tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1868457521565839495.post4817281819554056026..comments2023-04-09T05:18:40.905-07:00Comments on BlakesBlog - Reflections on Theater, Opera and Music: The Hollow Crown IIPastor S. Blake Duncanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01450359908151707153noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1868457521565839495.post-58590929543738511282017-01-02T21:29:32.044-08:002017-01-02T21:29:32.044-08:00What great points...and lol about Falstaff ;)
I&...What great points...and lol about Falstaff ;) <br /><br />I'm so glad to have reread this and now to also have gone back to the earlier post as well on HC 1. <br /><br />And YES (!!!) how could I forget--again, maybe I subconsciously *wanted* to forget?--that they cut the conspiracy scene with Scroop & co in HV!!! You're right, that's at least as problematic as the interpretive choices of the other crucial speeches, as it has very clear ramifications! Not to mention it is one of the most powerful scenes in the play. I was starting to get choked up again as I just went back to reread that scene, inspired by this post, and of course, here again, I can't help but hear Branagh's exquisite delivery:<br /><br />"Thou that didst bear the key of all my counsels,<br />That knewest the very bottom of my soul,<br />That (almost) mightst have coined me into gold,<br />Wouldst thou have practiced on me for thy use--<br />May it be possible that foreign hire<br />Could out of thee extract one spark of evil<br />That might annoy my finger? 'Tis so strange<br />That, though the truth of it stands off as gross<br />As black and white, my eye will scarcely see it..."<br /><br />At least one other stage version I've seen has also cut it all out. So many seem to think it dispensable. <br /><br />As to Olivier...yes, it makes sense why certain cuts were made (I didn't know that about Churchill! ) I've not gone back to his HV which I saw as a teen, after the Branagh comparison. I admire Olivier so much, in many things, and when he was really, really *on* (e.g. his very different-from-BC but delightfully juicy RIII, or his Lord Marchmain in Brideshead R miniseries) he was brilliant; but I was not hugely crazy about his Henry as I recall...and I try to forget his Othello in many respects. (Perhaps that is sacrilege to try and forget it in terms of Shakespeare film history...but...)<br /><br />Also, I'm intrigued by the father-son dynamic in HIV 1/2...I need to go back and revisit the part 2...<br /><br />Thanks for the Mirren/Taymor Tempest recommendation! Great!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15485594062701938172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1868457521565839495.post-61573651547077685332017-01-02T18:27:54.194-08:002017-01-02T18:27:54.194-08:00Rachel, thanks for your insightful comments. Have...Rachel, thanks for your insightful comments. Have you followed the link above and read my review from several years ago of HC I? If you do you will see that I also really liked the Richard II and Ben Wishaw. It was I think excellent, though as I say in my review I had a major problem with the revision to the narrative at the end of the play. Have you seen the Helen Mirran / Julie Taymor "Tempest" with Wishaw as Ariel? It is terrific! She is amazing as Prospera, so much so that I wish Shakespeare had written it that way. And the way they do all the CGI with Ariel is pretty cool. Highly recommended.<br /><br />I won't repeat everything I put in that other review. I really liked the Henry IV also with a few caveats. But I really hated the Henry V and I completely agree with your comments about the speeches. Frankly, I have never seen a production of this play that is better than the Branagh film. He is the definitive H5. But my biggest complaint is the cutting of the conspiracy scene. That is enough to insure I never watch that version again. That scene is essential for a whole variety of reasons - and having seen HC2 now to that list you can add the fact that one of the conspirators who is executed is the father of Richard of York and this comes up from time to time, but if you are watching this series straight through you won't know what they are talking about. Poor, poor, poor choice on the part of the director. They also cut that scene in the Olivier version, but the motivation is quite well known. The film was done during the dark days of the war as a way of lifting the spirits and inspiring troops and citizens. In that context it makes sense to eliminate that rather negative scene - it was left out at the request of Winston Churchill! But there is no such motivation here and no excuse IMHO. <br /><br />I have seen Henry VI several times. The first time was a live stream from a Globe production a couple years ago. They toured all the famous battlefields of the Wars of Roses and performed the plays - uncut as far as I could tell. I was able to watch them all. And it was raining at Barnet Battlefield that day! The last production I saw was in Chicago as part of a two part piece they called Tug of War. They did Edward III, Henry V and Henry Vi, part 1 and then 3 months later they did Henry VI parts 2 and 3 and Richard 3. I have reviewed it below on my blog. Edward 3 was really interesting and it has many parallels to Henry V which they brought out - during the Harfleur speech for example as Henry makes his violent speech, Edward III (his grandfather) echoes his words from a similar speech at Crecy. It was amazing. I liked this HC Henry VI, but I do regret that they chose not to do it complete. In addition to most of the French stuff they also left out the Jack Cade rebellion, which is too bad also (read what I said about that below). Actually The Chicago production focused on much of the material that was cut from HC and vice versa, since Tug of War focused on war making and power lust.<br /><br />Lastly I'll say that I much prefer this Richard III to Olivier which is set in a kind of fantasy middle ages. I suppose that was vogue back then, but I prefer the more realistic medieval setting. Which is what I liked best about the Henry IV plays from HC I. Especially the Eastcheap scenes - very well done and the characters were much more wretched than usual. HC gave us a real Falstaff and not a fake medieval Santa Claus Falstaff (who shakes as he laughs like a bowl full of jelly) which I like so much more.Pastor S. Blake Duncanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450359908151707153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1868457521565839495.post-57459335284197184752017-01-02T16:36:12.490-08:002017-01-02T16:36:12.490-08:00Fantastic review, Blake!! I'll have to come ba...Fantastic review, Blake!! I'll have to come back and read it a second time later, as it is rich with detail and food for thought. I also loved this second series so much! Sophie Okonedo was, I agree, the "glue" as you say...or as my family says, "the rug that holds the room together" (one of our many movie references ;) ). She was absolutely mesmerizing, and what the adaptation did with her character was absolutely brilliant. <br /><br />It was also, for me, a fantastic way of seeing the Henry VIs for the first time. (That trilogy being one of the few Shakespeares that I have not seen/read.) I thought the 2 VIs were fast-paced, clear, dramatic, and suspenseful, with fantastic acting and characterization. Similarly, with Richard III, I thought it was an amazing ensemble.<br /><br />In the first series, I must say the only one I was crazy about was Richard II, and I was blown away by Ben Wishaw. As much as I love Tom Hiddleston, I was frustrated with the director for some of the choices in Henry IV and V (although Henry IV,1 is one of my favorite Shakespeares). Henry V was, I agree, the weakest. (I try not to compare to Branagh, but really, it is difficult not to...) and perhaps the two moments I was most frustrated with were the way two of Henry's great speeches were done: Harfleurs (why is he making the speech AFTER he has virtually taken it over already? wasn't the whole point of his threatening to rape, pillage, etc, that he was making a last desperate effort, and basically trying to sound like he was more ruthless than he really was? In the Hiddles version, there really is no excuse for his rather terrible words at that point. At least, that's my memory...I've tried to forget those particular moments ;) ). And as to St Crispin's Day, well, again, it's so difficult not to compare it to Branagh, with the glorious Patrick Doyle score, but in the Hollow Crown series the rousing speech was done, well, not so rousingly...sometimes as I recall he even seemed to be almost "whispering" or talking in a voice as though he was in a room with a few compatriots. It just didn't quite work, I thought...<br /><br />But those things aside, the whole series is really quite a marvel, especially RII and then the HVIs and RIII. Just awesome. Again, thanks for these comments and I look forward to rereading this later. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15485594062701938172noreply@blogger.com