The Life and Death of King John

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.

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.

I'm glad I watched this. It is a good production of a neglected (and in my opinion unjustly so) play. Leonard Rossiter gives a magnificent performance in the title role. There are, as well as him, many other very good performances (notably Claire Bloom as Constance and John Thaw as Hubert). The film however was very obviously filmed entirely indoors and does not attempt to hide the fact. Due to this, the supposedly outdoor sets are very bad, some of it unnecessary. For some reason, when the scene is in France they painted Fleur-de-Lys in the sky and the town walls of Angiers look like what you'd expect from a children's playground. However in spite of this I enjoyed it very much. It has excellent acting, quite good costumes (though again, some of this looks a little stagy) some nice Medieval music and good directing.

Overall 8/10.

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 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.