quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
Suchet is a fantastic actor, saw him on stage once in a modern play inspired by the fall of Robert Maxwell. Poirot vanished in 30 seconds - I wonder if TV execs often fear casting him because of the connection, in which case they should have more faith, or if he just prefers to do more theatre.

---

The TV series paid the mortgage; put food on the table etc. Like the late Paul Scofield, Suchet is a first class actor, first, last and always.

I hope it comes to Oz.
 

---

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
Heartily endorse what others have said about Suchet (York) and Kinnear (Bolingbroke). For me, Wishaw's Richard was very effective and wonderfully vain, but somewhat overshadowed by John Hurt's radio performance of many years ago. However, the old adage about the scenery being better on radio did not apply here - the setting really helped to make it. I especially liked the bit where Richard stands watching Henry's arrival before coming down to surrender to him. They also made good use of the crown as a prop - though am I the only one who thought it looked a bit like something out of Woolworths?
 

---

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
They also made good use of the crown as a prop - though am I the only one who thought it looked a bit like something out of Woolworths?

---

I expect this was the original they had in mind - which is pretty blingy.
 

---

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
I thought it looked absolutely beautiful, and agree about Suchet, Kinnear and Stewart. Ben Whishaw was wonderful as a fey, capricious Richard, mesmerising in the deposition scene - and he can convey so much with a flicker of his eyes. I was sad though that there were a couple of changes and quite a few cuts, including one of my favourite lines:

'See, see, King Richard doth himself appear,
As doth the blushing discontented sun
From out the fiery portal of the east',

but the adaptation generally flowed along well, and was a great start to what I hope will be a very good series. I am not a tennis (unutterably tedious) or football (yawn) fan, and am delighted that Shakespeare in one form or another is all over our TV screens at the moment!

Some 8 years ago Mr Marten and I saw the then 23 yo Ben Whishaw play a heartbreaking Hamlet, whose youth and vulnerability brought me to tears.
 

---

Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :
 
Me! Me! I saw it too. We're lucky enough to have two TVs so I could leave Mr Nen to shout at the tennis in the next room.

I thought it excellent. Evenings are not my good times and I'm often asleep in the chair by 9.30 so it says something that I saw it all and some of the Derek Jacobi programme too. The cast was very strong and I wanted to slap Richard round the head so all was as it should be.
 

---

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
I agree with all the praise here. I thought it so good that my enthusiasm got my three teenagers to watch the recording yesterday and they loved. My daughter then watched the DVD of the Globe production and pronounced that Wilshaw was both more fey and more disturbing than Rylance. I'll have to watch the Rylance again - which I though brilliant when I first (and last) saw it - but she may be right.

I, too, loved the Pembrokeshire locations. Where was the beach in Act 3, Scene 2?
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
It's Henry 4 pt 1 next week. With Jeremy Irons and Tom (Loki) Hiddleston as Prince Hal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
I wonder if that was to underline the courts belief in the divine right of kings - explaining something of their attitude toward him, and toward treachery. If he had been the son of one of the lords you know they would have beaten such fey pretty affectations out of him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
I, too, loved the Pembrokeshire locations. Where was the beach in Act 3, Scene 2?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gill H:
The Jesus imagery is there in the text...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
I, too, loved the Pembrokeshire locations. Where was the beach in Act 3, Scene 2?

---

Whitesands, methinks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eigon:

Also, I think I'm in love with Tom Hiddleston.

---

I first fell in love with him when he played Loki in the latest Avengers film - mmmm, <sigh>

PS - I seem to be following you around the threads at the mo, Eigon, sorry...
 

---

Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
Pine Marten - are you my long lost twin?
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
Other than that, very good but not as compelling as R2, for me.

---

Its not as good a play as Richard II.

They've got their good bits, no, better than that they are wonderful, but the Henry IV plays aren't quite as wonderful as Richard II or (in their very different ways) Henry V and Richard III (I don;t know enough about the Henry VI plays to know how they compare)
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
As long ago as 1988, we saw An English Shakespeare Company's production of the histories from Richard II to Richard III, performed over 3 or 4 days. The only editing was (i) to Henry VI, reduced to 2 rather than 3 parts, and much the better for that; and (ii) to move the winter of discontent speech from Richard III to the end of Henry VI. Given that a few hours later, we were watching Richard III, this worked quite well. The approach was Lancaster good, York bad, which may or may not be your view of history but undoubtedly was Shakespeare's.

