Television programmes [2]

I found the Hollow Crown pretty boring, badly acted and bleak in a bad way. When I compare it to the vibrant and beautiful visual feast that is Thrones, I have to say it Wins that particular Game hands down.

{{Badly acted? Really? It has a cast list that reads like a role call of the greatest British actors of our time, and they have dialogue by the greatest British writer of all time- I thought Wishart in particular was a revelation as Richard II and I am so looking forward to seeing Cumberbum do Ricard III, plus you have Patrick Stewart, Michael Gambon, Judi Dench, Tom Hiddleston, Jeremy Irons, Julie Walters, Hugh Bonneville, Philip Glennister, David Suchet, James Purefoy,  Geoffrey Palmer, John Hurt, Ben Miles and just about anyone of any note from tv, film and theatre in the UK.
Have you watched the first episode of the current series? The direction and style is markedly different I would say, most likely because unlike the first four they did which all had different directors and production teams and were made separately, these ones are all by the same director and team and planned and shot like a normal tv series- its on the iplayer right now if you haven't seen it yet (still not got any dragons in it though) }}}

I watched Henry VI. bloddy hell they were trying their hardest to copy GOT but it failed miserably. A sex scene???  all that mud and badly lit interiors???? the dude who played Henry was a numpty. Sophie Ompalumpa was stilted and unconvincing and why was she Black other than political correctness. She was supposed to be French. boy it was dreary and dull.

{{There is a sex scene in the plays, more than one in fact (and unlike GOT its neither exploitive of the actress, nor there for added titillation, as its service is entirely to the plot (and history in this case) and it doest feature any actual nudity). And most battles of that time period took place in mud, or what quickly became mud. Brannagh does something similar in his Henry V. And um, there were black people in France, and Britain, long before this time period. I liked her a lot in the role, I thought she got the balance right between manipulative and scheming and clever and cunning. Plus it not odder than Brannagh casting Denzel Washington and Keannu Reeves as brothers and Italian in Much Ado About Nothing. Don't remember anyone complaining about that.}}}

First there is NOT a sex scene in Henry VI. Second her bad acting just reminded me that she should have been French not West Indian, third I have seen many adaptations of Shakespeare some thrilling and utterly real for a 500 year old play, this was not one of them. it was crap.

further, sex scenes in GOT do not exploit the actress, as that is insulting to their intelligence, it infers they do not have control over their own bodies or what happens to them. when in reality they know exactly what they are getting themselves into and they are not forced to do nude scenes. so keep your digs at GOT to the factual please.

{{{It might be off stage but thats because- 1 they would have got arrested for staging it, and 2 the women were played by males.
If you are making Shakespeare now for a modern audience there is no reason not to show what Shakespeare could only imply (the death of Joan of Arc is offstage too, but I also think its right to put that scene on screen too as another example, and just as I think that of you adapt Tolkien you really have to do Boromirs death on screen and not off page as in the book as well-in the medium of film more than most you have to show where possible, not tell), and its certainly not done gratuitously in any way- I also thought they got the balance of the relationship very well, its too easy for it to portrayed as purely lustful, here there is a genuine underlying affection to it too.
As to it being crap, I couldn't disagree more. I watch a lot of Shakespeare and for me personally the Hollow Crown series as produced definitive versions of Richard II and now Henry VI pt 1.
And it seems many others rate it as well, it has received very good reviews so far.
ps the actress is Nigerian- if you are gong to be prejudiced about casting a coloured actor n the role at least get the target right- but I will leave the directors words on her casting-

“Well, in the theatre we’ve been doing this for donkeys years....I think Sophie is the best person in this country to play that part, I really do. Her visceral power and range is so extraordinary - that’s what I was really looking for....It might be surprising for TV audiences to adjust to the idea that what they are watching is a myth, right. So it’s the best actor and I know from the theatre that that works and I’ve done it many, many times...I don’t think that you can do a piece of work that is about who we are as a society and just have white people doing it...I hope that she is so brilliant in the part that that will be the thing people talk about in the end."

