1,064 posts
|
Post by David J on May 8, 2016 18:34:58 GMT
I've just watched the first episode, and generally it is good.
It squeezes Parts 1 and 2 into one, ending with York declaring his claim to the throne
Sadly Jack Cade has gone, and Joan of Arc and Talbot are woefully underused (and I think Phillip Glennister would be perfect for the role)
I hope we get to see Ben Miles and Samuel West get their ultimate comeuppance as Somerset and the Bishop of Winchester. Such weasely, deceiving characters.
There's some great performances from Hugh Bonneville, Sophoe Okonedo, Adrian Dunbar, Sally Hawkins, Anton Lesser, and Stanley Townsend as the main players in this power vacuum.
I don't know what to think about Tom Sturridge as Henry VI. He certainly shows weakness, and he gives a different performance to the childlike Chuk Iwuji, Graham Butler, and Alex Waldmann. Instead he is an uncharismatic Henry VI, and I hope that's just his interpretation. I just hope he shows more than that in the second episode
|
|
7,251 posts
|
Post by Jon on May 8, 2016 18:49:14 GMT
Henry VI is Shakespeare's weakest play, I'm glad they've compressed it to two parts,
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by David J on May 8, 2016 19:00:23 GMT
I agree, but when its done well it can be a thrilling bloodfest.
If only HBO had done this series
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2016 19:08:50 GMT
I dispute the idea that ANY of the Henry VIs are weak, there is a lot going for all three of them. I would at least argue that Henry VIII is significantly weaker than the weakest of the Henry VIs, and I've no idea how anyone can look at three separate plays and apply the blanket statement that "Henry VI is Shakespeare's weakest play". At least put an S on the end, acknowledge the three separate parts even if the likes of John Barton, Trevor Nunn, and Dominic Cooke don't see the need to.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on May 8, 2016 23:07:55 GMT
For me, it is very much a mixed bag.
I thought the restructuring of the script worked really well. Part 1 recast as the Tragedy of Duke Humphrey made real sense of the material.
The design and filming were pretty spot on (though the rose garden scene just looked too fake and I wasn't convinced by Margaret's see-through pointy hat)
There are some casting decisions that did take me out of action. Why does Cecily get to be played by 2 actors but Margaret only one?
Sophie Okonedo is a fine actor - but she is just too old to convince as Part 1 Margaret (who should be late teens/early 20s at this point in the narrative) - on stage, she might well have got away with it, but in TV HD close-up, she is just too mature. Not her fault, but if they can split Cecily without confusing the audience, they could have done the same with Margaret.
I have seen online comment from people who objected to casting an actor of colour as Margaret, that didn't bother me in the slightest. I just felt the character was not best served by being played in Part 1 by an actor 30 years older than the part. Having Okonedo take over for parts 2 and 3 would have been preferable. At least to me!
|
|
276 posts
|
Post by emsworthian on May 9, 2016 6:28:31 GMT
Regarding Sophie Okonedo being too old, I saw the Peter Hall/John Barton version on TV in the 60s and the part was played by Dame Peggy Ashcroft when she was 56! (Admittedly those were the days before HD TV) I remember Margaret being more of an ingénue in the early scenes whereas in this version she appears scheming from the start. That could be the way the play(s) have been abridged.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on May 9, 2016 8:37:55 GMT
The 1960s version was a stage-to-screen adaptation using an existing theatrical version - and audiences were far more accepting of things then. (Plus you couldn't use Google to look up salient details as you went along)
Okonedo could well be a very successful stage Margaret - I don't doubt the quality of her acting. It is just in the 'realistic' setting that the TV adaptations are striving for, she stands out as looking too mature for her role.
