BBC Shakespeare: The Hollow Crown, BBC2 / BBC HD

[Nick Armstrong]

A superb achievement.

Only part way through.... but it wasn't superb to cut the best section of Clarence's pre-mortem speech!


.

Methought that Gloucester stumbled; and, in falling,
Struck me, that thought to stay him, overboard,
Into the tumbling billows of the main.
Lord, Lord! methought, what pain it was to drown!
What dreadful noise of waters in mine ears!
What ugly sights of death within mine eyes!
Methought I saw a thousand fearful wrecks;
Ten thousand men that fishes gnaw'd upon;
Wedges of gold, great anchors, heaps of pearl,
Inestimable stones, unvalued jewels,
All scatter'd in the bottom of the sea:
Some lay in dead men's skulls; and, in those holes
Where eyes did once inhabit, there were crept,
As 'twere in scorn of eyes, reflecting gems,
Which woo'd the slimy bottom of the deep,
And mock'd the dead bones that lay scatter'd by.

I know they have to compress it "for telly"... but why cut that?!?!

[Tevot]

Hello there,

I must admit that it was some time (just under three years after it was first aired) before I saw Hollow Crown 1 - so I'm feeling fairly virtuous that it has only taken me just under a month to see Henry VI Part I after its first airing

I thought it a very enjoyable and involving production - and I can't wait to see Henry VI Part II and Richard III in the not too distant future.

I must disagree with Jean and Cali about Hugh Bonneville's performance as Gloucester which again I thought well rounded ( I have not seen Downton I hasten to add). I must admit that Adrian Dunbar as York took some time getting used to (but I warmed to his portrayal) and similarly I kept thinking of Pirates (god help me) - or Taras Bulba even - whenever Warwick turned up

That said, I thought Ben Miles was excellent as Somerset ( a right piece of work wasn't he!? ) and Sophie Okonedo grew in stature as Margaret of Anjou. You can tell why between those two Henry VI didn't have a chance!

As for Tom Sturridge as the King, I'll have to reserve judgement until I've seen Part II - he certainly came across as being effete, tongue-tied and frozen in the headlights as it were - and being charitable I will put that down to his portrayal and how he was directed - rather than his acting skills being eclipsed by others'.

All said - the two hours watching it flew by - and indeed it has whetted my appetite and desire to revisit this period of English History I last studied for A Level - over thirty years ago now.

Best Wishes,

Tevot

[jean]

I must disagree with Jean and Cali about Hugh Bonneville's performance as Gloucester which again I thought well rounded...

You're not disagreeing with me - I thought he was excellent.

[Tevot]

You're not disagreeing with me - I thought he was excellent.

Whoops - I do beg your pardon Jean

[Nick Armstrong]

Whoops - I do beg your pardon Jean

More than happy to take you on solo, Tevot!!



I'm sure I suffered from having seen HB turn in almost exactly the same performance, nuances etc as Lord Whateverhewascalled in Downton! The main thing is that you enjoyed it!

I enjoyed Part II much more in any case and envy you the two hours to come. I've now seen Part II twice, second time through with young French family members (yes, English cultural indoctrination!) and they loved it too (and largely understood it all, hurrah for subtitles!)

[Tevot]

"I enjoyed Part II much more in any case and envy you the two hours to come. "

Hello there,

Crikey Charlie Caliban - wasn't Henry VI Part II superb? I'd fully agree with you, Stanley Stewart and JLW about the production. Gripping cinematography, editing and music particularly during the battle scenes (e.g. Tewkesbury) and verse delivered in such a way that was natural, realistic, idiomatic and yet poetic. Very high body count too !! Enjoyed Adrian Dunbar's performance - I got used to him !!- a stunning scene where Margaret of Anjou stuffs a bloodied napkin into dying Plantagenet's mouth ; and also Warwick made greater sense here as did also Tom Sturridge's Henry VI - some deeply sad and touching scenes. A superb production - by turns gripping, shocking and moving and Mr Cumberbatch making a splendid Gloucester... On the strength of this - I reckon I'll be watching Richard III tomorrow! Thank goodness for the I-player

Best Wishes,

Tevot

[Nick Armstrong]

"I enjoyed Part II much more in any case and envy you the two hours to come. "

Crikey Charlie Caliban - wasn't Henry VI Part II superb?

Totally Topping, Tevot!

Delighted you enjoyed so much!

[Tevot]

Hello there

I finally got to see Richard III over two nights. I watched about an hour of it on Sunday night before watching it all again last night. I’ve never read the play nor have I seen it staged but am familiar with the Olivier film made in 1955 and the adaptation set in the 1930s with Ian McKellen in the title role.

Needless to say this BBC version with Benedict Cumberbatch came as a surprise differing from the two versions I have seen in both tone and execution.