Shame here the colour of her skin seems to be the talking point.

ps you can be paid and agree to something and yet still be exploited- see most of the lower working class}}}

the sex scene in Henry VI was there for pure titillation because they know sex sells, end of story. its disingenuous to state otherwise.

Nigerian or whatever, she did unconvincing school play acting. She is flavour of the month so they bunged her in whether she fit the role or not.

'the sex scene in Henry VI was there for pure titillation because they know sex sells'- Figg

{{Its there because it happens (all be to offstage) in the play being adapted- if it was for 'pure titillation' it would have featured some tits and general nudity. Its purpose in the plot is very clear and crucial to events.

' She is flavour of the month'

In what way? How? I haven't seen her in anything since Who and that was 6 years ago. according to Wiki she has barely done any tv at all in recent years bar a few small appearances in some shows, a Who BF, and a voice over. So I don't understand the criticisms or what you are getting at. }}}

{{{I've uploaded Henry VI pt1 to my online drive for those who have access- you will find it in the documents folder yo can watch it streaming or download it, saves you US hobbits waiting on it to turn up on PBS as it inevitably will.
Despite Figg's seeming strong dislike of everything about it personally I don't think there is a more watchable, entertaining version of Henry VI out there, or if there is I ever never found it.}}}

good luck, it was dismal. and totally unconvincing.

''Theatrical purists may throw their hands up in horror at the hundreds of lines of Shakespearean verse left littered on the cutting floor, at the mashing together of characters to create a simple narrative, at the unnecessary modernisation of syntax and vocabulary. .'' Telegraph

''neither the storytelling nor the poetry was really gripping. In consequence, the mind did tend to wander....Or take Bonneville, who never lost the harassed look he wore from the first scene. He raged, he growled, he worked his way through the gamut of Shakespearean emotions as if he was miming them in a silent movie.
But he forgot to overact in one scene, when he was reading from a scroll — and then he sounded like Lord Grantham, scanning a letter over breakfast in Downton Abbey.

Such idle musing is a bad sign during Shakespeare. It’s not exactly boredom, more a fretful feeling that the play isn’t as good as it ought to be. '' Daily Mail

{{Talk about cherry picking out of context!!    You forgot to mention the Telegraph review you took that from gave it 4 out of 5 stars and that part in context reads-

'Theatrical purists may throw their hands up in horror at the hundreds of lines of Shakespearean verse left littered on the cutting floor, at the mashing together of characters to create a simple narrative, at the unnecessary modernisation of syntax and vocabulary. It’s a difficult balance: yes, it’s important for Shakespeare to win over younger spectators, but the last time I looked he wasn’t struggling to find an audience.
What Cooke captures is the scope, the daring and the savage headlong rush of the poet’s imagination, and that’s not to be scoffed at.'

You also mysteriously left out the bit about the woman whose performance you so derided-

'Keep your eye on Okonedo as the series progresses. Margaret of Anjou was a woman out of her time, and Okonedo’s turn as a sexy, go-getting, bitch-slapping political player was, alongside Miles’s Somerset, the stand-out performance of the film.'

And Daily Mail doesn't like Shakespeare- well no surprise there they hate the BBC with a passion- but I am guessing from the fact you had to turn to the Mail and try to find the single negative in the Telegraphs very positive review of it that you were struggling to find bad reviews of it.

I would dearly love to know Figg which version of Henry VI pt 1 you believe is superior to it? I'd very much like to see it.

But its there to watch for anyone who wants to make their own mind up to do so.}}}

as per usual to resort to snidery when someone has the audacity to disagree with you. Why does it bother you so much that I found it lacklustre? its not as if I love Shakespeare less because I don't particularly like this sub-par Game of Thrones version.

