La corona vacía

What makes this selection of History plays so sublime? The glorious Ben Wishaw as Richard II. The equally glorious Tom Hiddlestone as Henry V. The - again - equally glorious Jeremy Irons as Henry IV. The fantastic supporting cast - especially Simon Russell Beale and Julie Walters and Rory Kinnear....

Also, the spellbinding music, the authentic locations, the detailed costumes, the sensitive cinematography, the wonderful direction and, of course, the eternally magnificent words.

I cannot find enough superlatives to praise these sublime productions. Shakespeare's language, his vision and his political and social world, brought to life by different directors with differing approaches, but with a singular aim - to entertain an audience with the most powerful weapons available - language. For me, they succeeded. To paraphrase the words of another denizen of Shakespeare's limitless imagination, Prospero, these productions: "...are such stuff as dreams are made on;"

Thank you, whoever had the common sense to commission and nurture these productions; the best thing I have seen on my television this year. And my 19 year old daughter and 16 year old son agree - I am no wrinkled greybeard, bemoaning the loss of the golden age, but I hope to see more of these productions; stunning gems of real culture and tradition, nestled amidst the dross of reality TV programming and the glorification of idiocy that is typified by the celebrity culture in which we live.

My copy of the DVD is on order, and I cannot wait to watch these magnificent productions again. And again and again and again....

"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'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.

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.

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.