Firstly I’d like to get a couple of niggles out of the way. I didn’t particularly care for the portrayal of Edward IV who in real life if I remember my A Level History was a powerfully built and tall man who also made a decent stab at being King. Yes I know that the adaptation aimed to underline Shakespeare’s depiction of a down at heel, decaying and decadent regime – but in all honesty the actor playing Edward IV reminded me of a hobbit!!

Second gripe, the actor playing Richmond looked like a member of the Arctic Monkeys!! (a popular beat combo some 10 years ago or so – in case you are wondering!)

Anyway. What a fantastic conclusion to the trilogy. Enough I think has been said of Cumberbatch’s excellent portrayal by other forumites – but what I found particularly striking were two scenes. The first where the 3 women (Anne, Cecily and Margaret) bar his way en route presumably to Bosworth Field and curse him. And the second scene – the nightmare he has on the eve of the battle.. “Is there a murderer here. No? … Yes, I am” where we see again that self –knowing smirk of his but here far less cocky than before and with it more than a hint instead of self-realisation – doubt, fear and a sense that the game is up. Super acting imho.

Also once again brilliant editing, cinematography and music capturing brilliantly the final battle – and the very end where Margaret surrounded by a sea of dead bodies lifts her face and eyes towards the heavens as we look down on the bloody scene. A wonderful and terrifying image.

Wouldn’t it be great if the production team involved had a go at adapting some of Shakespeare’s other plays?

Macbeth springs to mind almost automatically – ( I know there has been a very recent film version with Michael Fassbender) but I’m sure that Dominic Cooke and his team would be able to create an excitingly different take on the play.

Another prime candidate would be Julius Caesar. That’d be terrific I reckon.

What do fellow forumites think? Do you have a favourite play that might benefit from The Hollow Crown treatment?

All in all a fantastic trilogy of films – and dare I say it – on balance even better than the first series?

Best Wishes,

Tevot

[Richard Tarleton]

Don't know where else to put this......

Interesting piece on DNA in today's Times. The succession to a baronetcy has been successfully contested on the basis of DNA (DNA given not in connection with the case, but coincidentally to a genealogy project). The article goes on to reflect that Richard lll is the only monarch from whom DNA evidence has been taken, and that 'The chances of any of the Royal Family submitting to genetic testing is very slim' (). 'An analysis comparing Richard's DNA with that of five living descendants indicates that there has been at least one "false paternity event" in the last 500 years. The discovery could undermine either Richard lll's claim to the throne, or that of Henry Vll and the entire Tudor dynasty - from which the Queen claims descent'.

If Edward lll was cheated on, John of Gaunt might not be his child - and it is through John of Gaunt that Henry Vll claimed legitimacy....

[Tevot]

Interesting piece on DNA in today's Times. 'An analysis comparing Richard's DNA... could undermine either Richard lll's claim to the throne, or that of Henry Vll and the entire Tudor dynasty - from which the Queen claims descent'.

Forget rival claims, Richard. We should just simply declare a Republic

Best Wishes,

Tevot

[Bryn]

Forget rival claims, Richard. We should just simply declare a Republic

Best Wishes,

Tevot

Trouble with that is who would be elected as President. If the current Queen stood I have little doubt the UK electorate would overwhelmingly vote for her.

[Nick Armstrong]

Don't know where else to put this......

Interesting piece on DNA in today's Times. The succession to a baronetcy has been successfully contested on the basis of DNA (DNA given not in connection with the case, but coincidentally to a genealogy project). The article goes on to reflect that Richard lll is the only monarch from whom DNA evidence has been taken, and that 'The chances of any of the Royal Family submitting to genetic testing is very slim' (). 'An analysis comparing Richard's DNA with that of five living descendants indicates that there has been at least one "false paternity event" in the last 500 years. The discovery could undermine either Richard lll's claim to the throne, or that of Henry Vll and the entire Tudor dynasty - from which the Queen claims descent'.

If Edward lll was cheated on, John of Gaunt might not be his child - and it is through John of Gaunt that Henry Vll claimed legitimacy....

Careful Richard.... with his Plantagenet forebears, this is a slippery slope that might lead to HM King Brassbandmaestro ruling a post-EU England !!!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

If Edward lll was cheated on, John of Gaunt might not be his child - and it is through John of Gaunt that Henry Vll claimed legitimacy....

... and, indeed, his son Henry IV (both parts).

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Careful Richard.... with his Plantagenet forebears, this is a slippery slope that might lead to HM King Brassbandmaestro ruling a post-EU England !!! :

Not if John of Gaunt was illegitimate.

(Mind you - if this does pan out, I'd just like to remind Forumistas how often over the years I've expressed my admiration for the quality and eloquence of BbmI's posts.)

[Nick Armstrong]

I'd just like to remind Forumistas how often over the years I've expressed my admiration for the quality and eloquence of BbmI's posts.

Nothing like banking a bit of sycophancy, Gavestongeliebte !