MovieChat Forums > The Hollow Crown (2013) Discussion > 3 Great Plays = 2 Bad Television Films

3 Great Plays = 2 Bad Television Films


The decision to present the three Henry VI plays in two productions was a terrible one in my opinion. All three of these plays are stirring and dramatic. Each on a gem in it's own right.

I respected the BBC's decision to present the entire cannon, almost unedited, in the 1970s and 1980s.

To someone who is unfamiliar with the original plays these productions would be great. But the more one knows and loves Shakespeare, the less well editing becomes tolerated.

They editted some of the best dialogue from Gloucester's monologue from Henry VI, Part III:

I’ll drown more sailors that the mermaid shall;
I’ll slay more gazers than the basilisk;
I’ll play the orator as well as Nestor,
Deceive more slily than Ulysses could,
And, like a Sinon, take another Troy.
I can add colours to the chameleon,
Change shapes with Proteus for advantages,
And set the murderous Machiavel to school.

Henry VI, Part III, Act III, Scene 2


I've lived upon the edge of chance for 20 years or more...
Del Rio's Song

reply

Two bad productions? Mymymy.

I’ll drown more sailors that the mermaid shall;
I’ll slay more gazers than the basilisk;
I’ll play the orator as well as Nestor,
Deceive more slily than Ulysses could,
And, like a Sinon, take another Troy.
I can add colours to the chameleon,
Change shapes with Proteus for advantages,
And set the murderous Machiavel to school.


Yes, this certainly would have given Sir Cumberbatch the chance to be even more wretched.

reply

Two bad productions? Mymymy.


Bait for clicks, bait for clicks. I was hoping you would tell me your opinion. I'll expand upon my own.

I am a Shakespeare fanatic. I watch because of Shakespeare not because I watch a lot of television productions. That's where I'm coming from. So I hate edited Shakespeare. The least scene or portion of a scene from any of those three plays is 24 carat, tried and true. I notice almost all of what's cut out and miss it.

The producer had an option; Shakespeare could support the television productions, or the television productions could support Shakespeare. They choose to make what are admittedly great television productions based on Shakespeare, not great Shakespeare produced on television.

In the 1970s and 80s the BBC spared no cost cutting measure to bring us the entire cannon of Shakespeare's plays almost completely unedited to the screen. I still think Derek Jacobi's Hamlet is the best I've ever seen. He beats Branaugh, Gibson, and Olivier. It was great Shakespeare. It all was.

The television productions as television productions, I rate objectively at 9.5, but I always round up on a ten star scale, or its a 10 in that regard.

The Shakespeare is 7 of 10. How do I justify "Bad?" When you start with Shakespeare you have the potential to be a 10 every time. To my mind, cutting those lines of Gloucester's dialog I quoted was a craptacular editorial decision of the first magnitude. The inclusion of those lines would have been well worth the extra feet of film. The spectacle of the television production was awesome to behold. But they could have done a lot more good Shakespeare by sparing some of the spectacle. It was too obviously profit driven and a lot a great Shakespeare sacrificed to an attempt at mass appeal.

I feel the net benefit and social value would have been much greater if they had made this a four episode season and done each play in the Henry VI triad as a stand alone production. Shakespeare doesn't need the BBC to alter his work this much in an attempt at mass appeal. He already has as many fans as a major religion has nominal adherents. TV was presented in all it's glory.

When Shakespeare is presented in less than his full glory I fear some will decide it's not great enough to bother pursuing an interest in. (Wow, I had fun writing this post.)

But that's just what I think. Cheers,  and 'ave a nice day.

I've lived upon the edge of chance for 20 years or more...
Del Rio's Song

reply

You're right. I mean, I know you're right. It's just that I want more Americans to watch both years/seasons/series/can't-we-just-agree-on-a-term, me coves ? I got so hyped when Richard II premiered here because it was pluperfectly (pluperfectly, I say) clear that the producers were charitably bending over backward to draw what at best is a tech-obsessed younger generation, and at worst a horribly untutored generation (at least in the States) into the fold of cultural decency. The impulse behind the series is tremendously ethical and humane.

So I'm like our egalitarian lover of all mankind, Thomas Jefferson, having a debate between my heart and my head about the liberties the producers have taken. "The Hollow Crown" has brought the history plays alive in a way that takes one's breath away. At the same time, it accommodates the less "book-learned" among the audience it aims for.

For entirely personal reasons (the history plays being the only Shakespeare I ever really liked), I wish like you that this series had at least another year, if not two more. It's so great seeing virtually every current living British actor of renown act his heart out.

Well...almost every. Damian Lewis had to be satisfied with playing Henry VIII, at some remove. 

