Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Medieval Adventures => Topic started by: Plynkes on June 30, 2012, 06:38:34 PM
-
Four new BBC adaptations of Shakespeare's history plays:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4N9-4vhYVU
Starts tonight at 9pm on BBC2 with Dickie II.
-
I'm thoroughly looking forward to these. The trailers look brilliant and the cast list is pretty special, too. One for recording, methinks 8)
-
I saw a trailer last week and I'm very excited too. They look really good. Thanks for the reminder.
-
Hurrfud? Is that how they really used to say it? Jesus, that's how Texans pronounce it.
'erry-furrd, you morons! lol
-
Oh my God.
What were those Welsh supposed to be? I'm really enjoying this (especially the wonderful Patrick Stewart), but those cartoon Braveheart/caveman Welshmen are just insulting.
-
Well, shit.
Well done BBC, I saw all the coming soon trailers and thought "oooh, fantastic, I'll watch that!" then heard nowt about it for about a month and now I'm missing it. Really well publicised, thanks very much. Are they ashamed of putting something like this on? Its what I grew up expecting the BBC to produce, but now they seem ashamed of doing anything even remotley highbrow and do their best to bury it. Maybe that way they can say - look, nobody watched it! the people don't want it! let's make another series of celebrity shitfarm instead! >:(
Bollocks. Now I'll have to find time to catch it on the iPlayer.
-
Well, Welsh Braveheart-cavemen notwithstanding, I enjoyed that immensely; no doubt helped by the fact that unlike the last time I attended a performance of this play, on this occasion I don't have to write any fucking essays about it! :)
Bring on Harry Hotspur and the Prince of Wales...
-
Well I missed it and it's not on iplayer yet. Really looking forward to watching it, hopefully it'll be up tomorrow night.
-
... unlike the last time I attended a performance of this play, on this occasion I don't have to write any fucking essays about it! :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE5jB2tl70M
-
Oh my God.
What were those Welsh supposed to be? I'm really enjoying this (especially the wonderful Patrick Stewart), but those cartoon Braveheart/caveman Welshmen are just insulting.
Yep me too. Patrick Stewart and David Suchet stole the show for me. Stewarts 'This Sceptered Isle' bit gave me goosebumps.
-
Loved it. Wonderful all round, although I found Ben Whishaw's Richard just a little OTT in the 'fey' stakes.
But Stewart and Suchet were both wonderful.
Needless to say most of the armour and costume was fanciful and wrong for the period, but obviously the untutored eye would never have been able to tell.
The only thing I really didn't like were the pathetic crowd scenes. Is the BBC so hard up that it can't run to more than 10 extras when it needs to portray an army? Or is it some kind of inverse quasi-theatrical snobbery? An army of 10 men on a theatre stage might look quite convincing. An army of 10 men on the TV screen, when we're used to CGI armies of thousands from Peter Jackson and co, just looks pathetic.
I remember the much vaunted Elizabethan epic with Helen Mirren a few years ago, where ERI's famous 'heart and of stomach of a king' speech to the English army at Tilbury consisted of a handful of desultory extras aimlessly sitting around and occasionally waving their pikes a bit. Dismal. For God's sake, hire a few more extras so that battle scenes start to look as convincing as the interior scenes between a handful of characters, which were excellent.
But I'm looking forward to the next three. Just a shame they're not giving the same treatment to Richard III which IMHO is far and away the best and most gripping of the Plantagenet history plays.
-
Loved it. Wonderful all round, although I found Ben Whishaw's Richard just a little OTT in the 'fey' stakes.
Finally got round to watching this. I thought that Whishaw's fey oddness worked, but wished that he hadn't emphasised the rhymes so much - particularly as the rest of the cast worked hard to suppress them. The most surprising performance, for me, was Rory Kinnear's Bolingbroke, who seemed to be stumbling along, surprised by the events that pushed him forward, rather than being the thrusting politician I'd imagined from reading the play. And it's hard to imagine him turning into Jeremy Irons in his old age - he looks too much like his own dad. Suchet and Stewart were excellent (the only John of Gaunt I'd previously seen was Gielgud in the c1980 BBC production, who seemed to be taking his cue from the actors in Blackadder the Third), and I really wouldn't want to meet David Morrissey's Northumberland in a dark alley.