I guess it is the inconsistency of approach between Margaret and Cecily that I find frustrating. If audiences are going to cope with one changing actor between parts, I am sure they could cope with two.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2016 9:38:22 GMT
I always liked in the first series of The Hollow Crown how they had Tom Hughes playing Aumerle in Richard II then Paterson Joseph playing York in Henry V. I know it's not immediately obvious (or even that important?), but they are the same character, so it's not like the casting people don't have form with ridiculous inconsistency of casting multiple actors in a single role. Very careless of them.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on May 9, 2016 13:57:23 GMT
I always liked in the first series of The Hollow Crown how they had Tom Hughes playing Aumerle in Richard II then Paterson Joseph playing York in Henry V. I know it's not immediately obvious (or even that important?), but they are the same character, so it's not like the casting people don't have form with ridiculous inconsistency of casting multiple actors in a single role. Very careless of them. Oh I've not clicked to that before, I am going to say because he's Aumerle in Richard II and I forget that by Henry V he's succeeded to the title. I didn't enjoy this as much as the original three but I fancy it might be a grower for me and the plays are quite bitty in parts so probably harder to pull them all together as a cohesive whole than the later plays perhaps. As before it's a bit of a who's who or casting which is always nice though as mentioned above it's a shame when you lose lots of someone like Talbot leaving a strong actor with little to do but on the whole it seems to have gone done well which is good I think, my mother said she could only watch about 50% as she was worried about blood shed but since she started off by saying she couldn't watch any of them due to the shape of Benedict's Cumberbatch's nose it did quite well to win her over! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2016 20:44:14 GMT
Just watched this weeks - almost made me wish I didn't know the plays so I could be shocked by the twist at the end! OMG!! He's Richard III's dad!!! |
|
5,716 posts
|
Post by lynette on May 10, 2016 21:04:37 GMT
Sophie Okenedo is impressive. This is one hell of a part for her or any actress. She will have ( hope it hasn't been edited out) one of the best speeches in all of Shakespeare. And what about that Anton Lesser, eh? He adorns with sheer skill any scene he is in and I loved the way the director used his face to be a kind of silent commentary on the action. These were Shakespeare's first plays as far as we know and were v successful.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on May 10, 2016 21:58:45 GMT
Sophie Okenedo is impressive. This is one hell of a part for her or any actress. She will have ( hope it hasn't been edited out) one of the best speeches in all of Shakespeare. And what about that Anton Lesser, eh? He adorns with sheer skill any scene he is in and I loved the way the director used his face to be a kind of silent commentary on the action. These were Shakespeare's first plays as far as we know and were v successful. I agree Sophie Okenedo was very strong and I felt every so safe (in the best sense) whenever Anton Lesser came on screen as with not enormous amounts to do he appeared an endless presence and yes 'silent commentary' is a good way of describing it Lynette. |
|
193 posts
|
Post by demelza on May 13, 2016 1:19:30 GMT
On a whole I enjoyed it (historical inaccuracies aside) but I have to say that I'm not terribly keen on Tom Sturridge as Henry VI (I wanted to like him, I really did) or Adrian Dunbar as Richard, Duke of York.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2016 19:48:43 GMT
Taped this, got to watch it. Sophie Okonedo in it is the biggest draw for me!
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on May 13, 2016 21:41:43 GMT
Taped this, got to watch it. Sophie Okonedo in it is the biggest draw for me! Was just doing catch up on Undercover and there was a bit which made me think 'oh she's going to be great when she gets to real violence, fury, anguish parts of Margaret, but she was very good george22 mostly pre that in first episode. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2016 21:58:53 GMT
Taped this, got to watch it. Sophie Okonedo in it is the biggest draw for me! Was just doing catch up on Undercover and there was a bit which made me think 'oh she's going to be great when she gets to real violence, fury, anguish parts of Margaret, but she was very good george22 mostly pre that in first episode. Oh my goodness, she is blooming amazing in Undercover. Best thing in tv at the moment, we need Sophie Okoendo back on the London stage now! |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on May 14, 2016 17:31:39 GMT
Was just doing catch up on Undercover and there was a bit which made me think 'oh she's going to be great when she gets to real violence, fury, anguish parts of Margaret, but she was very good george22 mostly pre that in first episode. Oh my goodness, she is blooming amazing in Undercover. Best thing in tv at the moment, we need Sophie Okoendo back on the London stage now! Yep! |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on May 15, 2016 20:40:35 GMT
Part of the fun of watching this is playing who can you spot and then wondering down a theatre reminisce, somewhat thrown when part way through in one of the brief moments when she wasn't hiding behind her hands (gore fest) my mother said 'Is that Geoffrey Streatfeild?'. I'm pretty sure he doesn't turn up on Gardeners World or A Question of Sport so how his name has reached my mother's ears is beyond me. No mention made of the wrongness of Benedict Cumberbatch's nose so he must have been doing something right.
