Mickey Rooney - Most egregious overacting ever - A Midsummer Night's Dream (1935) Discussion

[–] Dreamwatcher14 17 years ago

Mickey Rooney wasn't actually a kid, he was 15 when it was released. It was the deeper tones of an adult in his voice that belied his tiny frame, prompting me to research this movie on this database. I have watched many 'Midsummer Night's Dream' productions and quite enjoyed this one. The extensive use of glitter was quite enjoyable, emphasizing the ethereal quality of the theme. Particularly effective for a black and white film. Mr. Rooney's expressive visage and wild laughter played in with the surreal fantasy. It was surprising, refreshing, and tickled; absolutely adorable. The mixture of costumes from different eras was curious. I loved the special effects; spider web weaving especially; gorgeous.

reply

[–] cyninbend-149-610489 8 years ago

I completely agree! I'm wildly in love with this movie because it captures the theme, and the dreamlike nature. Rooney's laughter was one of those things that transported me! It was not a drawback or overacting, it was in fabulous contrast to the world we live in. I also enjoyed the glittery effects, supposedly aided by aluminum paint, cobwebs, candles, etc. It was absolutely beautiful. I wanted to fly into the screen. I'm buying the DVD so I can watch it all the time. Esp before sleeping--I want to dream of this production.

Finally, I wanted to add how wonderful Olivia de Havilland is in this! It says it was the 1st movie she made, and I guess it's her looser performance, less perfectly ladylike, more real. Fabulous!

reply

[–] Molly-31 8 years ago

Thank you for this. My exact feelings. I wish I could upvote this +1,000,000. I first saw this in '69 or '70 and have seen it many times since (bless you, TCM).

Well, the city's being built and I'm winning this game. So don't interrupt us with trifles.

reply

[–] sleepdeprived 17 years ago

I watched it ealier today on TCM, and was quite---amazed. The effects were quite magical, the music not nearly so military and terrifying as I read elsewhere here, but on the whole--yikes. The costumes were over the top, EVERYONE over-acted at times (Although Rooney is painful to watch, he's so bad; he was less awful in Breakfast at Tiffany's, if that's possible), the fairy characters were unappealing- I swear I saw the spawn of Yoda and Nosferatu in that parade.
I have seen this play performed, this was not, I feel, what the Bard had in mind.

But is there anyone who's really good? Maybe goodness is just make-believe.

reply

[–] Hollywood_doll 17 years ago

In the scene where he was calling "LYSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANDEEEEEEEEEEEEEER" I would have given anything to reach through the screen and hit him.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] NHardyboy 17 years ago

Testify! Mickey's performance brought to mind my least-favorite cartoon character, Woody Woodpecker--down to the annoying laugh and "funny" shenanigans that actually equal abuse to poor, undeserving victims. I was kind of intrigued by Victor Jory's sinister Oberon, though, and give props to Cagney, who clearly had a great time on this film.

reply

[–] Doylenf 17 years ago

If Rooney was overacting (and he WAS), why single him out? EVERYONE IN THE CAST OVERACTED TO THE NTH DEGREE!!!

The entire cast played their roles as if they were playing to the balcony of a huge theater. This must have been Reinhard's influence. Even OLIVIA DE HAVILLAND, chosen by Reinhardt to play Hermia in his screen version for Warner Bros., at times overacts in almost actressy silent screen technique, clutching her hand to her bosom or feigning adoring looks at DICK POWELL (who, although overacting, seemed to be enjoying himself). She toned down this stage technique in all her later films.

