do.
The best productions of Shakespeare enable even those not familiar with the play to appreciate it, and this one probably does not do that. It will be best enjoyed by those who like the play and who also are already used to movies of the era.
Unfortunately, Shakespeare's comedy 'As You Like It' has much of its comic aspects drained in this particular film version of the play, because of the sodden performances of a couple of players, Mackenzie Ward as Touchstone and Elizabeth Bergner as Rosalind.
The part of the Fool was an important part of Shakespearean plays, delivering pointed messages in the guise of witty remarks and jests. In this film, Touchstone's lines are breezed through so quickly and leadenly that the messages are lost. Bergner's Rosalind, was far worse. Rosalind was supposed to be disguised as a youthful man delivering acquired wisdom to men. I would have expected mainly a mock-serious performance, at most. Instead, Bergner performs Rosalind in a kind of giddy glee throughout, which must have marred her delivery of lines through that toothy grin combined with her Austrian accent.
Laurence Olivier, while performing in the more naturalistic way we would expect of a modern film actor, seems at times as if he's trying to get over with the whole thing, as might be expected if the rumors of artistic conflicts are true.
Sophie Stewart as Celia delivers probably the truest performance. Henry Ainley, Felix Aylmer, Leon Quartermain, and Dorice Fordred give nice performances as the two dukes, Jacques, and Audrey in minor parts. Peter Bull (the Russian ambassador from 'Dr. Strangelove') makes a very recognizable appearance in the second half.
I feel I ought to comment on the many complaints about the 'staginess' of the diction. My opinion is that these complaints have mainly to do with a couple of minor characters (e.g., Charles the Wrestler). Keep in mind that this is 1936, when many stage and silent actors were still adapting to the motion picture. Many films based on stage plays at that time appeared stagy, and many did even later (consider 'A Long Day's Journey Into Night' or 'A Streetcar Named Desire'). Few of Shakespeare's plays had been adapted to the sound motion picture by 1936. Cut them a little slack!
The part of the Fool was an important part of Shakespearean plays, delivering pointed messages in the guise of witty remarks and jests. In this film, Touchstone's lines are breezed through so quickly and leadenly that the messages are lost. Bergner's Rosalind, was far worse. Rosalind was supposed to be disguised as a youthful man delivering acquired wisdom to men. I would have expected mainly a mock-serious performance, at most. Instead, Bergner performs Rosalind in a kind of giddy glee throughout, which must have marred her delivery of lines through that toothy grin combined with her Austrian accent.
Laurence Olivier, while performing in the more naturalistic way we would expect of a modern film actor, seems at times as if he's trying to get over with the whole thing, as might be expected if the rumors of artistic conflicts are true.
Sophie Stewart as Celia delivers probably the truest performance. Henry Ainley, Felix Aylmer, Leon Quartermain, and Dorice Fordred give nice performances as the two dukes, Jacques, and Audrey in minor parts. Peter Bull (the Russian ambassador from 'Dr. Strangelove') makes a very recognizable appearance in the second half.
I feel I ought to comment on the many complaints about the 'staginess' of the diction. My opinion is that these complaints have mainly to do with a couple of minor characters (e.g., Charles the Wrestler). Keep in mind that this is 1936, when many stage and silent actors were still adapting to the motion picture. Many films based on stage plays at that time appeared stagy, and many did even later (consider 'A Long Day's Journey Into Night' or 'A Streetcar Named Desire'). Few of Shakespeare's plays had been adapted to the sound motion picture by 1936. Cut them a little slack!
Did you know
- TriviaLaurence Olivier trained with professional wrestlers for the wrestling scenes, and did his filming during the day while he was playing on stage in "Romeo and Juliet" at night.
- Quotes
Exiled Duke: Sweet are the uses of adversity.
- Alternate versionsDifferent prints have conflicting credits. For the 1936 U.S. version, Robert Cullen is credited (as R.J. Cullen) for production manager and scenario, but for the 1949 re-release, he is credited only as production manager, and 'Carl Mayer' is credited with adaptation. Similarly, for the 1936 version, Elisabeth Bergner's name is above the title for the opening credits, but in the 1949 re-release Laurence Olivier's name is above the title (as can be seen from the IMDb poster).
- ConnectionsFeatured in Great Performances: Laurence Olivier: A Life (1983)
- How long is As You Like It?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Runtime
- 1h 36m(96 min)
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.37 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content