Eine Mini-Serie von Adaptionen von Shakespeares Geschichtsstücken: Richard II., Henry IV. Teile 1 und 2 und Henry V.Eine Mini-Serie von Adaptionen von Shakespeares Geschichtsstücken: Richard II., Henry IV. Teile 1 und 2 und Henry V.Eine Mini-Serie von Adaptionen von Shakespeares Geschichtsstücken: Richard II., Henry IV. Teile 1 und 2 und Henry V.
- 4 BAFTA Awards gewonnen
- 7 Gewinne & 22 Nominierungen insgesamt
Folgen durchsuchen
Empfohlene Bewertungen
10slydon13
If my father was alive I think he would be giddy to see this because he enjoyed Shakespeare and WW2 movies almost equally. Few household include Shakespeare plays as everyday topics, Marc Anthony's speech when drying dishes and we were fortunate. When Shakespeare questions are asked on 'University Challenge' I find myself screaming at the confused teenagers who were not so lucky.
Granted, 'Coriolanus' was a favorite, but almost all of Shakespeare plays have blood pumping through them and deserve the full treatment of location, mud, costume and conflict so we can absorb the poetry of the script.
This production is likely to open the door to Shakespeare for people who were not given a friendly introduction. As with Opera, some experiences open a door to appreciation and understanding. (mine was the £5 ticket to Covent Garden in 1996 because you only understand what the fuss is about when experiencing a quality, live performance)
To the original audiences, the death of a king was a shocking as the JFK assassination is to us. They enjoyed the glamor, the insight and the drama inherent in power struggles, ambition, just as we do today.
Season 1 - looks at how Henry IV took power, his difficulties with his son and how his son (Henry V) adjusted. Is there anything more timeless than one generation attempting to guide and train the younger? Youthful rejection of everything offered? Recognition too late that the parent was heroic and worthy of admiration?
For some reason, the character of Sir John, penetrated my understanding more when watching this, than ever before. This is likely as a result of my deeper understand as a result of the passage of time.
Season 2 - The third generation (Henry VI) raised without paternal guidance, struggles to keep the crown. The War of the Roses leading to bloody battle. Richard III, was to say the least, ambitious.
The Hollow Crown has an excellent cast.
Granted, 'Coriolanus' was a favorite, but almost all of Shakespeare plays have blood pumping through them and deserve the full treatment of location, mud, costume and conflict so we can absorb the poetry of the script.
This production is likely to open the door to Shakespeare for people who were not given a friendly introduction. As with Opera, some experiences open a door to appreciation and understanding. (mine was the £5 ticket to Covent Garden in 1996 because you only understand what the fuss is about when experiencing a quality, live performance)
To the original audiences, the death of a king was a shocking as the JFK assassination is to us. They enjoyed the glamor, the insight and the drama inherent in power struggles, ambition, just as we do today.
Season 1 - looks at how Henry IV took power, his difficulties with his son and how his son (Henry V) adjusted. Is there anything more timeless than one generation attempting to guide and train the younger? Youthful rejection of everything offered? Recognition too late that the parent was heroic and worthy of admiration?
For some reason, the character of Sir John, penetrated my understanding more when watching this, than ever before. This is likely as a result of my deeper understand as a result of the passage of time.
Season 2 - The third generation (Henry VI) raised without paternal guidance, struggles to keep the crown. The War of the Roses leading to bloody battle. Richard III, was to say the least, ambitious.
The Hollow Crown has an excellent cast.
There's no question of the production values here, and Hiddleston is excellent. But my lord! What a dour, dismal concept! This play is one of the most playful Shakespeare ever wrote. The playfulness lies not only in the relationship between Prince Hal and Falstaff, but also Hotspur and his wife, and even some of his political speeches. (His fury in the initial confrontation with Henry IV is so exaggerated that it can be played comically).
I have never read the dialog between Hotspur and Kate as anything other than play - and indeed, one of Hotspur's better traits is this very modern relationship he maintains with his wife. But the director has unaccountably chosen to treat this interchange as a marital quarrel, as if Kate would actually threaten to break her husband's little finger. Come on.
The staging of Falstaff and Prince Hal is even worse. Shakespeare wrote some awfully good jokes for Falstaff, but you'd never know it in this version. I would not normally presume on Big Bill's intentions, but I am sure he meant Falstaff to be likable, charming, for the audience to be on his side - and Hotspur, too, for that matter. In fact, the audience is supposed to enjoy most of these characters, and be saddened by the necessity Hal feels to reject Falstaff and all the world, and the inevitability of Hotspur's defeat.
The director has the drama right, but he has lost the comedy - and that is the shame. I think it put the cycle out of balance.
I have never read the dialog between Hotspur and Kate as anything other than play - and indeed, one of Hotspur's better traits is this very modern relationship he maintains with his wife. But the director has unaccountably chosen to treat this interchange as a marital quarrel, as if Kate would actually threaten to break her husband's little finger. Come on.