But I did like Olivia in the scene where she stands up to the others in the quartet of lovers and really shows some spunk for a change. It didn't hurt that she looked lovely throughout. ANITA LOUISE, cooing all of her lines in a high, flutey kind of manner, was odd, to say the least. But VICTOR JORY came off as less stagey than the others.

reply

[–] HawksRevenge 16 years ago

I have never heard a bigger load of hyperbole in my life, I am wondering if I watched the same film as you people. There is no contortion, and no overacting and if you bothered to see the play or read the book you would find this to be a meticulous production

Try to watch a film like its 1935 and you will it enjoy it more!

reply

[–] flavia18 16 years ago

I can see why some people think there was overacting, but I think they were all doing what they were supposed to do - what the director told them to, in order to convey the other-worldly/stage impression this play is supposed to impart. In Shakespeare's time, all the Mechanicals would have been buffoonish - they were the comic relief, & they were lower class individuals.
____________________________________
Those who study history are doomed to watch others repeat it.

reply

[–] ceebeegee 14 years ago

Agreed. I had no problem with the lovers--anyone who thinks that's overacting doesn't get it (that's pretty standard for the times, it's obviously deliberately stylized) but Rooney's Puck did take me awhile to get used to--then I thought it was brilliant. This is a wild child of a Puck--he's really *off* in a way that works, you feel how alien this out-of-control kid is. I know Puck very well, as I've played the role several times--I really like what Rooney did here.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] yobrien1 12 years ago

No no NO!! Mickey Rooney was brilliant - Puck is a mix of evil imp and sprite, child and adult - and he is not MORTAL! Mickey Rooney gave a thrilling performance - mischieveous and slightly evil, with a touch of playfulness - slightly demented too - which is what one would expect of Puck! I had heard about this movie from family and friends, and only had the good fortune to see it last night oN TCM! He was only 15 and was absolutely spellbinding - loved every second of him on screen!

reply

[–] scribstuff 11 years ago

If Rooney and DeHavilland seemed to be acting as if they were playing to the balcony, that might have been because there had been - the year before. In 1934, Mickey Rooney (then only 14 years old) and Olivia DeHavilland performed in a stage version of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" in the first (and apparently last) "California Festival", a production directed by Max Reinhardt. And talk about your huge theater - the production was staged at the Hollywood Bowl (seats 18,000), the San Francisco Opera House, and the outdoor Greek Theatre in Berkeley (seats 8,500.)

The 1934 California Festival cast was entirely different from the 1935 movie cast, except for Rooney, DeHaqvilland and Otis Harlan (Starvling). Sterling Halloway played Flute and Walter Connolly played Bottom. The Los Angeles Philharmonic and the San Francisco Philharmonic performed the Mendelssohn music.

reply

[–] Errington_92 11 years ago

After a while Rooney's performance did became irritating. The constant yelps he made in most of his scenes and his overacting grew to be highly annoying.

"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".

reply

[–] cyninbend-149-610489 8 years ago

It was the sinister Oberon's contrast to the fairies all glittery and weightless that gave it a more mature edge, kept it from feeling like a cartoon. After all, this is pre-Disney and all those evil characters they drape on the animated screen.

reply

[–] DoctorStrangelove 16 years ago

this film is practically unwatchable due to Rooney's constant whooping, guffawing and trilling as the mischevious Puck. I don't care if he's just a kid. His shrill laughter easily tops Jim Carrey's "Most annoying sound in the world" from Dumb & Dumber (to mix high and low brows) especially when subjected to it every 20 seconds

I've always felt that way about Rooney's voice - in EVERY film he's in.

The Astronaut Farmer - 6/10

He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life.

reply

[–] temple_drake 16 years ago

You people need to brush up on your Shakespeare. The part of Puck, the mischievous imp and trickster, was written just as Mickey acts it.

reply

[–] aciolino 16 years ago

There are many parts for imps and tricksters and harlequins and many of them do not require the screeching pyro-technics that Rooney brings to the part.

But do not blame Rooney. There WAS a director, wasn't there?

Unless you are William Shakespeare you have NO IDEA how the lines were "meant" to be read, if there is such a thing, and I doubt that there is. You think too much of your "knowledge" of Shakespeare if you can say this.

