The War Of The Roses Henry VI Part I starts tonight at 9pm on BBC 2.
The Hollow Crown (BBC, Shakespeare)
16 of 17
Im really enjoying this. I didnt realise there were previous episodes from years back. Im going to see if I can access them.
However I cant pretend I know what they're saying most of the time. I hope Im getting the gist.
However I cant pretend I know what they're saying most of the time. I hope Im getting the gist.
Originally Posted by anyonefortennis:
“Hugh Bonneville, the man of the moment.”
“Hugh Bonneville, the man of the moment.”
Just cant take him seriously any more
Originally Posted by Amethyzt:
“
Just cant take him seriously any more”
“
Just cant take him seriously any more”
Me neither. He's not very good in this either.
Originally Posted by anyonefortennis:
“Me neither. He's not very good in this either.”
“Me neither. He's not very good in this either.”
His role was short lived.
I missed the first half but got totally mesmerised watching the rest of it.
Fantastic. Thoroughly enjoyed it.!
Fantastic. Thoroughly enjoyed it.!
Originally Posted by tiacat:
“Im really enjoying this. I didnt realise there were previous episodes from years back. Im going to see if I can access them.”
“Im really enjoying this. I didnt realise there were previous episodes from years back. Im going to see if I can access them.”
They've just been repeated on BBC4 over about the past week. Henry V starring Tom Hiddleston is on there as we speak! Ben Whishaw's Richard II was brilliant too.
Bah! I got a phone call just at the part of Mortimer's death and I've only just come off the phone. I'll have to watch it tomorrow.
I thought it was excellent from what I've seen of it so far. I loved the white and red roses on the White Cliffs of Dover, and the settings looked lovely too.
I thought it was excellent from what I've seen of it so far. I loved the white and red roses on the White Cliffs of Dover, and the settings looked lovely too.
Originally Posted by the_lostprophet:
“They've just been repeated on BBC4 over about the past week. Henry V starring Tom Hiddleston is on there as we speak! Ben Whishaw's Richard II was brilliant too.”
“They've just been repeated on BBC4 over about the past week. Henry V starring Tom Hiddleston is on there as we speak! Ben Whishaw's Richard II was brilliant too.”
I need to catch up with Henry VI Part 1 one soon!
*Oops, quoted myself for some reason.*
Originally Posted by the_lostprophet:
“They've just been repeated on BBC4 over about the past week. Henry V starring Tom Hiddleston is on there as we speak! Ben Whishaw's Richard II was brilliant too.”
“They've just been repeated on BBC4 over about the past week. Henry V starring Tom Hiddleston is on there as we speak! Ben Whishaw's Richard II was brilliant too.”
I didn't know it was being repeated, but I have the box set so may watch again. Agree about Ben Whishaw - outstanding.
I was totally gripped this evening, and don't mind paying a licence fee when we get this quality of programmes. Sophie Okonedo was superb. Thought the ending, with Richard appearing, was so ominous. Really looking forward to next week.
For all the quality of Sophie Okonedo's acting, I just didn't feel she convinced as a teenage bride.
I know Shakespeare plays fast and loose with the historical timelines - but Margaret is very young at this point in the narrative.
They have a younger actor playing Cecily, Duchess of York who later transforms into Judi Dench for the final episode (Richard III) - so why not go down a similar route for Margaret?
I think audiences can buy into having different actors playing the same character at different points through their lives.
Okonedo will be amazing at the later Margaret - I just felt she is too old to play someone aged between 15 and early 20s (as she is supposed to be in the first part)
She is a really talented actor - and may get away with the role on stage, but in close up, her face just shows too much maturity.
I know Shakespeare plays fast and loose with the historical timelines - but Margaret is very young at this point in the narrative.
They have a younger actor playing Cecily, Duchess of York who later transforms into Judi Dench for the final episode (Richard III) - so why not go down a similar route for Margaret?
I think audiences can buy into having different actors playing the same character at different points through their lives.
Okonedo will be amazing at the later Margaret - I just felt she is too old to play someone aged between 15 and early 20s (as she is supposed to be in the first part)
She is a really talented actor - and may get away with the role on stage, but in close up, her face just shows too much maturity.
The black Margaret didn't work for me on any level. She was 15 when she married Henry VI, not 47, and she certainly wasn't black.
That aside, I thought it was an incredibly good production. Absolutely brilliant and gripping!
That aside, I thought it was an incredibly good production. Absolutely brilliant and gripping!
