[Smint]

We should form a club! Now, all together . . .

"I know you all, and will awhile uphold
The unyok'd humour of your idleness.
Yet herein will I imitate the Sun,
Who doth permit the base contagious clouds
To smother up his beauty from the world,
That, when he please again to be himself,
Being wanted, he may be more wonder'd at,
By breaking through the foul and ugly mists
Of vapours that did seem to strangle him.
If all the year were playing holidays,
To sport would be as tedious as to work;
But, when they seldom come, they wish'd-for come,
And nothing pleaseth but rare accidents.
So when this loose behaviour I throw off,
And pay the debt I never promised,
By how much better than my word I am,
By so much shall I falsify men's hopes;
And, like bright metal on a sullen ground,
My reformation, glitt'ring o'er my fault,
Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes
Than that which hath no foil to set it off.
I'll so offend to make offense a skill,
Redeeming time when men think least I will."

I did C&P that, but was surprised at how much I remembered! I also remember that I answered the question on Honour in the exam paper - so managed to actually use it in the exam

[Granny McSmith]

Originally Posted by Smint

We should form a club! Now, all together . . .

"I know you all, and will awhile uphold
The unyok'd humour of your idleness.
Yet herein will I imitate the Sun,
Who doth permit the base contagious clouds
To smother up his beauty from the world,
That, when he please again to be himself,
Being wanted, he may be more wonder'd at,
By breaking through the foul and ugly mists
Of vapours that did seem to strangle him.
If all the year were playing holidays,
To sport would be as tedious as to work;
But, when they seldom come, they wish'd-for come,
And nothing pleaseth but rare accidents.
So when this loose behaviour I throw off,
And pay the debt I never promised,
By how much better than my word I am,
By so much shall I falsify men's hopes;
And, like bright metal on a sullen ground,
My reformation, glitt'ring o'er my fault,
Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes
Than that which hath no foil to set it off.
I'll so offend to make offense a skill,
Redeeming time when men think least I will."

I did C&P that, but was surprised at how much I remembered! I also remember that I answered the question on Honour in the exam paper - so managed to actually use it in the exam

It's funny how it all comes back to you. "What is honour? A word. What's in that word honour? Air..."

[Ovalteenie]

Originally Posted by Granny McSmith

I definitely thought Richard's sexuality was ambiguous. There is that bit in Bolingbroke's speech at the execution of Bushey and Green when he accuses them of making Richard a stranger to his wife's bed, or something similar.

Of course, it could just mean that they were up all night boozing and playing the medieval equivalent of video games.

Richard and his wife were obviously very affectionate, in any case. My vote is that he's bi.

Richard II was thought to be gay. He invented the pocket handkerchief.

[clarendel]

Originally Posted by the_lostprophet

I know - I don't have much time for the anti-Stratfordian view either. Apparently Shakespeare would still have had a classical education at grammar school; it's completely plausible that he would have been educated well enough to have written the plays.

I always remember seeing the historian A J P Taylor interviewed years ago and he was asked about the authorship of Shakespeare's plays. He thought Shakespeare did write them. He said it was all down to snobbery. Some people could not accept that a grammar school boy could be a genius.

[Smint]

Originally Posted by Granny McSmith

It's funny how it all comes back to you. "What is honour? A word. What's in that word honour? Air..."

Ah yes:

Yea, but how if honour prick me off when I
come on? How then? Can honour set to a leg? No: or
an arm? No: or take away the grief of a wound? No.
Honour hath no skill in surgery, then? No.

Will be interesting to see how Falstaff is played - I hope they bring out the pathos as well as the bawdy humour

[Killary45]

Originally Posted by the_lostprophet

Yes I see that he was in that from Wikipedia; I didn't watch it though. I thought he was okay in Richard for the smallish size of the Aumerle role.

In Silk he was cast a working class pupil barrister who happened to be a kleptomaniac who stole a wig and/or gown in broad daylight from a shop quite close to his office.

So that was both bad casting - he does convince as a young man from a poor background - and an unbelievable character.

[lizzie siddall]

Richard II was married twice. His first wife was Anne of Bohemia. By contemporary accounts they were very happily married and he was devastated by her death from plague. In fact he tore down the palace at Sheen, where she died as he could never bear to go there again. His second wife Isabella Valois was only 7 when they were married as part of a treaty between England and France. She was only 11 when he died but was apparently devoted to him and he regarded her as a dear child or younger sister. Theories suggest that he 'married' such a young bride because of his continuing love for his late Queen. Who knows? Froissart was a great chronicler of the times and he was quite a gossip. Richard was a cultured man, he was mainly brought up by his mother, Joan the Fair Maid of Kent. His wife Anne was thought to have introduced the use of handkerchiefs and eating with forks. Maybe all this was thought 'a bit gay' by warriors like Bolingbroke, although he himself was also a very educated man whose father was the chief patron (and later brother-in-law) of Chaucer.

Sorry to waffle on, I absolutely love the Plantagenets, much more exciting than the Tudors! I thought the play was marvellous, maybe the best television Shakespeare I have seen and I watched all of the BBC Shakespeare when it was on many years ago.

Right, one more fact before I bore you all to death. Richard's queen Isabella was the older sister of Henry V's queen Katherine

[Eraserhead]

I thought it was excellent. It was really interesting Ben Whishaw playing Richard as a little effeminate. I think it worked well.

The rest of the cast was almost uniformly excellent and the visual style was superb (I wish I had HD).

Really looking forward to the rest of the tetralogy.

[Pasta]

I thought it was a terrific production; Ben Wishaw was brilliant and in the end heartbreaking. When you have a cast speaking the lines so clearly and well, I find it strange some people say Shakespeare can't be understoof today. I mostly enjoyed the Jacoby programme afterwards, especially seeing his BBC Richard to match against Wishaw's. I also learned something new: that Richard II is Shakespeare's only play all in verse. But how an intelligent actor like Jacoby can believe the de Vere nonsense is incomprehensible to me. Maybe in the 19th or eary 20th centuries (when the Bacon/ de Vere ideas took root) there might have been some excuse, but now we know so much about the theatrical world of Shakespeare's time, there really is no excuse at all.

[the_lostprophet]

Originally Posted by lizzie siddall

Richard II was married twice. His first wife was Anne of Bohemia. By contemporary accounts they were very happily married and he was devastated by her death from plague. In fact he tore down the palace at Sheen, where she died as he could never bear to go there again. His second wife Isabella Valois was only 7 when they were married as part of a treaty between England and France. She was only 11 when he died but was apparently devoted to him and he regarded her as a dear child or younger sister. Theories suggest that he 'married' such a young bride because of his continuing love for his late Queen. Who knows? Froissart was a great chronicler of the times and he was quite a gossip. Richard was a cultured man, he was mainly brought up by his mother, Joan the Fair Maid of Kent. His wife Anne was thought to have introduced the use of handkerchiefs and eating with forks. Maybe all this was thought 'a bit gay' by warriors like Bolingbroke, although he himself was also a very educated man whose father was the chief patron (and later brother-in-law) of Chaucer.

Sorry to waffle on, I absolutely love the Plantagenets, much more exciting than the Tudors! I thought the play was marvellous, maybe the best television Shakespeare I have seen and I watched all of the BBC Shakespeare when it was on many years ago.

Right, one more fact before I bore you all to death. Richard's queen Isabella was the older sister of Henry V's queen Katherine

You haven't waffled; that was an interesting post. I recall learning about how Isabella was Richard's child bride on my degree module now. I didn't realise she was Katherine's sister though.

[DavetheScot]

Originally Posted by lizzie siddall

Richard II was married twice. His first wife was Anne of Bohemia. By contemporary accounts they were very happily married and he was devastated by her death from plague. In fact he tore down the palace at Sheen, where she died as he could never bear to go there again. His second wife Isabella Valois was only 7 when they were married as part of a treaty between England and France. She was only 11 when he died but was apparently devoted to him and he regarded her as a dear child or younger sister. Theories suggest that he 'married' such a young bride because of his continuing love for his late Queen. Who knows? Froissart was a great chronicler of the times and he was quite a gossip. Richard was a cultured man, he was mainly brought up by his mother, Joan the Fair Maid of Kent. His wife Anne was thought to have introduced the use of handkerchiefs and eating with forks. Maybe all this was thought 'a bit gay' by warriors like Bolingbroke, although he himself was also a very educated man whose father was the chief patron (and later brother-in-law) of Chaucer.

Sorry to waffle on, I absolutely love the Plantagenets, much more exciting than the Tudors! I thought the play was marvellous, maybe the best television Shakespeare I have seen and I watched all of the BBC Shakespeare when it was on many years ago.