Benedict Cumberbatch was so fantastic this past week, and reached such highs and lows with relatively restricted dialogue, that I imagine the grand finale will be emotionally exhausting. Ben Whishaw, Hugh Bonneville, and Tom Sturridge weren't pikers, though, in the emotional exhaustion department. (And as an American, I really have to applaud Kyle Soller. How intimidating to be an American surrounded by the creme de la creme.)

Why can't television be like this every night.

reply

It's just that I want more Americans to watch both years


Yes, I want everyone in the English speaking world, which is growing fast to consume this and all the filmed Shakespeare they can. I also want them to see him on the stage. The more popularity, the more great Shakespearean talent develops.

horribly untutored generation (at least in the States)


Well it's bad, but let me tell you a secret. Europe is just as bad. They only pretend like they aren't because they deny high school to the lowest performing students and track them into trades. It makes their numbers look good compared to ours but all those poor performers damn sure don't benefit over there from four years less education than we are all offered.

For entirely personal reasons (the history plays being the only Shakespeare I ever really liked), I wish like you that this series had at least another year, if not two more.


Yeah, I felt the same way. I couldn't believe they aren't doing The Tragic Life and Death of King John. (You do know that's Prince John, from Robin Hood, right?) The Bastard is one of Shakespeare's best received characters.

BASTARD
Brother, take you my land, I’ll take my chance.
Your face hath got five hundred pound a year,
Yet sell your face for five pence and ‘tis dear.
Madam, I’ll follow you unto death.

QUEEN ELINOR
Nay, I would have you go before me thither.

BASTARD
Our country manners give our betters way.

-- The Tragic Life and Death of King John,Act I, Scene 1

Rich.

I also knew they planned on making Henry VIII and making the Henry VI triad into two productions. I thought at the time it would be better to go with three Henry VI productions and omit Henry VIII. I love the whole cannon but feel that this and Timon of Athens are his weakest plays. Henry VIII was a collaboration, only half Shakespeare, and has significant inferior dialog from the other fellow.

that I imagine the grand finale will be emotionally exhausting.


What? Is Richard III a two part production. That help with the Henry VI triad decision if so. I have only watched 30 minutes of season 2, episode 3. Is there an episode 4? Never mind. I surf the net. I hate watching a production that a two installment story and not know in advance.

Thanks.

I've lived upon the edge of chance for 20 years or more...
Del Rio's Song

reply

If he's been knighted then he's Sir Benedict.

reply

Sir Cumberbatch
??? Benedict Cumberbatch only has a CBE, and besides, anyone who does have a knighthood is referred to as "Sir [firstname] [lastname]" or "Sir [firstname]," never "Sir [lastname]."

reply

Quite right. And I haven't such wretchedly bad acting in a long time. English acting seems to have reverted to the '40s. And the director couldn't tell the story. I seem to think they were following an earlier version of what they're calling The Hollow Crown done on TV in, I think, the '60s. The Cumberbatch person was unbearably bad; like the worst excesses of Wolfit.

reply

Quite right. And I haven't such wretchedly bad acting in a long time. English acting seems to have reverted to the '40s. And the director couldn't tell the story. I seem to think they were following an earlier version of what they're calling The Hollow Crown done on TV in, I think, the '60s. The Cumberbatch person was unbearably bad; like the worst excesses of Wolfit.
i don't blame the actors, but the concept, or its execution. The same concept produced Chimes At Midnight, but that was in the execution, centering around the great character of Falstaff and the intuitive direction by Welles.
These plays have no such great character. Richard is a great concept of a character, but there's no soul in him. The BBC production in '83 got it exactly right, with a great rep cast working a deeply thought-out production in which every aspect built upon another. In that one, Ron Cook's quietly poisonous Richard was simply the last step into the abyss; not an at last a big star turn but a seamless transition.
The battle scenes looked like they were shot by a second unit to a set length of footage.
And who in hell thought to make Margaret into Mother Courage at the end? She was as villainous as anyone--in '83 she was a cackling madwoman.

reply

Richard is a great concept of a character, but there's no soul in him.


Yes, I agree. Last night, I finished the thirty minutes PBS eliminated from the episode and was impressed by Judi Dench's confrontation scene. Otherwise, you're right--this episode played out as a bad revenge play.

In that one, Ron Cook's quietly poisonous Richard was simply the last step into the abyss; not an at last a big star turn but a seamless transition.


You're right again. The longer the episode continued, the less convincing Benedict Cumberbatch became, until--

And who in hell thought to make Margaret into Mother Courage at the end? She was as villainous as anyone--in '83 she was a cackling madwoman.


The most over-the-top production choice was the God Shot and Hieronymus Bosch-style tableau, with Margaret in the middle of it.

This was such a disappointing episode with which to end the series.


reply