{{Its got nothing to do with it bothering me you don't like it- its the manner in which you are doing it I object to- using misleading quotes for example, or complaining that the Queen is black yet making no comparative complaint that Joan of Arc is from Yorkshire or somewhere, claiming its badly acted when it has a cast of some of the finest UK actors of a generation in it of stage and screen- I can understand not likening the style, or the direction, or the lighting or even the treatment (though I think the treatment is necessary- there's a reason the three Henry VI plays are hardly ever put on and everyone skips to Richard III) but the complaints you have made just seem odd, spurious, offensive, or misleading, as in the case of the telegraph review.

But I could equally ask why it seems to bother you so much I liked them and recommend them to others that you have gone to such degrees to try to say how terrible they are instead? Why not just let people watch it themselves and make their own mind up if they like it or not?

Personally I just thought it was a very good slice of Shakespeare, worth watching, and worth putting up on here what I thought of it and as a recommendation for others who might be interested.
I think you just didn't like me comparing it unfavourably with GoT and have decided to hate at it since because of that. Which is a shame as I am clearly not the only person to have reviewed it and noted the similarities in style to the tv GoT and obviously also in content, given both pieces are inspired by the same historical events.}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{Its got nothing to do with it bothering me you don't like it- its the manner in which you are doing it I object to- using misleading quotes for example,

those quotes highlighted the points I disliked, hardly misleading. The manner of my criticism is besides the point, you just don't accept my opinion.

or complaining that the Queen is black

I complained the queen was Black because I found it discordant. Margaret was a White Frenchwoman, is it too much to ask they hire someone who looks as if she could possibly be a queen of medieval France? for fucks sake. All this modern fashion for 'mixing it up just for the sake of novelty or pc credentials gets my goat. Its not the same thing as innovation, that's completely different. But don't put words in my mouth and try to say that I wouldn't accept a Black actor in a traditionally White role, because I would if it felt justified or interesting or fresh.


yet making no comparative complaint that Joan of Arc is from Yorkshire or somewhere, claiming its badly acted when it has a cast of some of the finest UK actors of a generation in it of stage and screen-

that's my opinion, I didn't like the performances of at least 5 of the main characters in Henry VI, the other plays may be better, I am judging only Henry VI.

I can understand not likening the style, or the direction, or the lighting or even the treatment (though I think the treatment is necessary- there's a reason the three Henry VI plays are hardly ever put on and everyone skips to Richard III) but the complaints you have made just seem odd, spurious, offensive, or misleading, as in the case of the telegraph review.

Spurious? Offensive? I think its you being spurious and offensive. actually. its spurious and offensive to have an opinion? well fuck that.

But I could equally ask why it seems to bother you so much I liked them and recommend them to others that you have gone to such degrees to try to say how terrible they are instead? Why not just let people watch it themselves and make their own mind up if they like it or not?

indeed

Personally I just thought it was a very good slice of Shakespeare, worth watching, and worth putting up on here what I thought of it and as a recommendation for others who might be interested.

exactly its your personal opinion, let others make their own minds up.

I think you just didn't like me comparing it unfavourably with GoT and have decided to hate at it since because of that.

 I cant even.  


Which is a shame as I am clearly not the only person to have reviewed it and noted the similarities in style to the tv GoT and obviously also in content, given both pieces are inspired by the same historical events.}}

Figgout.

{{I am adding Richard II to the uploads on my drive, same folder - I really like Wishart in this, a great performance. I think you will like it better Figg, especially visually, remind you of your youth. If you don't have access to my drive already you can always ask, or in this case you can watch it here}}

https://vimeo.com/channels/551513/58737725

{{{What?! I was being thoughtful Last time I try that }}}

Looks interesting.

Patrick Stewart as John of Gaunt was superb.

{{{yup he is really good in it- but then when is he not, ok admittedly he was outshone by a couple of things in Lifeforce (and I'm not including his toupee in that)- but apart from that he is always amazing, and that's a good a version of a famous speech as you'll hear I reckon Glad you are enjoying this one more Figg as I don't have the energy today to fight with you about it! }}

what! a Scotshobbit not wanting fisticuffs?

{{{{ah well Figg, maybe its the buckie, maybe its the unexpected spring heat baking my brain, maybe its one too many ghosts, but sometimes, just sometimes, its nice to agree with you about something

Of course that said I wonder if we shall agree on the rest of that series.

I always feel with Henry IV 1 and 2 it all largely comes down to how much you like Falstaff and how well he is played. The whole thing rather hinges on liking the old rascal.
In this version I do, though I found some of he choices of what they cut particularly questionable in these ones, but even so I did enjoy this Falstaff more than many.

And then there is Hiddleston as Henry jnr who will go on to be Henry V. And I like him too. He works really well as the young reckless, drinking, bawdy house dwelling, pulling drunken pranks and generally living the hell out of life with no responsibility or cares Henry.
But (I bet you knew that was coming) then there is Henry V- which also has some questionable choices in how its cut in my view, but the big but is, I just don't buy Hiddleston as King Henry. He's great as young boisterous Henry but I just don't see enough change in performance or demeanour from one stage to the other, and I don't think the treatment either, especially when they've made them all together like this, deals with the betrayal of all those he once called friend as King well enough, or with enough emotional power.
So whilst I would recommend Henry IV I cant really recommend Henry V over other versions of it.

I will be interested to see what you make of them}}}

flipping heck! I heard about the Scottish heatwave. 25 degrees! weird. that must be the only time in 500 years.

{{{Just watched the Hollow Crown Henry VI part 2- wow That was so packed yet easy to follow. The skill with which Shakespeare has you booing and hissing for some folk and wishing they would get there's, then holding back a lump in your throat for the every same people half an hour later is quite something. And this delivers on that sort of stuff all over the shop.
But besides the plot- where the crown changes sides more often than an American football team does players yet never loses you- and all the excellent dialogue, the thing that will really be remembered here I feel is Benedict Cumberbums wonderful Richard. Its everything you want Richard to be, and here you see it grow from the young man into the full on psycho, and all with a gleeful twinkle in the eye that is quite unnerving when he is stabbing someone to death, or worse refusing to put a wounded enemy out of their misery but going off, looking back to twinkle and smile at them as he goes, whilst leaving them to die in agony.
I simply can wait for Richard to step into the centre stage in Richard III, he steals the show here when he is, for most of it a bit player in the plot not coming into full light and fruition until the very end. And he steals every scene he is in.
There is one thing that struck me as odd though, well one scene-given how much these have been abridged I was surprised this was in, well half of it anyway.
You see during one of the big battles King Henry, who isn't fighting but skulking about the edges hiding and being horrified at everything, sees a man who is looting the corpse of an enemy he just killed, only to discover its his own father, fighting for the other side in the civil war who he has unknowingly just killed, and attempted to rob the corpse of.
Its a nice touch, and a simple yet emotional way to convey the civil war nature of things, brother against brother, father against son ect.
Problem is Shakespeare lays it on a bit thick, and just next to this fellow as an old guy who is doing the same, and likewise discovers they killed a loved one. And both their laments form equal halves of the lamentation and comment on the situation. Which is just the sort of clever arsed, pretentious sort of thing young writers think if doing, forgetting hat what your audience is actually doing is thinking "Come off it, one yeah but whats the chances of two of them right next to each other? We get the point!"
I am very surprised they didn't cut one out, its an error I doubt Shakespeare would have made later in his career with more confidence and experience.

Anyway another cracking version of some tricky Shakespeare plays to do (which is why they tend not to get done very often). Oh and if you need your fix of battles, chopped limbs, decapitated heads on spikes ect you will certainly get it here. The ketchup budget is quite high for this one. }}}