Seen any good films lately? [3]

{{I just rewatched the BBC's Shakespeare series The Hollow Crown again before the second one comes out later this summer.
The first set consisted of Richard II, Henry IV prts1 & 2 and Henry V.
Thing is I had never seen them befoe in order, in quick succession- one reason for this is Henry IV 1 and 2 are not often adapted for tv or the screen- and there is a good reason for that- they are the middle of the story

But its Henry V that most benefits from watching all the others, as it makes Henry a much more dubious character- in fact I would go as far as to say that noble Henry betrays all the working class people he caroused with in his youth.

In short I strongly recommend watching, if not all four of this first set, then certainly Henry IV pt 1 to Henry V- Richard II is a little separate and more self contained (but its my favourite version of it so far- though Tennats turn was good too Wishart edges for me- but from the first Henry play on Shakespeare is writing a continuing series- watching Henry V without seeing Henry IV is like watching a films final third without seeing the first two. And I never fully appreciated that until now.}}}}






{{Its like Game of Thrones, only, you know, done well and written by the greatest writer who has ever lived}}}}

doesn't have Dragons though, does it.

I think Mrs Figg has just distilled theatrical criticism to its essential component.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

{{Its like Game of Thrones, only, you know, done well and written by the greatest writer who has ever lived}}}}

BS comment when you haven't bothered to read the books.

halfwise wrote:I think Mrs Figg has just distilled theatrical criticism to its essential component.

#IfIeverhaveanotherdistilledtheatricalcriticismlikethatyoucan'punchmeintheface'.

BS comment when you haven't bothered to read the books. - Ringo

{{Dont have to I was comparing the tv show to the tv version of Richard II, Henry IV pt 1, 2 and Henry V- and I have tried to watch the tv Game of Thrones- and in my view Shakespeare pisses all over it}}}

To be fair though, just about anything pisses all over GoTs writing-wise.

{{{{{I cant say as I have any really gripe with the writing standard on GoT's- it just didn't appeal to me from the start; the setting, characters, pacing, subject matter- just doest appeal to me at all. But I love the characters in the Henry plays, even, if not especially the secondary ones who Shakespeare gives so much humanity and depth too in such a short space- but then that is one of his many strengths as a writer.}}}}

Well, that's because you haven't watched the current seasons.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:BS comment when you haven't bothered to read the books. - Ringo

{{Dont have to I was comparing the tv show to the tv version of Richard II, Henry IV pt 1, 2 and Henry V- and I have tried to watch the tv Game of Thrones- and in my view Shakespeare pisses all over it}}}

You made a comparison between the two and mentioned the greatest writer of all time, which in your view is Shakespeare - seeing as Shakespeare himself didn't write this show, the comparison falls flat in my opinion. I agree that HBO's GoT has taken a turn or ten for the worse since season 1, but the books are something else entirely. I'm not saying I think GRRM is the greatest writer of all time, but I'm not the only one who thinks the man can write. Maybe I read too much into your comment, I just thought it was a bit unfair to imply that GoT is a shitty show because the books were written by a shitty writer.

{{{{I wouldnt make the comparison witht he books for the very good reason you pointed out Ringdrotten- I haven't read them, so I only have the tv series to go on and the fact I have read or heard somewhere on here that it was partly inspired by the real War of the Roses- the period of Shakespeare plays the Hollow Crown series encompasses are Shakespeares version of the War of the Roses (and about as accurate to events probably as fantasy anyway knowing ole Shaky who was never one to let mere facts get in the way of telling the story right) so GoT seemed an apt comparison to make to me in terms of style- a complex plot following several different family lines and lots of politics double crossing, bloody deaths and occasional outbreaks of battles and civil war, the small dig at the difference in writing quality was merely because I'm a crabbit bastard and can't help myself, but you should know that by now surely?}}}}

its not even fair to compare GOT the show with Shakespeare plays on tv. GOT is purely mainstream entertainment, Shakespeare plays are a quite different genre, its like comparing apples and oranges.

Pettytyrant101 wrote: a complex plot following several different family lines and lots of politics double crossing, bloody deaths and occasional outbreaks of battles and civil war

A pretty accurate description of GoT, I'd say Call it a crabbit-on-crabbit collision then, and let's leave it at that

its not even fair to compare GOT the show with Shakespeare plays on tv. GOT is purely mainstream entertainment, Shakespeare plays are a quite different genre, its like comparing apples and oranges.- Figg

{{I don't think so- we add all that to Shakespeare now- but when he wrote them he was a theatre owner trying to get bums on seats against stiff competition. What he came up with was to make an epic saga spanning several plays telling the generational story of the English crown from Henry's seizure of it from Richard through to the War of the Roses as its climatic finale- its everything GoT is, admittedly without the dragons, but everything else- family lines, nobles, castles, battles, double dealings and double crossings, court intrigue, sex and violence- its populist stuff in its day intended to appeal as much to the masses as the educated. I don think there is too bg a gulf between the two in terms of purpose or target audience- its just Shakespeare was Shakespeare too so he had an advantage of being a genius}}}


crabbit-on-crabbit collision- Ringdrotten

{{I like that! There are so many occasions I could use that as an explanation of events!}}}

it may have been populist stuff that Shakespeare wrote but it was also dangerous subversive political stuff, that had to be heavily disguised otherwise Elizabeth could have had his head chopped off. I doubt D&D have the same problem apart from disgruntled ex-fans. so yeah, you cant compare it.

{{Its certainly true those are a particularly dangerous set of plays to do- especially Richard II as its main premise is the current heirs ancestor seizing the throne from a rightfully appointed King, and they believed God did the appointing. Uncomfortable, and dangerous stuff. It could be seen as calling Elizabeth's family lines right to rule into question- and doing it right in front of her and her entire court (if I had a TARDIS thats a performance I'd go back and see!).
But I dont think he was in danger from Elizabeth- she kept him on after all, she called for the performances, and she was incredibly well read and educated- and we know she was quite deviant when it came to certain laws of the land- horoscopes were illegal, yet one of her closest confidants was John Dee, who was a well known magician, amongst his many other notable skills and we know read her horoscope many times for her.
I think she probably rather liked it when Shakespeare pushed the envelope of acceptability and stirred up and offended her court and hangers on.
And I'm sure plenty in court probably did call for his head on a few occasions}}

-------

http://www.hobbitmovieforum.com/viewtopic.forum?t=1307