Right, one more fact before I bore you all to death. Richard's queen Isabella was the older sister of Henry V's queen Katherine

While it's true that Richard and his his first wife were devoted to each other, it's noticeable that they had no children. I suspect that their relationship may have been more like a brother and sister than a sexual one. There's some evidence, though not conclusive, that Richard was gay. He was certainly regarded as unsuitably close to Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford.

[Jonwo]

Originally Posted by barnsleykeith

In other words, do a brand new, up to date, Shakespeare collection? I think it's due.

I believe Sam Mendes wanted to do all 37 Shakespeare plays but it didn't work out financially so they decided to do the four History plays. Richard III I could see them commisioning but unsure on the Henry VI trilogy as it's considered one of Shakespeare's weaker works.

[raadsel]

Originally Posted by Glen_Williams

While I enjoyed Whishaw's performance, the person I was watching with, who isn't much of a historian, ended up wondering if the reason they all wanted rid of Richard in the end was because he was gay, because he felt Whishaw's character was coming across that way, and all the talk of his young male friends corrupting him, just before they got executed,plus his distant relationship with his wife, was a veiled shot suggesting as such.

I explained that it was just a play and not really true to the real history, but it was an interesting thought and I wondered if anyone else noticed anything like that?

At the execution scene it was unambiguous. They accused Richard's favourites of 'sinful hours' with the king and coming between the king and queen and the royal bed and making the queen blush.

But it was set up from the start, with the young casting and soft clothing of the king's favourites, especially when they were all sitting on that bridge together, looking like something out of Merchant Ivory.

I thought the queen knew all about it (or else why would she blush?) but didn't mind. She loved the king and called him 'her rose'. I don't know if a dig at the judgemental was what was Shakespeare originally meant, but surely the king's sex life is more the queen's business than anyone else's.

I got so involved in this, even for the minor characters. I was hiding behind my fingers at the end, worried for the groom when they all rushed in, hoping he didn't get hurt.

The king wasn't an easy character to warm to at the start, but he was played so intelligently by Whislaw that by the end everyone else seemed like worms. Not a good king, Bollingbroke probably would be better, but I grew to hate Bollingbroke for his hypocrisy. And then at the end he runs away.

I never thought I'd enjoy a Shakespearean history play so much. So into it! Going to watch again on iplayer.

[Ovalteenie]

I felt really sorry for Richard at the end

[the_lostprophet]

Originally Posted by raadsel

And then at the end he runs away.

What do you mean? He runs away because he said he's going on crusade to the Holy land due to his guilt? Not sure if you know the plot of the Henry plays but you'll have to wait for Henry IV part 1 to see what happens with that.

[raadsel]

Originally Posted by the_lostprophet

What do you mean? He runs away because he said he's going on crusade to the Holy land due to his guilt? Not sure if you know the plot of the Henry plays but you'll have to wait for Henry IV part 1 to see what happens with that.

That's exactly what I meant. Henry overthrows Richard, then can't handle the guilt and runs away just at the point when everyone is going mad killing in his name and he needs to be there to take a firm hand.

I haven't seen any of the history plays before except Henry V. I look forward to seeing what happens next.

Tom Hiddleston is going to be Henry, right? I checked out some clips for the next film. I was shocked how amateurish Hiddleston's acting was, especially next to Jeremy Irons who was amazing. I was surprised, he was so good in Thor. Ah well, he looks pretty. And it might be better in context.

[the_lostprophet]

If anyone has a spare hour it's worth catching 'Derek Jacobi on Richard II' on the iplayer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...on_Richard_II/

Apart from his detour into the silliness of Shakespeare not writing the play, it's quite a detailed look at the play and offers some helpful insight about Richard and the play's Elizabethan context. I didn't think much of those two Globe actors though especially the one playing Richard - thought he missed Richard's manipulative and self-pitying nature. He played it more as if he's Bolingbroke - a shame they didn't show us some RSC actors attempting it instead.

I thought it was interesting to hear Jacobi say right at the end (whilst watching his own interpretation of Richard from the 70s) that he thinks he could play Richard better now than he did in his youth - with the wisdom of age.

[Granny McSmith]

Originally Posted by DavetheScot

While it's true that Richard and his his first wife were devoted to each other, it's noticeable that they had no children. I suspect that their relationship may have been more like a brother and sister than a sexual one. There's some evidence, though not conclusive, that Richard was gay. He was certainly regarded as unsuitably close to Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford.

