If you subscribe to Sky Arts 1 and 2, they often show Shakespeare plays filmed live at The Globe. Really enjoyable for people new to Shakespeare.

I did this play for O-level and it is a favourite of mine. Thoroughly enjoyed it all. Falstaff superb, certainly if you banish plump Falstaff you banish the world; Hotspur was recognisable by any one with a quick lively temper; the King world-weary; Quickly and Doll (?) enjoyably full of life; smaller parts great; even Hal OK but a difficult role to bring off. An evening of sheer joy!

Was hugely impressed with Richard II. Henry IV Part 1 didn't have the same effect when I watched it ''live'' on Saturday. Watched it again last night, and on second viewing found it much much more rewarding.

I've watched this now. I really enjoyed it. Still not 100% sure of SRB's interpretation of Falstaff and it took me a while to be fully sold on Tom Hiddleston's Hal but I got used to him after a bit. Otherwise it was excellent - can't wait to see part 2.

My problem with Henry IV is that I don't like Shakespeares' comedies - I'm sure they were rolling in the aisles back in Tudor times but now - meh.
It's certainly an odd play to my eyes - first half comedy and second half tradgedy - I enjoyed the second half a lot more
Is part 2 the same mix?

The Henry plays aren't comedies - they're histories. However pretty much all Shakespeare's plays include some instances of comedy - even a tragedy like King Lear. I was chuckling a few times whilst watching this - obviously we all have different tastes though.

Thank you for the tip. I liked the look of the performance at the Globe they showed clips of in the Jeremy Irons program, do you know if that one is ever played on Sky? I've had a look for the dvds but I can't afford £15 for each

I think they edited out loads of bits which weren't comedy leaving the play strangely unbalanced in favour of scenes which were supposed to be funny.

I watched Macbeth the other night, the version with Patrick Stewart set in a sort of modern-day military dictatorship, and I thought it was very good. It was directed by the same person who did Richard II. I wish he'd done Henry IV too.

I don't think it was a horrible post; I just expressed my own response to Maxine in different roles. It was hardly vitriolic.

I got the scene reference for you from my copy of the complete works. Other comments are from memory.

Yes it is (with Roger Allam as Falstaff), I actually watched it last night as I recorded it on Sky+ a month or so ago. Not sure when it's next on, but look out for it in the listings, if you use Sky listings there is a search option that you can use and select record.

Not really but she did sound like Mrs Overall


We do round here




I bet Joe can't wait to get his wide centre parting.

I am really enjoying these plays

I said people would switch off in their droves, and you say they wouldn't .. Well I say they did.


my point? Ok lost prophet..: my point is people who google online before they answer a forum post but pretend they have been on mastermind before they pressed submit to the post shouldn;t mind when people who read the forum can see through it. Now, what is your point


ok dave the scot. that is a good memory.. Roll on the next part of the series.

I don't mind Shakespeare. I've read a few plays and I was even in one in sixth form college many years ago, but constant recycling and gushing about it on the BBC gets really boring. It brings all the amateur Shakespeare scholars in the audience out of the woodwork.

These films are okay. They're better than a lot of the TV adaptations, especially in how the dialogue is delivered, but what they're not is the last word in culture and neither was Shakespeare. And they're certainly not automatically better than original drama.

A funny complaint - does that make you insecure or something? If you're meaning people in this thread, surely it's good for people to discuss things - it's not much different to discussing any other TV show. Are you saying that you don't want to discuss Shakespeare with anyone who doesn't have a PhD in a Shakespeare related subject? Anyway how do you know whether someone is an 'amateur' or not - some people might have studied Shakespeare at MA level or beyond.

I don't think anyone has suggested that Shakespeare is the 'last word in culture' - there are all sorts of amazing plays and literature but it's undeniable that he's part of our national consciousness and yes, our culture. It's therefore fantastic that the BBC has given Shakespeare plays more attention after so many years.

It seems to me that foreigners appreciate Shakespeare more than the British though; I think it's such a shame how the Brits take him for granted. On the various Facebook Shakespeare pages, I'd say upwards of 70% of posts are from foreigners.

