Far, Far Too Violent


Jesus, I put this on at the end of a long Monday. Difficult to have dinner while everyone on the screen is either spitting up blood, rattling in death throes, or having their heads fall in queen's laps. (That last was just too much.)

Very disappointed in this episode. The only one who didn't have the vapors or be changeable as a weather-vane was the woman. The only characters truly complex were Henry (Tom Sturridge *owned* the screen in every scene) and Gloucester (no one does wretched like old Cumberbatch).

The previews suggest there's even more artistic license in Richard III than in the first two productions; and I hope there is, because--no one does wretched like Cumberbatch.

Someone cast Kyle Soller in the next Jane Austen remake, fast.  Live, fellow American, live!

reply

Maybe you should have a word with the author.

reply

Whoa! Can you say pithy comeback, or what. Authors do not produce productions. Producing production is a product of... Help me here.

reply

I agree about the violence in the second episode. The battle scenes are fine, but the depictions of post-battle "war crimes" was overblown. It's a good point to make that the Wars of the Roses were very bitter and personal, cousins fighting each other. But, a little goes a long way.

You don't need to over dramatize Shakespeare.

reply

It's a good point to make that the Wars of the Roses were very bitter and personal, cousins fighting each other.


The intervals of gore allowed my ears, a twenty-first-century, American-English speaker, to stop "translating" Elizabethan dialogue and follow the complicated story and the shifting and re-shifting alliances. Kyle Soller's death scene in particular...oh, nelly, does that let you know that Clifford is go-o-one. But Henry VI, Part 1 wasn't lacking in violence, and I was able to distinguish and appreciate each member of the political factions. Interestingly, Hugh Bonneville's death takes place in the shadows and with minimal torture. Gloucester's murder is no less memorable for the restraint.

reply

I completely agree, I really enjoyed Richard II through Henry V, but the violence was so over the top in the Henry VI episodes. I would venture to say most people who normally enjoy Shakespeare felt the same way we do, but the Hollow Crown team is probably hoping to appeal to people who watch Game of Thrones and that sort of thing...

reply

I'll say this: a month ago, mid-December, I thought I had a nice peaceful January to look forward to, after "The Hollow Crown," with the conclusion of the BBC's "Sherlock." Violence is in the eye of the beholder to a certain extent, but "Sherlock" was almost obscene with gratuitous emotional violence. I guess popular entertain reflects the society that produces it, and even though I've never seen a single episode of "Game of Thrones," I have to agree that butchery, cruelty, and mockery seem to be the latest BBC fashion.

God bless "Poldark" and (perhaps) "Victoria."

reply

I guess they had Martin Freeman do the intro about how terrific "The Final Problem" script is because otherwise we wouldn't know. The script is, in fact, so convoluted and ridiculous, so sensational in the worst sense of the word,
that I'm embarrassed for these fine actors. The mad sister locked away who escapes to wreak havoc on the family? Charlotte Bronte is doing high-fives with bony fingers.

I don't mind the violence. It's consistent with Moriarty's character -- it's what he does to the world. But for Sherlock to fall for Eurus' 'deals' several times -- to believe that she's going to keep her word when he solves the puzzles she assigns him-- is not consistent with Sherlock's character, even if she is his sister.

I get that this is about family and friendship, and I get that we're supposed to see a side of Sherlock that's been previously hidden, but what's revealed to us is just not convincing, or it's too abrupt: they should have given us several more episodes showing his character changing. Really, the scene at the end with Sherlock and John, crime-fighting duo, bursting through the flames like an inverse Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid!

The first "Sherlock" episodes are fine at developing the characters and riffing on the relationship between Sherlock and Dr. Watson. And I love the jokes in the later episodes about John's blog -- ties in so well with the whole philosophical questions of 'is this how it really happened or is it just a description of how it happened' and 'once you describe it, does that change the event itself,' and moreover, 'how can we really know anything, anyway, filtered as everything is by our own faulty perceptions and interpreted via our crummy childhood baggage'?

Okay, I officially no longer know what I'm talking about. But, really, the whole blog thing ties in so well with the current lament about how the press has re-configured our reality.

I also love the wry comments in the face of danger like the Lady Bracknell cracks (you guys ever see the old black-and-white "Avengers" episode where John Steed, blindfolded, facing a firing squad, and asked if he has any last words, says "Please cancel my milk"?)

But most of what we get in these last "Sherlocks"? Bah! BAH! I say.

Oops. I just remembered this isn't the "Sherlock" board. So sorry. I promise to write a legitimate "Hollow Crown" post soon and explain how all that stuff about how nasty Richard III was, actually came from a 'tell-all' the Duke of Buckingham wrote after Richard told him he was "not in the giving vein."

reply