I thought that was a really excellent production. The cast were all excellent, the decisions on what to keep in and leave out were probably the right ones (though I do think the plot lost a bit in not hearing what the quarrel between Bolingbroke and Mowbray was about; that's a minor quibble though).

Yes a really excellent production and I look forward to the rest. I had never heard of Ben Wishaw and was worried he would spoil the whole thing but he was impressisve, as were the rest of a fantastic cast.

Sorry to be thick but I thought Bolingboke had settled for getting his possessions back.
Why did Richard need to stand down?

Bolingbroke is a politician. And politicians don't always tell the truth. They say one thing, and do something entirely different. So you have to make your own mind up about Bolingbroke's true intentions. Was he always after the throne? Or was it just about getting back what was his by right . And then circumstances changed so he went after the throne.

I think he was always after the throne. And he manipulated/used people to achieve that.

Yes Bolingbroke is a very ambiguous character - we had great fun discussing this in our essays!

@CarlLewis - Henry has some interesting dialogue with Prince Hal about how he got the crown in Henry IV part 2, so the whole thing might make more sense if/when you see the next couple of films.

Spoilers TLP, Spoilers!!!

Ha! Not really possible to spoil plays written hundreds of years ago and that are part of the national consciousness is it?! Anyway the point is, this is a tetralogy so certain issues are addressed more as we go on.

My interpretation was that Richard had lost too much support to carry on. Also he was basing his claim on "The divine right of kings" - that is he is on the throne as God put him there. But if he loses then that must be God's will so God must want another on the throne. We saw the same philosphy at the start with the duel - they weren't going to produce evidence or sworn depositions to determine who was traitor - God was going to make sure the Right man won!

Of course. Please excuse my flippancy.

Anyone know if it's repeated? I'd like to tape it.

It will be available on BBCi player now.

Cheers

No repeat during the week that I can find. Burning to DVD as I type.

*grrr shakes fist*

it's ok I shall wait for the official DVD compilation release with deleted scenes & commentary extras

Have watched it now - absolutely fantastic production. Beautifully shot and brilliant turns from everyone involved especially Ben Whishaw in the title role and David Suchet. I see that they decided to make Aumerle Richard's murderer in this version rather than Exton as in the text; I wonder what the rationale was behind that.

I hadn't seen the chisel-faced Tom Hughes (Aumerle) in anything before. He looks like some kind of cross between Richard Ashcroft and Benedict Cumberbatch.

He was in the first series of Silk. Am I alone in thinking that he is cast for his looks rather than his acting ability?

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?

Richard is another ambiguous character. Who knows what Shakespeare intended? Leaving it deliberately open most likely. Mark Rylance played Richard possibly even more fey at the Globe between 5 and 10 years ago. A similar story with Michael Pennington, though he played him as a particularly nasty little drama queen too, constantly spitting and hissing.

I do remember studying criticism to the effect that Richard is supposed to be effeminate to Henry's masculine warrior-like character though. Richard's very verbose and manipulative - he is also almost like a 'mother earth' character when he's on the beach after coming home from Ireland, trying to make a pact with the earth against Henry.

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.

Not sure he was gay - I took it as him being rather "other worldly" giving his favourites too much power as he was too preoccupied with his divine right to be king rather than actually getting on with the nitty gritty of ruling. Richard would have been a big contrast to the "warrior princes" his father and grandfather were and probably a bit too much like the ineffectual kings Edward II and Henry VI.

I thought the St Sebastian shot full of arrows referenced the "gay st sebastian" from Derek Jarmans film. Luckily we were spared the sight of a mincing Richard.

It was a fantastic production,certainly the best tv shakespeare i have ever seen, dare i say it possibly one of the best ever filmed shakespeares?

Agree about the Aumerle character without doubt the worst thing about it, just a poor actor.

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.

Am very much looking forward to Henry IV Part One as I studied it for O-Level, many years ago. Will be interesting to see how much I remember, although I can still quote Prince Hal's soliloquy, especially after a few drinks

I remember seeing an adaptation with Tim Pigott-Smith as Harry Hotspur - he was so good I've been a fan of his ever since

I did it for O-level too. Sky Arts channels showed a production from The Globe in April. Falstaff playing to the audience any chance he got was a great hoot. Absolutely brilliant, they've repeated it once, well worth looking out for another.

Henry IV Part 1 was one of Shakey's most popular plays. It's easy to see why. A cross between Only Fools and Horses, Star Wars (Prince Hal : A New Hope.) and Game of Thrones.

I too studied Henry IV part 1 for O level. Shall we form a club?

Not only that, but we had a school trip to Stratford to see a performance of the play. Amazing experience for me then. Roy Dotrice was Hotspur and Ian Holm was Prince Hal. I still remember it after 40 + years as being magic!