Though somewhat anachronistic and fanciful, I found it refreshing that the production design did attempt to evoke medieval England, rather than pre-Columbian America or Cambodia under Pol Pot or something. And there were no bloody disused factories! Hooray!
-
Agreed on all points Steve!
Am looking forward to SRB as Falstaff, although I won't get to see it until later in the week on iPlayer... :(
-
I'm in two minds as regards accuracy etc. The originals were performed by actors in 'Elizabethan' clothing and possibly earlier Tudor items scrounged for their 'antiquity'... three or four people besides the actors would form an 'army', so we aren't so badly served. I did think that the outfits did resemble a portrayal of Al-Shaq-Speare's 'Saladin II' at times though. I was equally surprised at just how ethnically diverse England was in the late 14th Century... still if I have to suspend disbelief as a trade off for good acting, I'll live with that.
I'm not sure what the Beeb are hoping to do here. Their old version of the series was done on a set, with limited cast. This new one is done in the open 'on location'... with limited cast and I find myself wondering why? Surely the open space could have been used to portray 'real battles', even through CGI?
As for the 'Braveheart' Welsh... not far off how they would have been originally portrayed - as 'near-savages'. Quite overdone in this instance though and I do wonder what they will do to poor Glyn Dŵr in this week's, with his "summoning spirits from hell" bit.
This week's is likely to be my favourite... Falstaff, Young Henry VI, Pistol et al. It's perhaps the lightest of the bunch and I'm looking forward to the 'recruitment' scene... which if done true to the play, will be a good primer for anyone interested in how troops were raised for 'domestic' conflicts near this time.
:)
-
Well, Welsh civilization certainly made some huge advances between 1399 and 1403. From cavemen to castles and ballads in such a short span of time. ;)
-
I managed to catch up with Richard II on iPlayer - what a treat! Thoroughly enjoyed it, and I agree with Steve, too.
Have recorded Henry IV pt1, and am really looking forward to it as I studied it at school and did the class trip to Stratford to see it. The only thing I'm not looking forward to is having to explain bits to my wife every five minutes.
-
I guess the guy who played Harry Percy is Alun Armstrong's son? Seeing as he don't half look like him, and his surname is... Armstrong.
They cropped some of my favourite lines, but other than that I liked it.
-
Just caught up.
I approve. Very nicely done, better than Richard II I thought. Falstaff was excellent.
-
Agreed... I thoroughly enjoyed that. Percy was played well I thought and enjoyed the bit where he and Glyn Dwr face off. :D
-
Yep. Loved that. Really bloody good. So much more gutsy and believeable than the Richard II - mainly down to a much better cast I think, as well as direction.
And plenty of extras!
I think with RII they were going for a bit of style over substance in places.
In this one, Richard Eyre threw the kitchen sink at it, and it really worked.
Strangely, the only aspect I wasn't completely sold on was Simon RB's Falstaff.
He is a brilliant actor, no doubt about that, but his characterisation seemed a little 'thin' to me. Not in girth, obviously, but in voice / presence. A bit too short and wheezy and not quite rumbustious and larger than life enough...
But it's a very minor criticism. Overall, this was a real treat and I'm gagging for the next two...
-
I hope we eventually get to enjoy these in the colonies.
-
I hope we eventually get to enjoy these in the colonies.
Feel sure you will. These four films will surely be top of the BBC's sales catalogue to public service broadcasters the English-speaking world over...
-
Strangely, the only aspect I wasn't completely sold on was Simon RB's Falstaff.
He is a brilliant actor, no doubt about that, but his characterisation seemed a little 'thin' to me. Not in girth, obviously, but in voice / presence. A bit too short and wheezy and not quite rumbustious and larger than life enough...
But it's a very minor criticism. Overall, this was a real treat and I'm gagging for the next two...
Yes...he certainly lacked the braggadocio of other famous names who've played him. For that matter so did the guy who played Harry Monmouth... the whole point of the play was that he transformed from a feckless callow youth, partly under Falstaff's (or indeed Oldcastle's, as it was originally meant to be) tutelage into the man who would lead the army that conquered France. The Henry IV slapping was well done, but you kinda got the feeling he hadn't gone that far wrong in the first place.
Instead you got Hotspur as a kind of hero-worshipped role-model for Harry V, who I thought really stood head and shoulders (until it would be put on a spike at least) over the rest of the cast.
Feel sure you will. These four films will surely be top of the BBC's sales catalogue to public service broadcasters the English-speaking world over...
Yes I agree, expect them on the other side of the pond presently! Not exactly a fair swap for some of the HBO shows, but we try. ;)
-
Beale reminded me of Harriet Walter: another acclaimed stage actor who dials it back a bit too much on screen. It didn't help that his hair, beard and make-up made him look like he was playing a dwarf for Peter Jackson. But the worst disservice was the decision to put Falstaff's best speech, the "what is honour?" soliloquy, into voiceover. Separating an actor's voice from his body does not help his performance, and a Shakespeare play is words in performance or it is nothing.
Otherwise, top marks. Tom Hiddleston's Hal was not very dissolute, true, but that's a valid choice - he can be played as basically the same person throughout, but in different circumstances (as here), as undergoing a real change of heart, or as deliberately dissimulating during his roistering days (as Branagh played him in the scenes he carried into his Henry V). It would be nice to have more performances to compare, but, I think, this is the first filmed or videotaped Henry IV in 22 years.
During that time, the BBC has made about 2,000 hours of EastEnders, so we can see where their priorities lie.
-
Henry IV part 2 - not the half of the play I'm overly familliar with. Bloody good, but bleak. The quality of the production hadn't diminished since part 1, anyway.
John of Lancaster gets my vote for sneaky underhanded git of the year. What a trick!
-
I was quite disappointed by Part 2; Simon Russell Beale's quiet, subdued Falstaff made the first hour sag and drag worse than his belly. But Irons and Hiddleston were both excellent. It's scary to note from the accompanying documentary, though, how much of the cracked and croaking sound of Irons's voice was entirely natural and not performance.
(Edited to correct the spelling of Tom Hiddleston's name.)
-
Having missed the first two I finally caught up with this series on Saturday.
Thought it was superb.
I loved SRB's nuanced performance as Falstaff and found his rejection very powerful, even though I knew it was coming.
He was almost more eloquent when not speaking - gazing into the fire aware of his mortality and vulnerability. A great example of how television, well utilised, can actually add to the power of Shakespeare.
As to the historical accuracy, or otherwise, it's a play - it's supposed to entertain me and illuminate the human condition, not provide historical information. It could be set on the moon for all I care as long as I get to hear the language and try to understand what it can tell me about life. Who cares what they're wearing? That's what documentaries are for.
Off to i-player this week to get the first two down before the grand finale next Saturday, which will be a proper "phones off, door locked" few hours.
-
I´ll have to wait for the DVD release but it looks well worth it.
-
I loved SRB's nuanced performance as Falstaff and found his rejection very powerful, even though I knew it was coming. He was almost more eloquent when not speaking - gazing into the fire aware of his mortality and vulnerability.
SRB gave a great performance, no doubt of that. Personally though, I prefer my Falstaffs rumbustious, lairy and unrepentant. Not querulous, introspective and full of self-doubt. It's an interpretation of course, and so valid - and he played it quite brilliantly. But it's the actor or director saying 'let's try to do something a bit different with this', rather than the character suggested by the text.
As to the historical accuracy, or otherwise, it's a play - it's supposed to entertain me and illuminate the human condition, not provide historical information. It could be set on the moon for all I care as long as I get to hear the language and try to understand what it can tell me about life. Who cares what they're wearing?
I disagree. I'm not fussed about strict historical accuracy on the wargames table. But if you are making a film to be seen by millions of people, which purports to portray a particular era, I think there's an obligation to try to get things right.
Kids still grow up today believing that vikings wore horned helmets and cavaliers only wore floppy hats, because these and many other stereotypes were embedded in popular culture by illustrators and movie-makers.
If you're going to make a film (the BBC's contribution to the Cultural Olympiad no less), spend millions, and employ top costume designers, why go to all that trouble and expense and then not bother getting things more or less right?
I've seen and acted in Shakespearean productions placed in all sorts of different eras and weird and wonderful settings - and that's fine. But if you set out to say 'we're going to make a version set at the time of the events portrayed, and we're going to use real castles, and real armour, and make it look as real as we can - but let's just show the Lords of England all wearing tea towels wrapped round their heads...' well that's just lazy and inept.
Doesn't lessen my appreciation of the acting one jot. But does leave me wondering why filmmakers so often settle for getting things wrong, when it would be so easy to get them right.
-
But it's the actor or director saying 'let's try to do something a bit different with this', rather than the character suggested by the text.
A particular problem here - apart from the way that this particular interpretation served the structure of the play badly - is that no-one seems to have shared the idea with Julie Walters, David Bamber, Maxine Peake or Tom Georgeson, all of whom gave fully-throated, even hammy performances. The result was that, far from Falstaff being the dominant member of this little clique, you sometimes wondered how they noticed he was in the room.
But if you are making a film to be seen by millions of people, which purports to portray a particular era, I think there's an obligation to try to get things right. ... I've seen and acted in Shakespearean productions placed in all sorts of different eras and weird and wonderful settings - and that's fine.
One concern here is that these are the first screen versions of these plays for over 30 years (apart from Henry V, and it has been 23 years since Branagh filmed that). If you want to play variations on a theme, it is important to establish the basic version of the theme first. A weird and wonderful setting for Macbeth, or Hamlet is fine - they are familiar texts and relatively straight versions of them are easy to come by; and though they draw on history, they are not about history in the way that the Henriad is. It seems to me important that an audience coming to these plays for the first time realises that this is a dramatisation (with liberties, of course) of what actually happened here: it's that sense, rather than the details of costume (David Suchet's teatowel) or setting (they used actual castles, but they didn't plaster and paint the walls) that matters most.
-
I'm afraid I disagree, but that's fine, it would be dull if we all thought the same way. :)
I don't expect my drama (from Shakespeare to Saving Private Ryan) to tell me anything very much about history. I expect it to tell me about what it is to be a human being. Similarly I don't criticise documentaries for not having enough soliloquies.
By following these rules I find myself shouting less at the telly than I used to ;)
-
When I saw Dickie II in the theatre in Birmingham years ago we had Bullet Baxter from Grange Hill in it and the cast were all dressed like they had turned up expecting to put on an adaptation of "The Prisoner of Zenda."
I'm quite happy with "Vaguely Medieval." It's a novelty for me. :)
Romeo and Juliet in the grounds of Ludlow Castle takes some beating, though. With Mr. Rumbold from Are You Being Served and Mandy Rice Davies (not, I hasten to add, in the title roles).
-
When I saw Dickie II in the theatre in Birmingham years ago we had Bullet Baxter from Grange Hill in it and the cast were all dressed like they had turned up expecting to put on an adaptation of "The Prisoner of Zenda."
Richard could have done with a convenient double. Other than St Sebastian, of course.
-
I'm afraid I disagree, but that's fine, it would be dull if we all thought the same way. :)
We agree on something then ;)
It's scary to note from the accompanying documentary, though, how much of the cracked and croaking sound of Irons's voice was entirely natural and not performance.
That is the sound of roll-ups getting their revenge...
-
How good is the shakespeare in them..I mean, how cut down is it?
-
How good is the shakespeare in them..I mean, how cut down is it?
As far as I recall from reading and seeing the plays at school, there isn't that much cut out. Its still a solid two hours, which is enough to get all the important bits across, and there must be some parts you can edit down with the use of location and a big cast. I mean, you don't have to anounce "How now, here comes Gloucester, well appointed with his banners" or something if you can actually see the guy at the head of a column of horse.
I'm not as much of a buff as some of the other guys are, but I have also acted in a fair few productions and am very well pleased that the flow and sense of the pieces is coming accross very well. Perhaps there are a couple of directorial choices that I don't necessarily agree with, but as Richard said, they are all valid interpretations and it doesn't lose anything in my eyes because of them.
The only thing that really spoiled it in any way for me was the amount of mumbling during soliloquys. Introspective does not mean unintelligible! I'd expect to lose a few words on stage since they are delivered quietly so the other characters are not aware of the internal thought process, but on film? Not really necessary.
