[saralund]

I didn't enjoy this one as much as I enjoyed Richard II. Joe Armstrong was excellent as Hotspur, and there was a lot of good Shakespearey acting, but the piece didn't seem to resonate in the same way as the first film. Something to do with the sets and the costumes made it look like an excerpt from Lord of the Rings, so that, for me anyway, the battle scenes with Falstaff felt like watching Gimli talking to Legolas. SRB's Falstaff just didn't hit the spot - the belly looked exactly like a prop prosthesis, the accent drifted from common to posh, I couldn't see why Hal would have found him fun to be around. Michelle Dockery was nice to look at, but was essentially Lady Mary. Julie Walters was excellent as always, and made everyone around her look as hammy as all get out. Not sure how much I'm looking forward to two more weeks of Tom Hiddleston in tight leather.

[allisonbm2]

Originally Posted by HenryBane

Buy the BBC boxset of the BBC Shakespeare's plays from the 70s and 80s. Although not visibly as superior then current productions that have been used in this modern production, they certain hold their own. Helen Mirren is a wonder if watch.

Already got it thanks,got it last christmas and frighteningly I remember a lot of them from when they were originally shown My personal favourite at the time was Much Ado About Nothing and I was delighted to find I still very much enjoyed that particular presentation,found Macbeth a bit of a slog though preferred the recent Patrick Stewart version. I would love to see the BBC attempt to do them all again.

[Eraserhead]

I thought it was very good but I'm not hugely impressed with Tom Hiddlestone's acting. Not the best Hal I've seen (and when it's his turn to be king there have been some very tough acts to follow).

I thoroughly enjoyed Beale's Falstaff. He was wonderfully vulnerable in that "don't banish Falstaff" scene/

The rest of the cast were good. Julie Walters made acting Shakespeare utterly effortless.

[Gellymiss]

I enjoyed it but not as much as Richard II.Still, it was very good and better than watching anything else.

I thought Jeremy Irons was the weak link in the whole thing, which I was rather surprised by. Tom Hiddleston wasn't as sublime as I had anticipated but the imitation of Jeremy Irons was spot on. And he's a lovely man to watch.

[raadsel]

Originally Posted by saralund

I didn't enjoy this one as much as I enjoyed Richard II. Joe Armstrong was excellent as Hotspur, and there was a lot of good Shakespearey acting, but the piece didn't seem to resonate in the same way as the first film. Something to do with the sets and the costumes made it look like an excerpt from Lord of the Rings, so that, for me anyway, the battle scenes with Falstaff felt like watching Gimli talking to Legolas. SRB's Falstaff just didn't hit the spot - the belly looked exactly like a prop prosthesis, the accent drifted from common to posh, I couldn't see why Hal would have found him fun to be around. Michelle Dockery was nice to look at, but was essentially Lady Mary. Julie Walters was excellent as always, and made everyone around her look as hammy as all get out. Not sure how much I'm looking forward to two more weeks of Tom Hiddleston in tight leather.

Almost my exact reaction. What was with all those leather trousers? Very cut price sword and sorcery.

The actor that played Hotspur was the standout. Bizarre that I found his to be the most sympathetic character, given that he was a rude, aggressive racist.

Hotspur's anti-Welsh speeches went on a bit. Although I was amused that after ten minutes or so of this, Shakespeare had another character admonish him briefly for being rude - Shakespeare having his cake and eating it too, I thought. He got to be fluently racist about the Welsh, which probably went down well in London back then, then added the equivalent of a small print disclaimer afterwards to assuage his conscience.

Prince Harry was oh boy, extremely hard to warm to. Nothing more than an entitled rich boy in all his obnoxious glory. I think the actor playing him should have at least given a hint at a reason why Harry behaves like this. This never materialised. On the other hand, if Harry was supposed to be some sort of dissolute yet charming reprobate who redeemed himself by the final act, Hiddleston failed at that as well. Not good.

Falstaff was - a hard character to play, I think. Almost a cartoon. He could have been much, much worse. There were some genuine moments of pathos. I didn't despise him as much as I did the prince.

Julie Walters, Jeremy Irons and Maxine Peake were great. Maxine Peake's bum! Kudos to her.

[DavetheScot]

Originally Posted by raadsel

Prince Harry was oh boy, extremely hard to warm to. Nothing more than an entitled rich boy in all his obnoxious glory. I think the actor playing him should have at least given a hint at a reason why Harry behaves like this. This never materialised. On the other hand, if Harry was supposed to be some sort of dissolute yet charming reprobate who redeemed himself by the final act, Hiddleston failed at that as well. Not good.

