The Hollow Crown

What distinguishes these hollow crown productions from their predecessors is the crystal clarity of the text as delivered by the cast – well done everyone! It is so easy to fall into the trap of believing that the text is to be delivered as verse. Twaddle! Ideas like that permeate school English classrooms where failed actors teach gullible pupils that iambic pentameters rule. No, they do not! Furthermore, good presentation of Shakespeare is so often ruined by over enthusiasm on the part of the performers. Without wishing to name names, I saw one version of "Much Ado About Nothing" where the comedy in the text was entirely lost because the director and his cast insisted on inventing and adding their own comedy instead. It is a brave man who would want to out-do Shakespeare! The ability of these Hollow Crown productions to tell the story which leads ultimately to the "Wars of the Roses" was admirable. There was so much to say – even before the "Wars" had begun. I should probably watch them all over again….! And I think I will!

When I was at school, Shakespeare was as dry as the pages it was written on. To watch it, performed by actors who really know and understand Shakespeare, and can convey that in their work, is to enter a world of majesty, of subtle innuendo, of humour and of total understanding of the work of the Shakespeare who used his gift to allow 'the common man' to discuss and understand the goings-on and political machinations of his age. There are no 'spoilers' when it comes to Shakespeare - the work is out there in a myriad of forms and interpretations, waiting to be read. This production is one of the best available. Watch it, then read the plays. Savour the words. Go back and watch the scene performed. Truly appreciate the nuance and the masterful language of the master at work. I cannot recommend this production highly enough. From the haughty, almost effete King Richard (Ben Wishaw) through Jeremy Iron's haunted Henry IV to the masterpiece of development that is Tom Hiddleston's Prince Hal, this production brings the humanity and the grandeur of the role of King and all that conveys. Get it. Watch it. Love it.

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.

'The Hollow Crown' consisted of seven adaptations and two seasons. Season 1 (the Henriad tetralogy) featuring 'Richard II', both parts of 'Henry IV' and 'Henry V', and Season 2 (War of the Roses) 'Henry VI' parts 1 and 2 and 'Richard III'. Both seasons are well worth seeing, the former actually being a must-watch, and the series is fascinating for seeing filmed productions of Shakespeare's historical plays and on the most part very high quality ones too.

It really is a great way to get acquainted with the plays, to see how Shakespeare can be performed well and seeing the lesser known ones (ie. 'Henry VI'). In case anybody's interested too, the late 70s-early 80s BBC Television Shakespeare series, that also features all the historical plays, is worth a view. The visual quality and production values are lower but they are faithfully done, interesting, tasteful and on the most part well acted, though do prefer all 'The Hollow Crown's' versions of the plays over those in that series. Of the two seasons, Season 1 for me comes off better but there is a huge amount to admire about both seasons and all the productions.

Not everything in 'The Hollow Crown' to me worked. The St Crispins Day speech in 'Henry V' (my least favourite of the first season but still very good, 'Richard II' and both parts of 'Henry IV', especially Part 2, were outstanding though), one of Shakespeare's most powerful moments, was too anaemic and restrained when it should rouse. Some of the battles came over as under-populated and needed more intensity.

'Henry VI', both parts, is not going to appeal to all. Especially those that prefer their performances complete, as both parts are very truncated and it does at times affect the pacing and story (a bit rushed and jumpy in spots), and are not too fond of the uncompromising approach in Shakespeare. Actually liked that both parts pulled no punches and had a dark bold approach that mostly did not jar, with some powerfully brutal moments like Joan's exit but this approach was taken too far at times especially with Margaret. Just in case anybody is wondering, did like both parts on the most part very much especially Part 2 ('Richard III' though is for me by far the standout production of Season 2 and the best since 'Henry IV Part 2').

All seven productions are very well made. A lot of effort put into making the costumes and settings as evocative and detailed as possible, neither being too stark or too elaborate. The photography is often cinematic-like, expansive in places without being overblown and intimate in other places without being restricted. The music also achieves that balance, didn't find it over-scored.

Shakespeare's text, regardless of whether it's complete or truncated (the latter being the case with 'Henry VI'), has a lot of impact, most of the speeches sear with the one big exception being the St Crispins Day speech. Any comedy being genuinely funny with great comic timing (like with Falstaff, and it is not overdone or annoying) and the dramatic/tragic moments are powerful and moving (like the wordless moment with Hal on his father's throne). The series is directed in a way that doesn't come over as over-theatrical or static, much of it is tasteful and it doesn't feel too much of a filmed play. There is some great character interaction, like between Falstaff and Hal, Henry and Richard in 'Richard II' and Henry's dressing down of Hal (some tense stuff that).

Cannot say anything wrong with the performances. Standouts being Ben Whishaw's complex Richard II, Patrick Stewart's sincere Gaunt, Rory Kinnear's understated Henry, Jeremy Irons' anguished Henry IV (in a recent years role that shows how great an actor he is), Simon Russell Beale who was born for Falstaff, Tom Hiddleston's charismatic Hal/Henry V (prefer him as Hal), Melanie Thierry's touching Katherine, Sophie Okonedo's ruthless Margaret (am aware not everybody liked her casting though), Hugh Bonneville's nuanced Gloucester and Benedict Cumberbatch's machiavellian Richard III.

In a nutshell, an extremely good series and often fabulous with a few disappointments. 8/10

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.