The staging of Falstaff and Prince Hal is even worse. Shakespeare wrote some awfully good jokes for Falstaff, but you'd never know it in this version. I would not normally presume on Big Bill's intentions, but I am sure he meant Falstaff to be likable, charming, for the audience to be on his side - and Hotspur, too, for that matter. In fact, the audience is supposed to enjoy most of these characters, and be saddened by the necessity Hal feels to reject Falstaff and all the world, and the inevitability of Hotspur's defeat.
The director has the drama right, but he has lost the comedy - and that is the shame. I think it put the cycle out of balance.
10kaaber-2
"The Hollow Crown" is BBC's magnificent filming of the Shakespeare's second Henriad (Richard II with Henry IV's rise to power, Henry IV, parts I and II, and Henry V). I believe the first three of these have only been filmed in the old 1970s BBC series of Shakespeare's complete works, and although the old series was at its best with its version of Henry IV, "The Hollow Crown" is far above it. Simon Russell Beale is the ideal choice for Falstaff, even with Orson Welles hard on his heels in the Falstaff compilation "Chimes at Midnight", Tom Hiddleston is a great Prince Hal, and Jeremy Irons, never known to err, shines as the guilt-ridden King Henry IV.
There are some interesting comments on the bonus material for Henry IV, part II that explains why the plays come across so successfully in 2012. Thea Sharrock, director of Henry V, muses that people may be shocked at hearing the actors speak in real surroundings (on location), but of course, that's old hat. Even Olivier anticipated that in 1944 with his Henry V. Moviegoers are not that easily shocked anymore. And although Hiddelston is also mistaken in his claim that it has never been done before, he is right in stating that "Shakespeare is at its best when you speak it like you're making it up." Julie Walters adds, "You've got to speak the lines, not in a stilted isn't-the-verse-beautiful kind of way; it's got to be the way you talk"
This natural way of speaking the lines, more foreign to British Shakespeare productions than to American ones, accounts for the greatness of "The Hollow Crown".
There are some interesting comments on the bonus material for Henry IV, part II that explains why the plays come across so successfully in 2012. Thea Sharrock, director of Henry V, muses that people may be shocked at hearing the actors speak in real surroundings (on location), but of course, that's old hat. Even Olivier anticipated that in 1944 with his Henry V. Moviegoers are not that easily shocked anymore. And although Hiddelston is also mistaken in his claim that it has never been done before, he is right in stating that "Shakespeare is at its best when you speak it like you're making it up." Julie Walters adds, "You've got to speak the lines, not in a stilted isn't-the-verse-beautiful kind of way; it's got to be the way you talk"
This natural way of speaking the lines, more foreign to British Shakespeare productions than to American ones, accounts for the greatness of "The Hollow Crown".
Arguably one of the very best screen adaptations of Shakespeare ever produced. They have pulled off what many have tried and failed to do: make good cinema out of the plays. The necessary realism is there, without detracting in any way from the source material. And the acting is for the most part really superb. Hats off especially for Jeremy Irons, David Dawson, Tom Hiddleston and Ben Whishaw. The latter's Richard II far surpasses any portrayal I have seen, both onstage and onscreen.
I have enjoyed watching the first series and I am about to begin the second set with Henry VI and Edward III.
The acting is impeccable (how could it not with that cast?), the closed-captioning appreciated by a Deaf individual and the battle scenes fascinating and interesting. I am a big fan of historical costuming and valued the work that must have gone into them.
For those who are not fans of Shakespeare this series may not be for you. I did not mind the old language but it takes a bit of getting used to if you are not familiar with it.
I was disappointed to see Charles VI, King of France, wearing the Order of the Golden Fleece during Henry V. This Order was established by Philip III, Duke of Burgundy (aka Philip the Good) in 1430 to celebrate his marriage to Isabella of Portugal. Henry V and Charles VI both died in 1422, eight years before the Order's inauguration.
The acting is impeccable (how could it not with that cast?), the closed-captioning appreciated by a Deaf individual and the battle scenes fascinating and interesting. I am a big fan of historical costuming and valued the work that must have gone into them.
For those who are not fans of Shakespeare this series may not be for you. I did not mind the old language but it takes a bit of getting used to if you are not familiar with it.
I was disappointed to see Charles VI, King of France, wearing the Order of the Golden Fleece during Henry V. This Order was established by Philip III, Duke of Burgundy (aka Philip the Good) in 1430 to celebrate his marriage to Isabella of Portugal. Henry V and Charles VI both died in 1422, eight years before the Order's inauguration.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesThe second season depicts the marriage of Margaret of Anjou to Henry VI. The historical Margaret was 15 years old at the time. Sophie Okonedo was 46 when she played the role.
- PatzerExeter is played by the same actor through the series, but the Exeter in Henry V died more than 20 years before the Wars of the Roses. The Exeter during the Wars of the Roses was a different man entirely.
- VerbindungenFeatured in 20th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (2014)
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
- How many seasons does The Hollow Crown have?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsland
- Offizieller Standort
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- The Hollow Crown: The Wars Of The Roses
- Drehorte
- Produktionsfirmen
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen