I love the Greenaway film. I've watched it about ten times. Not just my favourite Shakespeare adaptation but one of my favourite films of all time. Every time I watch it there's something new.

There was also this animated version of The Tempest, very much abridged, but really enjoyable. I think it was done by Russian animators for the BBC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XZ091CEgNU

Just watched the Trevor Nunn programme. Some interesting background before i watch the play. I know virtually nothing about The Tempest (except that Forbidden Planet was based on it, and the phrase "Brave New World" came from it ) and hadn't realised how much it could be tied in with Shakespeare's "retirement" from writing.

Nunn was obviously quite moved when reading the Epilogue from the play on Shakespeare's memorial.

Some great programmes on recently, as well as the plays themselves.

Thanks for the mention of "Prospero's Books", Eraserhead. I'll look out for it. I'll watch the Helen Mirren version first - I was seduced by the special effects, and Ben Wishaw as Ariel.

Compared to some of Shakespeare's histories, Richard II is fairly close to history. The biggest change is probably the contraction of the time involved; in the play, Richard is just discussing the departure of Bolingbroke into exile when he gets the news that John of Gaunt is dying. In fact, there was a two year gap between Bolingbroke's exile (1397) and Gaunt's death (1399).

When you compare it to Henry VI Part 1, where we see Joan of Arc mocking the corpse of Lord Talbot, a man who actually outlived her by over 20 years, or Macbeth, which really is a travesty of what we know of the real king, it's virtually a documentary!

I really like the Henry VI trilogy. It may not attain the emotional insights of some of his later work, but you can already see the promise in it. I think these are believed to be his first full plays, and if so they're pretty good. Besides, I must admit I do like "blood and thunder" Shakespeare like the Henry VI trilogy and Titus Andronicus.

You may well be right but in general someone shouldn't watch a Shakespeare adaptation primarily to learn about history as that poster seemed to say they were doing - that was my point. I think there are some more differences between Shakespeare's Richard and the historical one too but I'd have to dig my essay out to find out - can't remember offhand now.

The first of Simon Schama's Shakespeare had Andrew Scott as Richard Duke of Gloucester, doing the soliloquy at the end of part 3 of Henry VI and it was scarily good. Could Henry VI work if it was followed by Richard III?

I've seen Henry V at the globe recently (excellent btw) and the only Shakespeare I've done before was Hamlet at GCSE and reading RIchard II and I understood it, at first I was worried I wouldn't but then it began to wash over me and I forgot they were talking in Shakespearian English

They also omitted the real reason behind the feud between Henry IV and Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk. They were part of the Lords appellant, which was a group of nobles, unhappy with Richard and how he was ruling England. When Richard's uncle Thomas of Gloucester died - each suspected the other of having murdered him, while other's believed it was Richard himself.

Richard was considered effeminate because (like someone else has mentioned) he wasn't a great warrior Prince/King like his father or grandfather. He was cultured and educated, but he became an ineffectual ruler, taxing the Nobles and Aristocracy who basically ruled his Kingdom in his name.
He may have been gay, no one has any factual sources to confirm this. Like other's have mentioned, his second wife was a child bride and the character of Richard's Queen was a mixture of his first and second wives.

I thought it was brilliant, Ben Whishaw was fantastic and in fact the whole cast was amazing - watching now and very satisfied.

Just got around to watching this and it was fantastic in every department! The acting, casting, direction, locations, etc. were all perfect. Beautifully made and totally gripping!

Richard II was a wonderful production. Thank you BBC - makes me proud of you once more!

Ben Whishaw was the stand out performance for me. He is such a brilliant actor, and I'd love to see him in a live Shakespearian play.

I loved the sets, the locations, the costumes etc., and I much prefer traditional rather than modern productions of Shakespeare (don't know if I'm alone in this).

Really looking forward to watching the rest of the plays.

I quite like the BBC collection from the 70s and 80s, lots of familiar faces pop up, Helen Mirren is in a few, as is Robert Lindsay.

There's some real surprises too - John Cleese as Petruchio in Taming of the Shrew, for instance, and excellent in the role; likewise Leonard Rossiter as King John and a young Amanda Redman in Pericles.

I've just ordered it on DVD. Sadly it is blighted by the presence of Russell Brand (In my opinion of course). But Helem Mirren is magnificent and Ben Whishaw is just WOW!

The Henry VI Trilogy and Richard III are considered part of a tetralogy in the same way Richard II, Henry IV part I and II and Henry V are grouped together as they cover a period of history. Given how well received the Hollow Crown has been received, it wouldn't surprise me if those four plays are commisioned for 2014 to commerate Shakespeare's 450th Birthday. I'd like to see a Roman trilogy but that'd probably be too expensive to produce.

There's nothing that Russell Brand is ever in that wouldn't be improved by virtually anyone else being in it instead

One of the most startlingly talentless people I've ever seen make a living in the entertainment business

(in my opinion, of course)

enjoyed reading your post, thanks for that, i thought the play was super and all the actors were great, ben whishaw and rory kinnear were especially brilliant but then they were the leads. all of the actors were great and the production overall very well made.
does dave the scot have a link for the claim about j of arc talking over talbot's corpse?
Last edited by Lime Kiln : 07-07-2012 at 02:16

I take it this is late due to the tennis.

As much as I want to watch this, they could hardly cut away from the last set of a final were a brit could win for the first time in 76 years. It will only be 10/20 minutes late.

I bet the BBC were pretty pleased on both accounts!

Won't be shown this evening. Woman's doubles on next.

Now it may be on.

They are not sure.

I am so f****** angry!

Apparently they might show it tonight and they might not!

Its bad they have scheduled this at this time,seems to be confusion about if it will or wont be shown,pretty poor really.

I think the BBC is going to have to take that new roof into account in future - they clearly haven't thought it was going to make any change to the usual running.

Not good enough! Tell us what's happening!

I agreed with postponing because of the men's doubles match, but we don't need to see the women's.