Originally Posted by mounty:
“"Thanks uncle Winchester"
yeah that's really how medieval kings talked”
“"Thanks uncle Winchester"
yeah that's really how medieval kings talked”
It's how Shakespeare thought they talked.
Missed the first episode but recorded the second. Dipped in while it was still playing live and nearly didn't bother because I thought it sounded silly. Decided to give it a go and was strangely transfixed and watched it through to the end. Surely there wouldn't really have been a Sophie Okenodo at that time though, which was a bit odd.
Mesmerising. I took a while to tune in with the language, but the performances made it fairly easy. Cumberbatch was excellent as Richard III - the full on baddy speaches to camera were wonderful.
Must have been grim to live then !
Must have been grim to live then !
I dipped into this to avoid the worst bits of Eurovision. I don't know much of this part of history so will have to read up on it, I didn't know Queen Margarette was black.
I did like how some scenes were filmed to highlight just how much modern TV/Movies have been influenced by Shakespearem be it directly or indirectly. From Game Of Thrones and Lord Of The Rings to House of Cards.
In all I found it stunning TV.
In all I found it stunning TV.
Originally Posted by wolfpaw:
“It's how Shakespeare thought they talked.”
“It's how Shakespeare thought they talked.”
It's not so much that, as that he was writing in verse form and needed lines that both scanned well and conveyed the information clearly. Imitating genuine speech patterns wasn't particularly the point of any of it. There seems to be an odd tendency to ignore the implications of the fact that he was essentially writing poetry in dramatic form - he wasn't attempting the kind of realism that some people seem to be expecting from it.
Originally Posted by barbeler:
“Missed the first episode but recorded the second. Dipped in while it was still playing live and nearly didn't bother because I thought it sounded silly. Decided to give it a go and was strangely transfixed and watched it through to the end. Surely there wouldn't really have been a Sophie Okenodo at that time though, which was a bit odd.”
“Missed the first episode but recorded the second. Dipped in while it was still playing live and nearly didn't bother because I thought it sounded silly. Decided to give it a go and was strangely transfixed and watched it through to the end. Surely there wouldn't really have been a Sophie Okenodo at that time though, which was a bit odd.”
There wouldn't, but then, none of the people involved actually spoke in blank or rhyming verses either. The plays aren't realist history as such, in the sense of being a painstaking attempt at recreating the past accurately in every detail. They're more literature based on history. David Oyelowo played Henry VI for the RSC on stage in 2001 too, so it's not as though it's a new development. The parts have been played around the world by people of all kinds of races and origins, and indeed, when the plays were first staged, the female characters would all have been played by men. The actors are simply representing and interpreting the roles.
Anyway, the future Richard III was still only about 8 years old when most of this play was set. He was 8 when his father was killed, in 1460, and still only 8 when his brother became Edward IV early the following year, even though this play had him actually taking part in the battle where that happened and killing someone in the same process. There's no evidence either that he had any direct involvement in the deaths of Henry VI or his son - who was killed in battle, rather than afterwards, much as Richard of York (Adrian Dunbar's character) was. So you could also argue that it was just as ahistorical to have him be depicted as an adult any time before the last section of the play. I understand that Margaret of Anjou also appears in Richard III's own play, during his reign of 1483 - 1485, even though the real one actually died in 1482, and hadn't even been in England since 1475. It's pointless looking for strict historical accuracy in Shakespeare, that's never what they were about.
Originally Posted by Maq_Qam:
“It's not so much that, as that he was writing in verse form and needed lines that both scanned well and conveyed the information clearly. Imitating genuine speech patterns wasn't particularly the point of any of it. There seems to be an odd tendency to ignore the implications of the fact that he was essentially writing poetry in dramatic form - he wasn't attempting the kind of realism that some people seem to be expecting from it.
There wouldn't, but then, none of the people involved actually spoke in blank or rhyming verses either. The plays aren't realist history as such, in the sense of being a painstaking attempt at recreating the past accurately in every detail. They're more literature based on history. David Oyelowo played Henry VI for the RSC on stage in 2001 too, so it's not as though it's a new development. The parts have been played around the world by people of all kinds of races and origins, and indeed, when the plays were first staged, the female characters would all have been played by men. The actors are simply representing and interpreting the roles.
