The Life and Death of King John

Based on the earlier anonymous play The Troublesome Raigne of King John published in 1591 and secondarily, on the 1587 edition of Holinshed's Chronicles, William Shakespeare's The Life and Death of King John (King John) is not an objective historical statement but a poetic comment on the monarchy and the moral issues it confronts. Both plays are derived form a 1538 drama by John Bale titled King Johan, one of the earliest English plays. Chronologically the first in the sequence of history plays, King John was listed by Francis Meres among Shakespeare's works in 1598 but did not appear in print until the First Folio in 1623. Though Troublesome Reign and King John are similar, one is hard pressed to find any traditional scholars willing to acknowledge that the latter King John was Shakespeare's reworking of an earlier play that he authored.

King John ruled from 1199 to his death in 1216 and is mainly remembered for having sealed the Magna Carta limiting royal powers, though that is not mentioned in the play. The work deals with the reign of King John who ascended the throne after the death of his brother Richard I known as Richard, the Lion-Hearted at a time when England had to deal with both internal disputes and French invasions sanctioned by the pope. When King John is visited by an emissary from France, demanding that he hand his throne over to his nephew Arthur whom the French King Philip believes is the rightful heir, war is threatened and is bargained over for the remainder of the play.

As depicted in the BBC-Time-Life version from 1984, King John, as portrayed by Leonard Rossiter, is weak, conniving, and thoroughly disreputable while the two strongest characters are women, Eleanor of Aquitane (Mary Morris) and Constance (Claire Bloom). A rallying point for the English cause, however, is the invented character of Philip (Richard) Faulconbridge (George Costigan), the illegitimate son of Richard I whose identity as the "bastard" is trumpeted throughout the play. His soliloquy at the end of Act II beginning "Mad world, mad kings, mad composition" is the best known speech in the play and Costigan's performance is full of energy and aliveness.

Also notable is a speech by Faulconbridge after John and the French conclude a less than noble treaty to the effect that commodity is the bias of the world. At the end, Faulconbridge becomes the true hero, the royal bastard who saves the day. King John underscores Shakespeare's preoccupation with issues of legitimacy, bastardy, and succession and one wonders what the source of the author's anxiety and hopes in this area may have been. The play argues that bastardy is a virtuous condition, and should be no barrier to the crown. He (the bastard) is a loyal subject, not a usurper and the suggestion is clear that Queen Elizabeth's successor should be named and should be a natural heir, an occurrence thwarted by the power ambitions of Robert Cecil.

'King John' is one of Shakespeare's least popular and performed (pretty rare now) plays. In a way it is understandable, with other plays of his having more clarity to their stories and characters that stick in the mind more, though John himself is interesting. That is not to say that it should be obscure, it doesn't deserve that. Enough of the story does intrigue, boasting some great moments like the dungeon scene, and it is very hard to go wrong with Shakespeare's language.

Other than reading the play, a good way of getting acquainted with 'King John' is through this BBC production if you are one of those who loves talented casts, wants to see as many Shakespeare productions as possible (with perhaps particular interest in the lesser known or not as freqently/rarely performed ones) and wants to see as much of the BBC Television Shakespeare series as can be managed. Saw 'The Life and Death of King John' for all three of those things. It is not among the best of the series, but also not among the worst and actually found it to be better than some of the series' productions of the more famous Shakespeares (i.e. 'Romeo and Juliet', 'A Midsummer Night's Dream').

'The Life and Death of King John's' biggest drawback is the production values, apart from some nice video directing. The costumes and lighting are pretty dreary for my tastes but it was the pretty cheap looking sets that fare worse, especially the outdoor scenes where a pretty poor job is done trying to make them convincing as outdoor sets. There have been more intensity at times, parts are on the static and vague side.

Do agree too that having the dungeon scene in its entirety would have given that scene here more emotional impact, it's still poignant but doesn't quite wrench the heart as much as it could have done. Did find Charles Kay slightly mannered as Philip.

However, the video directing is suitably intimate while also being opened up just the right amount. The music is a lovely touch, it fits beautifully and is great on its own too. The production does nobly in making the drama as clear and accessible as possible, not always succeeding but that's down to the play itself than the stage direction. Enough of the tension and poignancy does come through, like in the dungeon scene and the argument between John and Hubert. Can't fault Shakespeare's text of which Philip's end of Act 2 soliloquy is the highlight.