For every line of any character you can have a dozen gifted actors give it entirely differently readings. Any novice of acting knows this.

reply

[–] ladym00s 16 years ago

Uh, I've read this play many, many times and I can assure you, no where in this play does it says "puck laughs like the most annoying little *beep* ever born of this earth". Mischievous does not mean annoying. I've seen and read many versions of this play, and this is the WORST I've ever seen, even worse than the michelle pfieffer version, and that's pretty awful.

reply

[–] ceebeegee 14 years ago

Puck IS annoying. He is written to be that way--in fact he has a whole monologue (sadly, mostly cut in this film) where he tells the first fairy about all the crap he pulls. "Sometime lurk I in a gossip's bowl/in very likeness of a roasted crab....and on her withered dewlap, pour the ale....then slip I from her bum, down topples she!" He lacks any empathy whatsoever, except for the most shallow kind ("pretty soul! she durst not lie/near this lack-love, this kill-courtesy...") and finds it hilarious that his mistakes have messed things up so much--which is why Oberon scolds him.

How the actor chooses to interpret that is up to the actor but yes, he is annoying. Rooney's performance may not have been to your liking (and it does take some getting used to) but his instincts were dead on.

reply

[–] eqxander 9 years ago

While I agree the Puck is "supposed" to be annoying, Rooney's laugh was a bridge too far. I wonder if it even was his own voice making that horrific sound, but somehow modified in post-production. The movie was great, helped to characterize a Shakespeare play that can be a bit difficult for modern audiences to follow, but every time Rooney started to laugh, it made me want to change the channel.

reply

[–] Darthmauler_megaa 9 years ago

I'm going to be polite and say this entire movie is off its freakin rocker, lol. I mean with Cagney's character it makes sense that he'd get all loopy and giddy while hanging out with Titania and the fairies. The problem is every character in the movie acts the same way regardless of what scene they're in! I mean did they pass around the laughing gas before every take? Sheesh, lol. I'm glad they're all having fun, but I'm still not sure what I just witnessed! 

But seriously, I suppose because it's a Shakespeare Comedy, and because the goal was mass appeal, Warner Brothers thought they needed to amp up the yucks (times a billion!). I'm kinda torn on that. Like, the scene where the four lovers are fighting together, the humor ought to come from the actors' delivery, reactions, and the situation itself. You shouldn't need the actors to go so over the top goofy.

But on the other hand, I was a spoiled '90s kid who got to perform Midsummer in High School and learn what it all meant. A lot of Americans didn't have the same opportunities in the '30s. So maybe it was necessary for the movie to channel a Vaudeville vibe, so to speak. Still I think MGM did that much more successfully with Wizard of Oz.

So, I'm not sure how this movie ranks as an adaptation, but I can't say I hated it. You can't deny it's...traumatically joyful appeal! 

"Whoever he is, this 'Torch' is dangerous...He has a sense of humor!"

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chris_hargensen 16 years ago

i really liked it actually. i was captivated. it reminded me of dicaprio in 'what's eating gilbert grape' and i wouldn't be surprised if leo took influence from mickey's performance. that would be very leo somehow to delve that far back.

also i thought he really embodied the (sometimes) mischievous evil of faeries (i thought he was a sprite actually) like kind of borderline-psycho? hehe. anyway, i liked it :)

but i agree with you it was pretty over the top and the noises he made were a bit offputting at times, but i thought it was a great performance. he was so cute too :))

reply

[–] Thoaar 15 years ago

I just watched AMND for the first time on TCM today, and when I saw Mickey Rooney's performance as Puck my first thought was to wonder if that was a possible influence on DiCaprio. It is uncanny how similar some of the outbursts are.

reply

[–] nateba 16 years ago

make the restraint of the Three Stooges look like an Ivory-Merchant production

I'm now picturing the Three Stooges in "Howard's End". Interesting image!

cinefreak

reply

[–] Molly-31 16 years ago

I had no problem Rooney's performance -- he's the personification of chaos, the trickster who stirs things up. Naturally he's supposed to be as annoying as *beep!*

reply

[–] TemporaryOne-1 16 years ago

I am shocked that he was not nominated for Best Supporting Actor.