I cannot now remember the names of the cast, but the producer was Michael Bogdanov. A very Globe Theatre approach to staging - we knew we were in Gloucestershire because there was a park bench and a wheelbarrow on stage; a throne showed we were in London and so forth. The setting was from about 1820 to 1938 or so. The very last scene was an early TV studio, with an announcer telling the audience of Henry's victory, then a pan to the new royal family, Henry very ostentatiously wearing a wedding ring. The army was seen off to France by a mob of soccer hooligans, with signs saying "Fuck the Frogs" and so forth.

An excellent and memorable performance by a scratch company. Perhaps it's available on DVD?
 

---

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
In a vaguely related way, we went in search of the Field of Towton yesterday - and found it. Having the recreation of Shrewsbury in mind, it was easier to reimagine the windy uplands being trampled by the armies of York and Lancaster. The local history society have done a very good job of signing a trail round the battlefield. And then you can go back to the village and down a pint of Battlefield Ale at the Rockingham Arms.
 

---

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
Sounds like an excellent day out, Firenze. They've done a huge amount of archaeological work at Towton, and much good information has come out of it about this terrible, bloodiest of battles and the men who died there.

Eigon, if, like me, you live half your life in the Middle Ages then I'm sure I am !
 

---

Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
I studied this play for A Level years ago, but although we were told the 'back story', it didn't really click. It makes so much more sense when you know why Henry tries so hard to keep the crown, and resents his son for taking it for granted because he hasn't had to 'work for it'.

The early soliloquy in the tavern was chilling. "I know these guys are scum, but when I reform it'll be great for my image.". That's you off my Christmas card list, Hal.

The robbery scene really brought out that these aren't just loveable rogues, they're willing to rob people for fun.

I did wish Hotspur would take the chip off his shoulder, but that's the character. And a lovely contrast with Glendower's mystical pretensions. (Oh, and 'Lisa Lan' was beautiful, by the way.)

This was the first version I have seen where I was gripped by the political scenes, instead of wanting to be down the pub with the guys.
 

---

Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
Well, I am off to Hereford Historical Day with my medieval spinning on Saturday, Pine Marten! (that's if the weather is half way decent).

I remember the production with the football hooligans causing quite a bit of controversy at the time - I think some people felt Shakespeare should be handled with more respect.
 

---

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
Shakespeare is so brilliant he can take pretty well anything, including football hooligans (and instead of football peeps should be concentrating on practising their archery!).

Have a good time, Eigon, we've off this morning for a few days with my friend in Ledbury, and we're all going (weather permitting) to Tewkesbury on Saturday or Sunday for the Medieval Festival...lovely stuff!
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
The hooligans (and the other idiosyncrasies of the production) showed the real timelessness of Shakespeare and his themes, far wider than the political line he took. And for us, it worked, unlike the productions of Barry Kosky.
 

---

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 
I am loving The Hollow Crown.

Ben Whishaw was brilliant.

I was surprised that Patrick Stewart didn't have a bigger part in Richard II, but boy oh boy did he make it count.

(I was fortunate enough to see him in a storming, and truly nightmarish, production of Macbeth on stage in 2007. He was amazing, as was Susan Fleetwood as Lady Macbeth.)

Tom Hiddleston is GORGEOUS. Loving him as Prince Hal, I think he is very well cast.

I don't think I've ever seen Jeremy Irons as good as he was as Henry IV.

Simon Russell Beale brought quite a dark edge to Falstaff.

Second part of Henry IV tomorrow, and I am really looking forward to Henry V.
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:
I was fortunate enough to see [Patrick Stewart] in a storming, and truly nightmarish, production of Macbeth on stage in 2007.

---

I've seen him appear with the RSC in Stratford-Upon-Avon twice . Once as Prospero in The Tempest, and once as Claudius in Hamlet. And he wasn't even the biggest crowd-puller appearing in the latter!
 

---

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 
Ha. Tennant and Stewart on stage together =

I saw Patrick 30 years ago in 'A Winter's Tale' ... long before Star Trek: TNG! Heh. And before that I remember him from the spectacularly gory I, Claudius ... which I watched at the age of 14!
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Finally managed to catch part of Henry IV, part II. What a performance. I've never been interested in the history plays, but this had me glued to the screen. It's pure quality. Each of the characters is a real, credible person, and Jeremy Irons is up there with the greats. Can't wait for the next instalment.
 

