The Hollow Crown

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

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.

"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".

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!