The director apparantly decided to cast a young person to portray a child Puck, not an adult Puck.

The director was not going to find an American pre-teen child actor with the skill and prodigiousness to recite and act out Shakespearean dialogue; he was forced to cast a teenager to portray a child, and he made a fine choice.

Rooney, a young teenager, was spectacular, reciting his dialogue better than half of the cast while simultaneously acting like a devilish cackling whooping impish trickster pre-teen child.

Too bad he never ventured to make another Shakespearean film.

I always relegated him to shallow entertainer status, but now I have a newfound respect for the man.

reply

[–] pedro4300 15 years ago

I'm getting sick and tired of the ignorant comments claiming Rooney to be terrible. I'm not a big fan of his, I like him, but I thought he was just right for the part and the way it was written he did a commendable job.
Get over yourselves people.

reply

[–] Piperson 15 years ago

Mickey Rooney stinks it up big time. It's not just his acting which is awful. It's that constant laughing when nothing funny has been said or done. It's like having a demented laugh track.

I love this movie because it is so physically beautiful. Great attention was paid to making each scene shine with an other-worldliness. I can't help wanting to watch it and be immersed in the visuals. But, as someone already mentioned, where was the director? Couldn't someone have sat on Mickey Rooney? I must admit he looked very cute.

reply

[–] nateba 15 years ago

I'm getting sick and tired of the ignorant comments claiming Rooney to be terrible. I'm not a big fan of his, I like him, but I thought he was just right for the part and the way it was written he did a commendable job.
Get over yourselves people.

One also has to at least take into consideration that he was very likely directed to perform in that manner! You had Reinhardt and Dieterle directing and neither one was very likely to just sit back and let him perform without saying anything!

cinefreak

reply

[–] pedro4300 15 years ago

Thanks you, nateba. It's point I wanted to make as well.

reply

[–] nateba 15 years ago

The bio on Reinhardt's IMDB page is interesting. He had never made a sound picture. So you have a guy who comes mainly from the theater where actors play to the rafters and stick him behind a movie camera where a performer's every facial twitch is caught. The actors were evidently directed by Reinhardt to chew all the scenery in sight according to the book "Warner's Wiseguys" that I've been reading.

cinefreak

reply

[–] cyninbend-149-610489 8 years ago

Thank you. I loved Rooney's performance and as it's being played on TCM's 31 days of Oscar, I too wondered if he'd won an Oscar for his role. He was frantastic! He conveyed the mirth that's a bit scary...like an hallucinogenic drug it requires one to let go...don't try to impose your idea of what he ought to be on him, don't try to anticipate... You won't like it all--he does not care if you like, love or hate him. That is what Puck is. He is not in our control. But we can enjoy him.

reply

[–] BKinzeys 14 years ago

As mentioned, Rooney didn't make all his own choices, there was a director.

Then the best defense is from Puck himself.

If we shadows have offended,
Think but this,and all is mended,
That you have but slumber'd here
While these visions did appear.
And this weak and idol theme,
No more yielding but a dream,
Gentiles do not reprehend:
If you pardon we will mend:
And, as I am an honest Puck,
If we have unearned luck
Now to 'scape the serpent's tongue,
We will make amends ere long:
Else the Puck a liar call:
So good night to you all.
Give me your hands if we be friends,
And Robin shall restore amends.
If not sweet peoples still at gall,
Then suck my XXXX'X! [EXIT]

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ceebeegee 14 years ago

Interesting...most editions leave off the last two lines ;)

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Merrida 11 years ago

I know this is a super old post but wanted to comment. Nice post, minus the exit.
______________________________________
Sic vis pacem para bellum.

reply

[–] BKinzeys 11 years ago

Yeah, it's a little rough but at the time I didn't have anything better.

Wish I would have though of:

"If my acts leave thou in a rut,
then kiss my butt."

Still, I'm no Shakespeare.

reply

[–] Merrida 11 years ago

Not too shabby. Not too shabby, indeed.
______________________________________
Sic vis pacem para bellum.

reply