This play was written by Royal order wedding of Princess and being raised in the Palace, soon went into oblivion. It would seem that scandal: one of the greatest creations of genius, it can be said, the will was misunderstood by his contemporaries blunt, which some entertainment for the mind (here it is appropriate to say something trite like "there is no prophet in the Fatherland"). Fortunately, then the world was artists the pre-Raphaelites, who lifted the play to the skies (at the same time expelling from oblivion by William Blake). Everyone is happy and clapping.
So, I will be sharp. This play a child of plagiarism and Commerce. From Shakespeare there's almost nothing. The fact that it was forgotten for a long time it is a fair result. Re processing of popular legends, all jokes borrowed from Italian productions on the subject in General without tears will not look a solid magic as a solution to any problems (Hello modern fantastical). The image of the cloak of Caliban, to whom so admire but what's special about it? Shakespeare wanted to show a repulsive character, and have not found anything better how to bring him a freak.
Hugo in this sense, the ten heads above his ambiguous Quasimodo. The ending just some laughter and a sin ("they lived happily ever after"). By the way, it is unclear what happened in the end with Caliban. Shakespeare just forget about it, and all sorts of connoisseurs prefer not to focus on this, although Caliban is in their opinion the most remarkable character (i.e. it is notable, for now. As the need has disappeared, it was discarded. Shine!). Or that Ariel is he, like, owes Prospero, but at the same time, eager for freedom. About the same dream and Caliban. It would seem, join forces and remove Prospero from the road. But no, Ariel, faithfully serving his master and even tells him about the machinations of the cloak of Caliban, acting as the most rabid slave. However, for some reason he's here is a positive character, and the Caliban negative (this is the ethics of the reign of the Stuarts? Doubt).
However, I will say a few good words about the play. First, the "utopian" dialogue Gonzaga scoffers appalling in the depth. Shakespeare's sympathies clearly on the side of utopian, but the counterstatements of his opponents is not "flat and rough", as written in the afterword Smirnov. Indeed, it is strange to put himself ruler of some ideal state, at the same time postulating the abolition of all authority. Social attitudes of the state and actually lead to the society "bums and hookers" (even leaving aside the question of the survival of the population in conditions of complete idleness). The family problem is also not resolved (as the utopian and said to the scoffers in their usual manner).
Second, very unusual for previous plays of Shakespeare morality. Offended refuses to revenge and forgive their abusers. Early Shakespeare would understand them the most brutal way, drop a few inspiring monologues about vengeance and the inevitability of punishment. But the author of "Storm" already has behind shoulders of Hamlet with his doubts, has already started to cool off to the theatre, and his life is on the wane. To replace youthful enthusiasm came to rest. Of course, unusual for Shakespeare the ending could have been explained and the requirements of the genre of tragicomedy, but if Prospero got even with your enemies, the finals would also be positive. But no, he chose to give up. That's all it is seven.