Falstaff was - a hard character to play, I think. Almost a cartoon. He could have been much, much worse. There were some genuine moments of pathos. I didn't despise him as much as I did the prince.

Julie Walters, Jeremy Irons and Maxine Peake were great. Maxine Peake's bum! Kudos to her.

I always think the Prince comes over as a bit unlikeable, and never more so than at the end of Part 2.

I don't normally find Maxine Peake that attractive. As a QC, she does little for me. As a medieval prostitute, however, she's drop-dead sexy.

[the_lostprophet]

Originally Posted by raadsel

Prince Harry was oh boy, extremely hard to warm to. Nothing more than an entitled rich boy in all his obnoxious glory. I think the actor playing him should have at least given a hint at a reason why Harry behaves like this. This never materialised. On the other hand, if Harry was supposed to be some sort of dissolute yet charming reprobate who redeemed himself by the final act, Hiddleston failed at that as well. Not good.

I take it they cut some important lines/speeches in that case (am going to watch this tomorrow) as Harry explains why he acts in a rebellious way in the play text. I just found this on Sparknotes:

As soon as Poins leaves the room, however, Harry begins to muse aloud to himself. He reveals that he hangs around with these low-class friends as part of a clever psychological plan: he is deliberately trying to make his father and the English people think poorly of him so that he can surprise and impress them all when he decides to grow up and start behaving like a royal prince. Harry feels that if he lowers people’s expectations of him, it will be much easier to awe and please them later on than it would be if people expected great things of him. Thus, he deliberately chooses friends and a lifestyle that he knows will disappoint his father and the populace. Harry concludes by suggesting that sometime very soon he plans to reveal his true nature to those around him.

http://www.sparknotes.com/shakespear...section2.rhtml

That's from Act 1 scene 2.

[DavetheScot]

Originally Posted by Lime Kiln

...I will wait for your link, thanks.

It's Henry VI, Part I, Act IV, Scene VII. I'm sure you can find it somewhere online.

[raadsel]

Originally Posted by the_lostprophet

I take it they cut some important lines/speeches in that case (am going to watch this tomorrow) as Harry explains why he acts in a rebellious way in the play text. I just found this on Sparknotes:



http://www.sparknotes.com/shakespear...section2.rhtml

That's from Act 1 scene 2.

Yeah, I heard the prince give that little speech. But it was so incredibly weak that I immediately discounted it. I think a lot must have had to do with the delivery. Hiddleston played the prince as such a shallow troll, in the modern internet usage of the word. I couldn't take anything he said that reeked of self-justification close to seriously.

Originally Posted by DavetheScot

I always think the Prince comes over as a bit unlikeable, and never more so than at the end of Part 2.

I don't normally find Maxine Peake that attractive. As a QC, she does little for me. As a medieval prostitute, however, she's drop-dead sexy.

The scene with Maxine Peake getting it on with the Prince was incredibly hot. Just - wow. My loins leapt in joy.

[dodrade]

Call me a philistine but my favourite Prince Hal is still Keanu Reeves in My Own Private Idaho.

[Kapellmeister]

I thought it was a bit of a slog. Some of the actors seemed to mumble or garble their lines and I found it quite hard to hear what they were saying. I've never, ever found Shakespeare 'funny' either. For me the comedy just isn't comic and so the Boar's Head scenes seemed to go on forever. I thought last week's Richard II was a much better production. And yes, Falstaff just reminded me of Gimli too.

[the_lostprophet]

A short review here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-rad...on-shakespeare

[Lime Kiln]

Originally Posted by DavetheScot

I always think the Prince comes over as a bit unlikeable, and never more so than at the end of Part 2.

I don't normally find Maxine Peake that attractive. As a QC, she does little for me. As a medieval prostitute, however, she's drop-dead sexy.

what a horrible post! But you like a prostitute better,well, you said it.

Originally Posted by DavetheScot

It's Henry VI, Part I, Act IV, Scene VII. I'm sure you can find it somewhere online.

Like you find your info on shakespeare online before posting! OK.

[Lime Kiln]

Originally Posted by Kapellmeister

I thought it was a bit of a slog. Some of the actors seemed to mumble or garble their lines and I found it quite hard to hear what they were saying. I've never, ever found Shakespeare 'funny' either. For me the comedy just isn't comic and so the Boar's Head scenes seemed to go on forever. I thought last week's Richard II was a much better production. And yes, Falstaff just reminded me of Gimli too.

It WAS a "bit of a slog". The "Boar's Head scenes seemed to go on forever" yes they did and i bet viewers turned off too.

[the_lostprophet]

Originally Posted by Lime Kiln

and i bet viewers turned off too.