Anyway, the future Richard III was still only about 8 years old when most of this play was set. He was 8 when his father was killed, in 1460, and still only 8 when his brother became Edward IV early the following year, even though this play had him actually taking part in the battle where that happened and killing someone in the same process. There's no evidence either that he had any direct involvement in the deaths of Henry VI or his son - who was killed in battle, rather than afterwards, much as Richard of York (Adrian Dunbar's character) was. So you could also argue that it was just as ahistorical to have him be depicted as an adult any time before the last section of the play. I understand that Margaret of Anjou also appears in Richard III's own play, during his reign of 1483 - 1485, even though the real one actually died in 1482, and hadn't even been in England since 1475. It's pointless looking for strict historical accuracy in Shakespeare, that's never what they were about.”
“It's not so much that, as that he was writing in verse form and needed lines that both scanned well and conveyed the information clearly. Imitating genuine speech patterns wasn't particularly the point of any of it. There seems to be an odd tendency to ignore the implications of the fact that he was essentially writing poetry in dramatic form - he wasn't attempting the kind of realism that some people seem to be expecting from it.
There wouldn't, but then, none of the people involved actually spoke in blank or rhyming verses either. The plays aren't realist history as such, in the sense of being a painstaking attempt at recreating the past accurately in every detail. They're more literature based on history. David Oyelowo played Henry VI for the RSC on stage in 2001 too, so it's not as though it's a new development. The parts have been played around the world by people of all kinds of races and origins, and indeed, when the plays were first staged, the female characters would all have been played by men. The actors are simply representing and interpreting the roles.
Anyway, the future Richard III was still only about 8 years old when most of this play was set. He was 8 when his father was killed, in 1460, and still only 8 when his brother became Edward IV early the following year, even though this play had him actually taking part in the battle where that happened and killing someone in the same process. There's no evidence either that he had any direct involvement in the deaths of Henry VI or his son - who was killed in battle, rather than afterwards, much as Richard of York (Adrian Dunbar's character) was. So you could also argue that it was just as ahistorical to have him be depicted as an adult any time before the last section of the play. I understand that Margaret of Anjou also appears in Richard III's own play, during his reign of 1483 - 1485, even though the real one actually died in 1482, and hadn't even been in England since 1475. It's pointless looking for strict historical accuracy in Shakespeare, that's never what they were about.”
I know most of Shakespeare's historical plays were his own version of history & I thought the acting & production was very good, but I'm afraid I gave up half way through episode 2 as I just found the severed head count too high & the goriness too much to watch.
Sophie Okenado is a terrific actress, but I'm not sure she's convincing at the beginning as a French teenager !
I know life was like that in Medieval times, but it was just too graphic. A shame really .
Originally Posted by curmy:
“I know most of Shakespeare's historical plays were his own version of history & I thought the acting & production was very good, but I'm afraid I gave up half way through episode 2 as I just found the severed head count too high & the goriness too much to watch.
Sophie Okenado is a terrific actress, but I'm not sure she's convincing at the beginning as a French teenager !
I know life was like that in Medieval times, but it was just too graphic. A shame really .”
“I know most of Shakespeare's historical plays were his own version of history & I thought the acting & production was very good, but I'm afraid I gave up half way through episode 2 as I just found the severed head count too high & the goriness too much to watch.
Sophie Okenado is a terrific actress, but I'm not sure she's convincing at the beginning as a French teenager !
I know life was like that in Medieval times, but it was just too graphic. A shame really .”
Some of it was quite sadistic.
I really enjoyed it though.
I felt sorry for King Henry,. King Edward seemed largely ineffective. Queen Margaret was a nasty piece of work.
Richard was a a real psychopath.
Quote:
“Richard was a a real psychopath”
“Richard was a a real psychopath”
Don't tell the Richard 111 society that, they'll have your guts for garters
Originally Posted by valkay:
“I dipped into this to avoid the worst bits of Eurovision. I don't know much of this part of history so will have to read up on it, I didn't know Queen Margarette was black.”
“I dipped into this to avoid the worst bits of Eurovision. I don't know much of this part of history so will have to read up on it, I didn't know Queen Margarette was black.
”
Didn't work, did it, especially when they then dragged out her 'son' who wasn't mixed race at all. I rolled my eyes and I doubt I was the only one.
Why go to the effort of trying to create a simulacrum of the 15th century, with its armour, weapons, castles, towns, horses, etc. etc. and then have a black Margaret of Anjou??
It might work within the artificial setting of the Globe or in modernised adaptations, but it doesn't work in film and TV productions where verisimilitude to the period is apparently a major priority.
16 of 17
