BBC Shakespeare: The Hollow Crown, BBC2 / BBC HD

[Nick Armstrong]

... I rather thought the use of Aumerle as the murderer was an improvement on the Shakespeare. Of course, historically, it's totally wrong - but then so is a lot of the play Richard II - I have always thought the last act pretty weak, both in the writing and shape - as if Shakespeare (if it was he... ) had got bored, was in a hurry, was irritated with the various texts - or possible earlier plays - he was having to deal with. The introduction of a 'new character' (Exton) at the eleventh hour to do the dread act is dramatically hopeless; using the ambivalent and compromised figure of the Duke of Aumerle seemed to me an elegant solution.

I liked this a lot, photographically, looks-wise, pace-wise. Some of the actors were, to my taste, a bit too actorly - York, Gaunt - but, really, it was an impressive production which I shall remember.

Incidentally the BBC seems to have a link with Burberry when it needs male model pretty boys - we had ex-Burberry Douglas Booth as Pip in their Great Expectations - we now have ex-Burberry Tom Hughes as Aumerle...

Good points, vind'alsace, with which I agree. On the last point, the use of an ex-model for Richard's 'favourite' cousin was miles more appropriate than in GE. I also found the Aumerle solution to the ending elegant.

Lots of good points in this thread, most of which echo my reactions. Intense performance of the title role, and I think that the combination of thoughtful, camp narcissist, coupled with the 'redeeming' martyred saint/Christ imagery (powerfully in the text, and important as it resonates through future plays), was dramatically, intellectually and visually compelling. Beautifully shot and coloured. Yes we giggled at the 'business' twixt boats and shore, but the seaside shots, the 'silver sea', contributed so much visually that it was fine. I thought Suchet and Stewart and Morrissey were very good in their different ways, some of the lesser parts less so. And the main concern did indeed hinge on the casting and/or performance of Rory Kinnear. It didn't convince in the early part of the play - thoughtful, aware of the pitfalls, torn between his interests, the interests of the country and his love and loyalty for Richard - it needs to be complex... But he only came into his own (I agree with a poster above) in the scene where Richard surrenders the crown - perfect, I thought (as were others - the embarrassed, uncomfortable indulgence of the fey but heartbreaking 'abdication' performance by Richard).

To be watched again, and good to show to younger persons to foster Shakespearitis, I think...

Looking forward to the next one

[aeolium]

... because we have no interest in Exton. We haven't had time to get to know him; his act of killing has no 'significance' for him; it is a (very) useful deus ex machina for Henry Bolingbroke.

But why should we have any interest in the murderer - he's just an agent, just as the murderers of Banquo and Macduff's family are in Macbeth, or the murderer of the princes is in Richard III? The significance is all in Bolingbroke's involvement, and his guilt which carries on into Henry IV pt 1.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

But why should we have any interest in the murderer - he's just an agent, just as the murderers of Banquo and Macduff's family are in Macbeth, or the murderer of the princes is in Richard III? The significance is all in Bolingbroke's involvement, and his guilt which carries on into Henry IV pt 1.

[Nick Armstrong]

But why should we have any interest in the murderer - he's just an agent, just as the murderers of Banquo and Macduff's family are in Macbeth, or the murderer of the princes is in Richard III?

It depends. You're interested in Duncan's murderer... and Hamlet Snr's... and Desdemona's... They don't have to be faceless footpads.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

They don't have to be faceless footpads.

True, but Richard's murder at the hands of a "faceless footpad" emphasizes the utter ignominy of his fate, I think.

[DracoM]

Actually - I think this is correct? - the abdication scene was omitted [can't think why??] when the play was performed in Elizabeth's reign since Essex's return from Ireland had occasioned the notion that he paid a bit more than cash for having the play performed WITH abdication scene as his army camped outside London.

Shak and company must have been shivering a bit.

[vinteuil]

Actually - I think this is correct? - the abdication scene was omitted [can't think why??] when the play was performed in Elizabeth's reign .

And I think the first three Quartos [1597, and 1598 twice] omit the abdication scene too; it was probably performed on the stage, but cut out of the manuscript as sent to the printer "because political conditions towards the end of the century made the dethronement of an English monarch a dangerous subject for public discussion", as Peter Ure puts it in the Arden edition.

[vinteuil]

... since Essex's return from Ireland had occasioned the notion that he paid a bit more than cash for having the play performed WITH abdication scene as his army camped outside London.

.

Strachey puts it nicely:

"There was a singular episode on that Saturday afternoon. Sir Gilly Merrick, one of the most fiery of the Earl's adherents, went across the river with a group of his friends, to the players at Southwark. He was determined, he said, that the people should see that a Sovereign of England could be deposed, and he asked the players to act that afternoon the play of "Richard the Second". The players demurred: the play was an old one, and they would lose money by its performance. But Sir Gilly insisted; he offered them forty shillings if they would do as he wished; and on those terms the play was acted. Surely a strange circumstance! Sir Gilly must have been more conversant with history than literature; for how could he have imagined that the spectacle of the pathetic ruin of Shakespeare's minor poet of a hero could have nerved any man on earth to lift a hand, in actual fact, against so oddly different a ruler?"

Elizabeth & Essex, chapter xiv

[aeolium]

It depends. You're interested in Duncan's murderer... and Hamlet Snr's... and Desdemona's... They don't have to be faceless footpads.

I think those are quite different. The murderers in all these cases are doing it of their own will and in their own interests (or at least for their own reasons) and not acting on behalf of another. In the age of the chivalric code - and the play commences with a duel on a matter of honour - would it really make sense for an aristocrat to actually do the dirty work of killing a defenceless king in cold blood? That kind of work is usually hired out to lowly thugs.

[Northender]

Slightly off-topic, but we've just watched the new RSC production of 'Julius Caesar' (recorded last weekend) - stunning acting, and an effective but unobtrusive switch of scene from Rome to an unnamed African state. Interesting mix of the two big speeches filmed 'on the boards' and the remainder in an abandoned shopping centre.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Slightly off-topic, but we've just watched the new RSC production of 'Julius Caesar' (recorded last weekend) - stunning acting, and an effective but unobtrusive switch of scene from Rome to an unnamed African state.

[jean]

Note that it's touring later in the year - you can catch it at the Lowry in Salford in October.

[french frank]

In the age of the chivalric code - and the play commences with a duel on a matter of honour - would it really make sense for an aristocrat to actually do the dirty work of killing a defenceless king in cold blood? That kind of work is usually hired out to lowly thugs.

Cf the murder of the princes in RIII: even Tyrrell - a 'gentleman' - doesn't actually do it himself even though personally hired, as Richard says, 'to kill a friend of mine'. 'Please you; but I had rather kill two enemies.' He in turn hires two thugs to actually carry out the deed. Killing on the field of battle is bravery, sneaking secretly into a cell to kill an unarmed man, king or not, is ignoble, cowardice.

[BBMmk2]

Not least Geoffrey Chaucer, of whom he was the patron (and, later, the Brother-in-Law).

MrsBBM had done some family research on my father's side, when she was off sick lon g-term from work, and she found some really interesting ancestors to dsay the least!!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

MrsBBM had done some family research on my father's side, when she was off sick lon g-term from work, and she found some really interesting ancestors to dsay the least!!

Good Heavens, Bbm! How tantalizing! You don't mean to say that you're related to ... to ... to ... Barbara Cartland, do you?!