Oh come on, I doubt it! If anyone had committed to watching a Shakespeare adaptation then most people would probably stick with it - you either like this stuff or you don't. It seems people are giving this version quite the hard time on here - am very curious to see what I make of it now. Unlike Kapellmeister I do appreciate Shakespeare's humour. Obviously as humour changes to an extent over time, it usually isn't 'laugh out loud' funny to us - it's more puns and word play - but I find it clever and can imagine how the groundlings would have laughed their heads off at it back in the Renaissance era. The problem is that many people seem to see Shakespeare through the eyes of a 21st century person.

In the same way I don't really think we can accuse Hotspur of 'racism' as someone did a few posts back because the PC anti-racism ideology is a 20th-21st century phenomenon. Whilst it can be useful to criticise plays/novels/poetry from a feminist/postcolonial perspective it has to also be remembered that people just had very different views back then.

[the_lostprophet]

Originally Posted by Lime Kiln

Like you find your info on shakespeare online before posting! OK.

What on earth is your problem with another poster looking up info about Shakespeare before posting? What is your point?

[raadsel]

Originally Posted by the_lostprophet

In the same way I don't really think we can accuse Hotspur of 'racism' as someone did a few posts back because the PC anti-racism ideology is a 20th-21st century phenomenon. Whilst it can be useful to criticise plays/novels/poetry from a feminist/postcolonial perspective it has to also be remembered that people just had very different views back then.

Shylock's main speech in The Merchant of Venice was a plea for racial tolerance.

[raadsel]

Originally Posted by the_lostprophet

In the same way I don't really think we can accuse Hotspur of 'racism' as someone did a few posts back because the PC anti-racism ideology is a 20th-21st century phenomenon. Whilst it can be useful to criticise plays/novels/poetry from a feminist/postcolonial perspective it has to also be remembered that people just had very different views back then.

Shylock gave a speech in The Merchant of Venice that was a plea for racial tolerance.

[Kapellmeister]

Originally Posted by the_lostprophet

Unlike Kapellmeister I do appreciate Shakespeare's humour. Obviously as humour changes to an extent over time, it usually isn't 'laugh out loud' funny to us - it's more puns and word play - but I find it clever and can imagine how the groundlings would have laughed their heads off at it back in the Renaissance era.

I agree that the word play especially can be very amusing in a witty kind of way. But when the characters are bellowing with laughter at something which seems pedestrian...well, it reminded me of the canned laughter on Last of the Summer Wine. I think the comic scenes were overplayed in that regard.

[petertard]

Shakespeare can be very funny. It depends on how it's done. You need actors and a director who can bring out the comedy inherent in the situations and words. Some Shakespeare can be cringe-makingly unfunny, especially if the actors find the puns tiresome.

[rumpleteazer]

I'm really enjoying this series so far but I'm new to Shakespeare so I think I'm going to have to watch them all a few times to really understand everything.

Does anyone know if the DVDs will have any extras? I really enjoyed the Jeremy Irons programme at the weekend and would like to see it again, as there was a lot of behind the scenes footage in it I'm thinking it would fit nicely in with the DVDs

[Eraserhead]

I found the Boar's Head scenes very entertaining. It was good to find scenes in a history play away from the vast, austere spaces of castles or the wide open battlefields. It provides a space which is closer and more intimate and much warmer.

Any resemblance to the Prancing Pony is purely coinicdental...

[Kapellmeister]

Originally Posted by petertard

Shakespeare can be very funny. It depends on how it's done. You need actors and a director who can bring out the comedy inherent in the situations and words. Some Shakespeare can be cringe-makingly unfunny, especially if the actors find the puns tiresome.

The part with Hal saying 'Anon! Anon!...Anon!' to the bartender at the Boar's Head made me want to pull my teeth out.

[Granny McSmith]

Originally Posted by Kapellmeister

The part with Hal saying 'Anon! Anon!...Anon!' to the bartender at the Boar's Head made me want to pull my teeth out.

Well, they did used to think bear baiting was entertainment!

It's a cruel sort of humour, as is the trick paid on Malvolio in Twelfth Night. I suppose then, as now, some would like it and some not.

A poster earlier mentioned Falstaff's pathos, but I didn't see much of that, I just saw a buffoon.

And I'm afraid to say I endorse the criticism of Hal without being that struck by Hotspur.

I don't know if it was the acting or the directing that wasn't up to last week's show, but something wasn't.

Maybe they'll all have improved by Part II.

[lady_xanax]

Stupid BBC, rescheduling Henry IV last night so it clashed with the new episode of Wallander.