I had the same problem with the Al Pacino version of The Merchant of Venice. Also starring Jeremy Irons on a throne - is it in his contract these days? ;D lol
-
Also starring Jeremy Irons on a throne - is it in his contract these days? ;D lol
Thanks Bob :)
He does seem to like sitting down a lot recently..the pope in the borgias is another one that comes to mind.
-
And his role in Kingdom of Heaven... He spent a lot of that sitting on various thronelike seats...
The man is a natural sprawler :D
-
Fingers crossed that Danske Radio buys thing one :)
-
I'm afraid I disagree, but that's fine, it would be dull if we all thought the same way. :)
I don't expect my drama (from Shakespeare to Saving Private Ryan) to tell me anything very much about history. I expect it to tell me about what it is to be a human being. Similarly I don't criticise documentaries for not having enough soliloquies.
By following these rules I find myself shouting less at the telly than I used to ;)
Here! Here! Tom. You're absolutely right.
"Die all! Die all!"
Darrell.
-
I've, unfortunately, been missing them due to other commitments. Having done Richard II as part of my OU course, I'd have liked to have seen that one at least.
Might have to wait for the DVDs. :)
-
I've, unfortunately, been missing them due to other commitments. Having done Richard II as part of my OU course, I'd have liked to have seen that one at least.
Might have to wait for the DVDs. :)
I really hope the BBC does put the The Hollow Crown series ontyo DVD but I kind of have my doubts.... they don't have much stuff in their shop re: Shakespeare and haven't done so for years. The BBC USA shop is a different matter ???.
Here's to hoping that i'm very wrong :)
Darrell.
-
"The Hollow Crown" DVDs are due out on 1 October:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hollow-Crown-TV-Mini-DVD/dp/B007P3Q95K/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1342699288&sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hollow-Crown-TV-Mini-DVD/dp/B007P3Q95K/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1342699288&sr=1-1)
In the meantime, there's the BBC iPlayer:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00s90hz/episodes/player (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00s90hz/episodes/player)
There's a fair bit of BBC Shakespeare on DVD, though I couldn't tell you whether it is in the BBC shop or not.
All 34 BBC Shakespeare productions from the late 1970s/early 1980s:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/BBC-Shakespeare-Collection-Box-Set/dp/B000B6F8V4/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1342699335&sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/BBC-Shakespeare-Collection-Box-Set/dp/B000B6F8V4/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1342699335&sr=1-1)
Also available individually.
1978 version of Richard II: http://www.amazon.co.uk/BBC-Shakespeare-Richard-1978-DVD/dp/B000TJKRNC/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1342700525&sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/BBC-Shakespeare-Richard-1978-DVD/dp/B000TJKRNC/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1342700525&sr=1-1)
1979 version of Henry IV part 1: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Henry-Part-One-Shakespeare-Collection/dp/B000TXOKIG/ref=pd_bxgy_d_h__img_b (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Henry-Part-One-Shakespeare-Collection/dp/B000TXOKIG/ref=pd_bxgy_d_h__img_b)
1979 version of Henry IV part 2: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Henry-Part-Two-Shakespeare-Collection/dp/B000TXQAV6/ref=pd_bxgy_d_h__img_b (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Henry-Part-Two-Shakespeare-Collection/dp/B000TXQAV6/ref=pd_bxgy_d_h__img_b)
1979 version of Henry V: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Henry-V-BBC-Shakespeare-Collection/dp/B000TJJ1LQ/ref=pd_sim_d_h__5 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Henry-V-BBC-Shakespeare-Collection/dp/B000TJJ1LQ/ref=pd_sim_d_h__5)
2009 BBC film of the 2008 RSC Hamlet:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hamlet-DVD-David-Tennant/dp/B002PXHRFQ/ref=pd_cp_d_h__0
Not actually a BBC production of Macbeth, but best known from its BBC4 showing:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Macbeth-DVD-Patrick-Stewart/dp/B004NB75BE/ref=pd_sim_d_h__5 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Macbeth-DVD-Patrick-Stewart/dp/B004NB75BE/ref=pd_sim_d_h__5)
I haven't checked for CDs.
Amazon didn't have the Shakespeare Uncovered series of documentaries listed for release, though.
Not all British TV productions are by the BBC of course: for example, Kenneth Branagh's production of Twelfth Night was made for Channel 4, while Laurence Olivier played King Lear, and Ian McKellern Macbeth, for ITV - these, and other, productions are available on DVD, but I can't think of any versions of Richard II or the Henry IV plays
Away from TV, look out for Orson Welles' great film The Chimes at Midnight, which stitches together the Falstaff bits from the history plays (plus some material from The Merry Wives of Windsor):
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Falstaff-Midnight-Definitive-Restored-Version/dp/B007H7OQW2/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1342700043&sr=8-3 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Falstaff-Midnight-Definitive-Restored-Version/dp/B007H7OQW2/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1342700043&sr=8-3)
Just for completeness, Olivier's 1944 version of Henry V (http://Henry V):
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Henry-V-DVD-Laurence-Olivier/dp/B00004CZVK/ref=pd_cp_d_h__2 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Henry-V-DVD-Laurence-Olivier/dp/B00004CZVK/ref=pd_cp_d_h__2)
and Branagh's 1989 version:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Henry-V-DVD-Kenneth-Branagh/dp/B00005AMEC/ref=pd_bxgy_d_h__img_b (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Henry-V-DVD-Kenneth-Branagh/dp/B00005AMEC/ref=pd_bxgy_d_h__img_b)
-
Cracking amount of info..cheers Steve :) The pre-release price looks quite good.
-
So, Henry V.
I would never have believed that it would be possible to cut so much from a play and still have it move so slowly. All those long pauses, all that static staging.
And while we lost the entrapment of the traitors at Southampton, Captains Gower and MacMorris, the King's "what have kings that privates have not too, save ceremony?" soliloquy, the grandiloquent competition among the French nobility, and, most bizarrely, the French attack on the boys and luggage (leaving Henry's order to kill the prisoners motivated solely by the death of York, with whom he has been exchanging dewey-eyed glances throughout), somehow the production still found time for the entirety of Princess Katharine's English lesson, all 37 hours of it. Or did it just seem that long?
Add some of the most ineptly staged battle scenes I have ever encountered, and a flat video and sound editing style that left even seasoned performers like Anton Lesser and Richard Griffiths seeming dull, and you could safely say that I was more than a little disappointed.
-
The RSC usually has a good selection of VHS/DVD productions.
-
Finally able to catch up on these on iPlayer. Still reeling from Ben Whishaw's incredible performance as Richard – quite extraordinary.
The only thing I really didn't like were the pathetic crowd scenes. Is the BBC so hard up that it can't run to more than 10 extras when it needs to portray an army? Or is it some kind of inverse quasi-theatrical snobbery? An army of 10 men on a theatre stage might look quite convincing. An army of 10 men on the TV screen, when we're used to CGI armies of thousands from Peter Jackson and co, just looks pathetic.
Richard – perhaps you should be offering your skills? You must have enough of those Perry plastics painted up by now, and I think this is something we'd all enjoy seeing lol
-
lol
If only i could animate them... ::)
Haven't watched Henry V yet. Looking forward to it, although sad to hear they cut the scene where the traitors get their comeuppance. One of my favourite bits in the play... :(
I must admit I found Whishaw's Richard just a little too peculiar, but then I think the actor's a bit that way in real life :)
Extraordinary though, yes.
IVpt1 is my favourite of the three I've watched so far...
-
If only i could animate them... ::)
You wouldn't have to, to fit in with Henry V. There are whole scenes with all the animation of tableaux vivantes.
-
Yep, a bit disappointed with V. Important bits to the storyline were missed out, making it somewhat choppy and incoherent. IV.2 was okay, but the Fastolf bits were meant to be the comic relief to the rest of the serious stuff. The page was meant to be an artful dodger type, but that didn't work well either. I can't really add anything to what's already been said, other than the best acting was essentially delivered by the minor cast members, something that has run through all four plays.
I'd imagine that this group of plays would reinforce anybody watching's pre-prejudice,that Shakespeare is dry, dusty and inaccessible to most people. I was happy with the battle scenes with a cast of a few, but there's no excuse for the director not drawing good performances from the actors playing the main parts.
:-[
-
Unfortunately, I've got to agree, Henry V was a bit of a disappointment. :(
After a pretty barnstorming couple of weeks with Henry IV, I was really looking froward to seeing Harry's greatest moment. All fell a bit flat though. I've never heard a more lacklustre rendition of the Cripsin's Day speech. Instead of rabble rousing, blood pumping encouragement, we essentially got Tony Blair saying "yeah, guys, but look, if we get away with it, we'll be minted..."
Harfleur was alright though, liked the barely restrained viciousness when talking to the Mayor. Shame he couldn't carry it on to the main event.
Obviously Jeremy Irons was working some arcane magic and getting everybody else to up their game. I'd actually kind of like to see him doing Agincourt...
-
Have to agree that I thought Henry V wasn't as good at the previous one.
Whereas IV pt2 used the TV medium to enhance the drama, the director of Henry V didn't take advantage and it felt quite "stagey" to me.
Part of the problem for me is that I think Henry V is a bit of a one note play. It's nationalistic, patriotic, rabble-rousing and even jingoistic. Whilst Shakespeare can withstand almost any form of interpretation I don't think the modern "war is hell" interpretation works well with the source material. The Branagh version suffered a bit from this too. And when you make odd choices to remove some of the subtler bits that provide shade and depth - the traitors and the attack on the camp - it exacerbates that problem.
I thought the acting was as consistently good as it has been, but the interpretation and direction were wanting.
Finally, if you are going to do a "historical" take on Agincourt you do really need more than 50 or so extras. The great charge of the knights looked more like one of those re-enactor events when a couple of dozen blokes with beards, beer bellies and hangovers re-stage Marston Moor or whatever. Especially if you're leaving in the lines about ten thousand casualties.
In my view the best way to do Henry V is to turn everything up to eleven and give it "The Full Larry"
Like this:
http://youtu.be/P9fa3HFR02E
-
Maybe it's just because I'm not from that time, but I find Olivier doing Shakespeare to be unwatchable. I like him in other films when he acts appropriately for the medium, but his Shakespearean stage acting just comes over as shouty and unbelievably hammy on screen. I think he is awful.
I imagine he was great in the theatre, but if we are talking about a filmed version give me Brannagh's Hal any day.
Unfortunately I missed it this week. Was away for work for the week and forgot to set the video.
-
Maybe it's just because I'm not from that time, but I find Olivier doing Shakespeare to be unwatchable. I like him in other films when he acts appropriately for the medium, but his Shakespearean stage acting just comes over as shouty and unbelievably hammy on screen. I think he is awful.
I agree and raised this with a mate. His response was interesting. The Olivier film was shot in 1944 and was a call to arms and 'stiffening of the sinews' of the UK populace after 5 long years of war. He addresses the whole army in the St. Crispin's day speech IIRC.
The recent Henry V St. Crispin's day speech was, for me, one of the most moving I have seen on screen or stage as it was delivered to his commanders in a more intimate manner.
Battle scenes were a bit naff though.....
-
I don't like Olivier as a screen actor in anything. His Henry also suffered from being made into an unambiguous hero, with stuff like his threat of murder, rape and pillage at Harfleur, his order to kill the prisoners at
Harfleur Agincourt and his approval of the hanging of Bardolph all excised in the interest of producing straight-jawed propaganda.
Olivier was an interesting screen director, though. The deliberate artificiality of Henry V is as bold as anything by Powell and Pressburger. I was watching his Hamlet recently, and thinking how much has been lost by moving away from Academy ratio. All those beautiful vertical compositions (in monochrome, of course) just wouldn't work in widescreen or Cinemascope.
-
Loki. Hal is Loki. Jesus, it took some time for that penny to drop. I can be such a dullard sometimes. I knew I'd seen him somewhere before, yet couldn't think for the life of me where.
-
Hmmm... no indication from either BBC America or PBS that these might be shown here, and iPlayer's no good if you're in the US of A. Just have to wait for the DVDs, I suppose.
My first reaction when Plynkes first posted the trailer was that *some* of those "faces" have experience with Shakespeare on *both* stage and screen; others, not so much. Sounds like that's proving to be the case.
What, no-one remembers the siege and battle sequences from the "Brother Cadfael" series? Three men and a smal dog: sorted.
Allen