|
|
862 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on May 15, 2016 21:41:18 GMT
peggs, your comments are priceless, keep us posted! )) Personally extremely pleased to see Geoffrey Streatfeild in this (you might say I have a soft spot for him) - he hardly does any decent TV or film.. More pleasure to catch him in theare  |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on May 15, 2016 21:53:13 GMT
peggs, your comments are priceless, keep us posted! )) Personally extremely pleased to see Geoffrey Streatfeild in this (you might say I have a soft spot for him) - he hardly does any decent TV or film.. More pleasure to catch him in theare You are too kind but in truth it is my mother who has no idea how amusing she can be. Very pleased to see Geoffrey Streatfeild too, sadly absent from screen though yes does mean he's on stage rather often which is lovely. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2016 7:28:14 GMT
Is she a Spooks fan? I remember tuning in for the last series (and not having a clue what was going on!) because Streatfeild joined the cast.
|
|
862 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on May 16, 2016 8:44:25 GMT
Baemax, I did the same for Geoffrey (having no clue what was before Series 10) but it should have been more of him anyway ) I managed to enjoy it even - Lara Pulver was great, loved her character.
Sorry for off topic 
As I'm on it, I gotta say I'm loving the series more than the first one back in 2012. Shakespearean's hystory plays in particular often make me wanna take a short nap until the next important scene but this sort of distilled version (lots of action/text cut out) is the one to enjoy throughout. Some stunning shots too, the most memorable being Plantagent brothers reflected in the gleaming blade of a sword. Benedict C doing a fab job as Richard to me taste. He's deadly evil with his mind as much bright as it's twisted, yet he's a lot of fun and somehow compelling.. He makes you understand his pain and deep-seated anger. I found myself rooting for him unconsciously.. Isn't that weird? A wonderfully stange mixture of feelings that lingers on. Also loved the way his speeches are delivered - straight on to the camera in almost stage-like fashion. Really draws you in. |
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by David J on May 16, 2016 12:07:27 GMT
He's deadly evil with his mind as much bright as it's twisted, yet he's a lot of fun and somehow compelling.. He makes you understand his pain and deep-seated anger. I found myself rooting for him unconsciously.. Isn't that weird? A wonderfully stange mixture of feelings that lingers on. Also loved the way his speeches are delivered - straight on to the camera in almost stage-like fashion. Really draws you in.
That's the Machiavellian anti-hero drawing you in there After writing three plays of endless carnage and deaths, Shakespeare has taken a leaf out of Marlowe's book and created a character that repulses and delights you at the same time. Just that alone marks the difference in quality between Henry VI and Richard III. I don't recall any other character speaking directly to the camera up until now in these two episodes. You can almost sense Shakespeare suddenly upping his game as Cumberbatch turns to the camera for the first time, as if to say "now the real sh*t can start, motherf**ckers" And I must say I've only liked Cumberbatch's work up until now, but just the last 15 minutes of him up close has me quaking for more. Just his facial work alone looks deformed and villainous |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2016 12:37:28 GMT
Just his facial work alone looks deformed and villainous Keep up, David J, Peggs's mum has been remarking upon his nose for over a week now, since its first appearance. |
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by David J on May 16, 2016 13:45:43 GMT
Yeah...I meant the expressiveness of his face
|
|