The direction in which this thread has turned is a shame. I enjoyed it during the first week as it seemed to be full of thought-provoking posts as you'd expect for a literary thread; but it seems it's now attracting people with bizarre complaints both about the series and other posters.

He wrote for his time, for working class people of the time to enjoy plays and fantasies and to escape from their lives for a while. They had to follow a lot of religious control, so watching plays about people who sinned and took revenge was a delight they could only dream about (why revenge plays became popular in the Elizabethan and Jacobean era).

17th Century version of soap operas (but better written). Nothing that you need a PhD in to understand.

This was another excellent adaptation. This whole series has been outstanding.

I don't know any of the history plays, and very little of the history behind them, but they really have come to life.

Falstaff was less annoying this week and more devious and self serving. I thought that the growth of Prince Hal to become Henry V was beautifully portrayed.

Am loving this so far, and hoping the Beeb will find the money to take us right up to Richard III, eventually.

But oh ye gods, I'd forgotten how much I loathed Falstaff when I first read these plays, and I still do!

I've just watched part two, and was in tears by the end. The Henry IV plays are almost my favourite of the plays, they seem pretty modern to me. I've always thought that Prince Hal has something of Michael Corleone about him, and his father, The Godfather. The way the people in power behave is pretty much like a bunch of gangsters.

Tom Hiddleston was terrific, and SRB a fabulous Falstaff. I saw these plays done on stage in London years ago with Michael Malony as Hal and Robert Stephens as Falstaff. That was very good, but this equalled it.

Cant't wait for next week!

Don't know if its Shakespeare or the adapation or (most likely) me being a bit slow, but I was quite confused as to what was going on tonight.
What was all the swordplay and daggers about between Pistol and Doll and what was mistress Quickly complaining about just before he arrived? It seemed she disapproved of Pistol's "sort" but I couldn't work out what he was.
Then there was the village where Shallow and Silence lived - was Falstaff press-ganging recruits? But they only seemed to actually get two and those we never saw again.
Prince John brokered a truce with the rebels and then immediatly reneigned on it - but no-one seemed to think that dishonourable or even mentioned it again.

Pistol and Doll basically just don't seem to get on, and they both have what we might now call poor impulse control. This means that fights are always likely to flare up out of nothing when they're together. You can read plenty of assault reports in local newspapers today where people like Doll and Pistol still act like this for trivial reasons; usually drink is involved.

The recruit scene was somewhat cut short. Basically Falstaff and his cronies are press-ganging recruits, as they are permitted to do. They are supposed to be taking the fittest men, but are in fact taking bribes from those who can pay not to take them, and end up largely taking the poorest quality recruits because they couldn't or wouldn't pay.

Prince John was actually rebuked by the rebels for reneging on his word, but strictly speaking he hasn't done so. He promised that their grievances would be rectified; he didn't promise that they would be pardoned for their rebellion. It's technically not a breach of his word, but it's fairly sharp practise, and I'm not sure that we're meant to approve.

Wonderful television, well done BBC, more of the same please.

Richard II seemed to me really outstanding, best production of it I have ever seen, or ever will, I am sure. Ben Whishaw absolutely superb, he WAS Richard, (my comparisons are Richardson/Pasco and Fiona Shaw), visually superb, so moving. Rupert Goold did a really excellent job.

Henry IV 1 and 2 were good, though they paled a bit in comparison, but then I have always found the London lowlife elements a bit tedious (Verdi did all this so much better). And the Shallow/Silence scenes were not as magical as I remember them.

So incredibly good actually to be able to look forward to a television programme, a VERY rare event these days.

Does anyone know how the sound was recorded for Henry IV? I felt there was something odd about it, as if the dialogue had been lip-synched in a studio. I know that that happens a lot in films, but for me it always has a surreal quality that I don't much like.

Still feel that Richard II was the standout so far.

I too felt there was something off about the sound. I thought SRB far too whispery and effeminate and difficult to hear for Falstaff.

Still think Richard the II was sublime but I am hopeful for Henry V...

I am still enjoying this series. I can't say I am a fan of Falstaff.