It's the cast that 'The Life and Death of King John' is most worth seeing for. Seeing Leonard Rossiter, known for comedic roles, in a dramatic role and in Shakespeare was of great interest to me, and he proved to be riveting in the title role showing John's admirable strengths as well as obvious faults. A great thing that he managed to make King John so dimensional and more complex, personally associated him when younger as rather villainous reading history books portraying him as that. George Costigan is the other standout, showing great authority in his role with ease. Steely Mary Morris, heartfelt Claire Bloom and loyal John Thaw are also very good.

Altogether, worth uncovering. 7/10

Pro: A version of the play faithful to Shakespeare's words (to the letter).

Con: Two players -- the one for Arthur and the one for Philip/Richard -- were not believable. The former had 'confused eyes' in every scene as if he did not understand what he was saying (to be fair this was the actor's only credit). The latter had awkward movements that did not match the confidence of the braggart he played. When he first appeared on screen with Robert, I had the characters mixed up, as his brother looked more like King John than he did.

If one is looking for a faithful adaption, this is it.

The Life and Death of King John (1984) (TV) is an excellent version of one of Shakespeare's lesser-known plays. The movie was directed by David Giles for the BBC.

Each of us has a favorite Shakespeare play--Othello, Hamlet, Macbeth, Henry V, etc. My guess is that if you asked a thousand people which is their favorite Shakespeare play, not one would say King John. In fact, it's probably not in anyone's top ten. However, it's still in the Shakespeare canon, so, naturally, it has moments of brilliance.

As with all of the BBC Shakespeare plays, King John has a solid cast, good costumes, and minimal scenery. Crowd scenes and battle scenes aren't included--too expensive. (Remember that they weren't included in Shakespeare's day either, for the same reason.)

So, what we see--and how much we enjoy it--depends on our understanding that this is a strong production of one of Shakespeare's lesser plays. I enjoyed the film, because to my way of thinking it's a faithful representation of what Shakespeare had in mind when he wrote it.

Leonard Rossiter does good work as King John, who always lives in the shadow of his slain brother, Richard the Lion-Hearted. Mary Morris is excellent as John's mother, Queen Elinor, who is as tough as nails. Claire Bloom gives a heart-rending portrayal of Lady Constance, mother of the true heir to the throne of England. (John is basically a usurper, but he has the crown, and will fight to keep it.)

However, for me, top acting honors go to George Costigan as Philip (called The Bastard) who is the out-of-wedlock son of Richard the Lion-Hearted. Philip not only participates in most of the important scenes of the play, but he also speaks directly to us, the audience, taking us into his confidence the way Richard III does. Costigan's Philip is handsome, brash, intelligent, and confident. King John recognizes this, and so do we.

The only direct criticism I have of the film is the shortening of a key scene. All directors cut something from Shakespeare's text, but director Giles has opted to cut parts of the dungeon scene. The dungeon scene is one of the emotional high points of the play, and we deserve to hear every word of it.

In summary, this is a solid version of one of Shakespeare's lesser plays. I recommend it because, even when Shakespeare isn't at the top of his form, his plays are still so well-written that they're worth watching.

King John--as is the case of all the BBC productions--was made for TV, so it works well on the small screen, which is how we saw it. I suggest finding it and viewing it.

The chronology places "King John" between "Midsummer Night's Dream" and "Merchant of Venice," but this play is not on that level. The quality of the writing is remarkably inconsistent compared with more familiar texts. However the BBC production gives the play a fighting chance, and it's worth exploring.

This Shakespeare series often roped in familiar faces from light television for leading roles, to broaden the viewing audience. Sometimes the stars would open the play with recognizable tics to reassure their public, and then abandon them as they gained confidence during the course of the play.

One example is John Cleese in "Taming of the Shrew," and Leonard Rossiter does it here too. After a tentative beginning, Rossiter acquits himself well by his final scene. George Costigan as Philip the Bastard also starts out fairly cluttered, and gains a welcome simplicity by the end. John Thaw is quite good as Hubert de Burgh, and Inspector Morse addicts will have trouble recognizing him.

The women disappear from the plot fairly early, but here they get the acting honors. Mary Morris is magnetic as old Queen Elinor, and Claire Bloom wrestles valiantly with the unactable part of Lady Constance.

The stylized physical production owes more than a little to the Olivier "Henry V," with a medieval manuscript illustration feel to the scenes in France. Altogether a worthy excursion off the beaten path.