Yet Shakespeare doesn't include Robert de Vere in his cast list. That's odd. Unless the play was in fact written by Robert's descendant, the Earl of Oxford!

Only kidding! But it is odd, Shakespeare doesn't usually worry about offending the descendants of his characters, surely?

[Granny McSmith]

Originally Posted by the_lostprophet

I thought it was interesting to hear Jacobi say right at the end (whilst watching his own interpretation of Richard from the 70s) that he thinks he could play Richard better now than he did in his youth - with the wisdom of age.

I suspect that's a common feeling among actors.

[the_lostprophet]

Originally Posted by Granny McSmith

I suspect that's a common feeling among actors.

Oh yes, I expect so!

[rumpleteazer]

I'll admit, I only watched this because Tom Hiddleston is in the next two but I was pleasantly surprised. I haven't read or watched Shakespeare since school and even though I had no strong opinions one way or another I never really read any more. But I really enjoyed Richard II, it was truly something special to watch.

[raadsel]

Originally Posted by the_lostprophet

If anyone has a spare hour it's worth catching 'Derek Jacobi on Richard II' on the iplayer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...on_Richard_II/

Apart from his detour into the silliness of Shakespeare not writing the play, it's quite a detailed look at the play and offers some helpful insight about Richard and the play's Elizabethan context. I didn't think much of those two Globe actors though especially the one playing Richard - thought he missed Richard's manipulative and self-pitying nature. He played it more as if he's Bolingbroke - a shame they didn't show us some RSC actors attempting it instead.

I thought it was interesting to hear Jacobi say right at the end (whilst watching his own interpretation of Richard from the 70s) that he thinks he could play Richard better now than he did in his youth - with the wisdom of age.

Derek Jacobi thinks Shakespeare is not the author? I was intrigued and expecting some intelligent debate at this part in the documentary, perhaps with historical facts and documentary analysis. But Jacobi's theory just boiled down to 'Shakespeare was just some oik from Stratford, and obviously oiks can't write plays about kings'. Disappointing. He's a great actor, but he fundamentally doesn't understand that writing is about making things up.

So many interpretations of Richard II side by side were fascinating.

[the_lostprophet]

Originally Posted by raadsel

Derek Jacobi thinks Shakespeare is not the author? I was intrigued and expecting some intelligent debate at this part in the documentary, perhaps with historical facts and documentary analysis. But Jacobi's theory just boiled down to 'Shakespeare was just some oik from Stratford, and obviously oiks can't write plays about kings'. Disappointing. He's a great actor, but he fundamentally doesn't understand that writing is about making things up.

Indeed. I remember being disappointed to hear Mark Rylance coming out with something similar a few years ago.

[raadsel]

Originally Posted by the_lostprophet

Indeed. I remember being disappointed to hear Mark Rylance coming out with something similar a few years ago.

It was nothing more than snobbery. They admitted they didn't even have a cast iron candidate as to who did write them - just as long as it was a toff and as long as it wasn't Shakespeare.

The only one interesting point was that Shakespeare kept his kids illiterate - that surely if he loved writing so much, he'd have seen to their education. But Shakespeare was only survived by girl children, wasn't he? His son died young. I don't know if it was common to educate middle class girls at that time. Both girls married well. So even that is full of holes.

Back to the film....

At the start, they had Richard touch the wounds of the model for the St Sebastian, and I thought - 'oh, I hope they don't make a meal of those references, it's a bit Jarman obvious'.

But at the end, when they brought back the allusions I was ready for it. They properly tied it into the text (like when Richard called the usurpers Judas as he handed over the crown) and somehow the Christ-posturing and the folly of the king's divine assumptions made his ending saintlike rather than overkill. It helped that Whislaw has the torso of a painted medieval saint. They used that well. He was even shown in his cave like a hermit.

[ftsemonks]

Originally Posted by barnsleykeith

Cheers Matt
Just caught up with the various clips and traliers that are out there. This looks a very impressive production. We are talking Game of Thrones type levels here? Not wanting to be too spoilerific. I suppose for some viewers this will be a brand new experience - storywise I mean? Bit I hadn't realised it was going to be so lavish.

A few glasses of Mead will help me get into the mood tonight.

I am very interested in this history, I watched this and I was right, I could not understand a word what they were saying
I just WISH they would speak modern English