---

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
Yes, I thought this was fantastic and really makes the point that Henry IV part 1 (which I studied as a complete play at O level) truly is only half a play. I wish we'd read them together and I wish I'd recorded them both, so that I could watch them one after the other. It strikes me that, although Richard II is very striking, these are much deeper, richer, and more complex, and this is partly, but not solely, because of the central figure of Prince Hal. Looking forward to Henry V enormously.

[ 15. July 2012, 08:18: Message edited by: QLib ]
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Just watched both Henry IV plays, and very good. As televised Shakespeare, probably the best I have ever seen. The use of real sets adds real life and charisma.

I guess it is heavily cut, but has to be for TV. I thought the cross-cutting edits worked pretty well.

The cast superb. Beale's Falstaff I found mesmerizing, capturing both the fundamental dishonesty and the pathos.

Jeremy Irons excellent, and also Hiddleston.

In Part I, the role reversal scene was played with great panache; what a great theatrical scene this is, one of the best in Shakespeare.

I also note that the speaking of verse is so much better these days; no longer the declamatory stance, a la Gielgud, but a more naturalistic style, which makes difficult lines seem clear.

Top marks to the BBC, which should be doing productions like this. Come on, guys, how about doing all the plays?
 

---

Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
The BBC did do every single play as a series, some years ago. There were some very famous actors in it, too. Maybe it's time for a new generation of actors to show what they can do.
 

---

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 
The newly crowned Hal's public rejection of Falstaff was really sad.

I don't think I've ever seen such a fine performance from Jeremy Irons as Henry IV. Such powerful acting. You could see the guilt (at how he won his crown) eating away at him.

Henry V next week!
 

---

Posted by Old Hundredth (# 112) on :
 
Having been caught out in the past by live sport overrunning and wrecking the schedules, I allowed for it when recording, and how glad I am that I did. This is what the Beeb does best, they should leave the tacky talent shows to the commercial channels and also stop dumbing down (I still haven't got over the disappointment of the dismal coverage of the Jubilee river pageant).
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
Half way through Henry IV pt I. Beale very good but they do seem to have cut all Falstaff's jokes and insults, while leaving in all of Hal's. You're left with a rather one-sided view of Falstaff - you can't quite see why Hal enjoys being with him.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Watched the first hour or so of the second part of Henry IV last night (then fell asleep cos it was about 2am). Very, very good.

As someone said, it was easier to watch the scenes with the King or the rebels in the North than the Falstaff ones, because the Falstaff scenes are so utterly utterly sad (which seeing as the King's scenes are about a man who knows he's dying and fears his son will destroy his life's work, and the rebels a re centred about a man who is in despair because his sone was killed by the other bloke's son, that takes some doing)
 

---

Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
Golly, Henry V was a bit grim, wasn't it?
I went and looked at the play straight after watching the BBC version, and they'd cut out about 90% of the light relief scenes - and Henry himself was pretty savage. I was expecting stirring battlefield speeches and "Yay! We beat the French!" but this was all about the heavy responsibility of taking the decision to go to war.
 

---

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
I am a bit behind here, since we were away the last week or so, so I have H4 pt2 and H5 recorded for when we have time to watch 4 hours or so of Shakespeare.

I can see why - in the era of Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan - the aspect of Why go to war? looms rather larger than the for England and St George! of the wartime Olivier version.
 

---

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
We caught up with Henrys IV pt 2 and V, having been away for a few days.

Yes, Henry V was a bit grim. They cut out an awful lot, and I rather missed the scenes with Fluellen (eat the leek, look you!) and the Englishman, Irishman, Scotsman daftness.

Things that struck me: I noticed the expression of shock on Henry's face when he was told that it was Bardolph who had been hanged for looting. Also, the look on everyone else's faces when he was ranting and threatening before the gates of Harfleur - I think he may have also shocked himself by his vehemence. And the mud, the filth, the blood - realistic fighting, not heroic.

And Jeremy Irons, whose performance as Henry IV was again wonderful.

And finally, lovely John Hurt as the boy/chorus.
 

---

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Top marks to the BBC, which should be doing productions like this. Come on, guys, how about doing all the plays?

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0