English
7.4
2012
USA
A series of British television films featuring William Shakespeare's History Plays.
Overview
Reviews
CinemaSerf wrote:Henry IV, Part 1: I think sometimes when us Brits moan about the BBC licence fee we are apt to forget that following in the tradition of the excellent "I Claudius" and "Elizabeth R" it can produce some of the finest drama to be seen on the small or the big screen. This is the first part of the comical drama depicting the start of the latter stages of the reign of England's King Henry IV (Jeremy Irons) largely from the perspective of his wastrel son "Hal" (Tim Hiddleston), his sidekick "Poins" (David Dawson) and the inveterately inebriated and shrewdly opportunistic "Falstaff" (Simon Russell Beale). The King is facing some discord from the north of his Kingdom, with the impertinent "Hotspur" (Joe Armstrong) declining to present his hostages from his recently successful cause against the warlike Scots to the King to ransom. It's a tit-for-tat despute that will require the Prince to set down his beer cup and prove to his father and those sceptical at court that he can rise to the occasion and prove his worthiness to succeed to the throne. Sir Richard Eyre has assembled a fantastic cast here to tell us a story of revolution, betrayal and duplicity and none are better than Beale who dominates with his avuncular and lively persona. The engaging Hiddleston successfully manages to mix his own character's traits of wilfulness and debauchery skilfully as it evolves into something just a little more, well, grown up. Sir Richard has also managed to retain much of the intensity and joy of the original earthy dialogue between the characters, again well epitomised by Julie Walters' sparing appearances as innkeeper "Quickly" and Dawson's mischievous "Poins". It's dark, violent, boozy and gritty and it illustrates the perilous times compellingly. Roll on part two...
CinemaSerf wrote:Henry IV, Part 2: Though this hasn't quite the characterful potency of the first part of the Henry IV story, it's still a compelling couple of hours that depicts the decline of one king and the ascension of another. Henry IV (Jeremy Irons) and his court have slightly revised their opinions of the young "Hal" (Tom Hiddleston) following his defeat of Hotspur, but he is beginning to ail and those warring forces in the north of England are scenting a chance to avenge themselves. Meantime, Falstaff (Simon Russell Beale) has earned the enmity of the Lord Chief Justice (Geoffrey Palmer) who deems him - not unreasonably - as a bad influence on the young Prince, and charges him to recruit a troop of soldiers to ride to face the rebels. Suffice to say those he does recruit, armed with wooden pitchforks and suffering from disease and malnutrition, don't quite cut it, nor do his overheard and reckless words about the prince to his lover "Doll" (Maxine Peake) stand him in much stead, either. Perhaps his luck is running out? As to the war, well a bit of nimble duplicity spares the nation from another great conflict, but this is all occurring as their King begins to lose his grasp on his crown, and Henry V must be prepared to rule - ruthlessly casting off those upon whom he had depended and who had come to depend upon him. Falstaff features extensively here and though SRB's contributions are sterling, I found his character - without it's joviality and debauched nature - a little less endearing and that's a testament to the acting of a man who seems to be in the skin of his charge. Hiddleston doesn't fare quite so well, with the glint gone from his eyes his acting struggles a little to deliver a more earnest Prince Henry. Still, the adaptation from Sir Richard Eyre, a slew of formidable supporting artists and some superb production design really does present us with an entertaining and character-driven drama that brings Shakespeare's story of politics, power and patronage into the 21st century resoundingly well.
CinemaSerf wrote:Henry V: With Henry V now firmly on the throne, this drama moves on to challenge not only the robustness of his character but also Tom Hiddleston's characterisation - and I didn't really love the latter. His success in the Henry IV stories was as much to do with his evolving personable playboy persona accompanied by some solidly entertaining efforts from the likes of Simon Russell Beale and Julie Walters. Now he has the top job, the political intrigues at home and abroad take over the story, the humour deserts it and we find ourself in territory that has been frequently covered before. The gist of the plot sees the king rather manoeuvred into a battle with Charles VI (Lambert Wilson) over some claims to the French throne that derived from Edward III of England. It turns out to be the Dauphin (Edward Akrout) who is the main antagonist, but his is just one of the difficulties the new king must face asserting his authority and learning that difficult art of knowing whom to trust. What do stand out here are the battle scenes. The stunt arranging, execution and production design deliver impressively with what must have been a modest television budget and limited numbers - director Thea Sharrock does not resort to endless CGI to pad things out visually. The script adaptation is succinct and effective but somehow this is just isn't so hard hitting. Perhaps that's because the story and characters are so much better known, or perhaps just because the star here hasn't the gravitas to deliver the part compellingly? It's still a very watchable history but perhaps more of a shallow crown than an hollow one.
CinemaSerf wrote:Richard II: With Bollingbrooke (Rory Kinnear) and Mowbray (James Purefoy) at each other's throats over treason allegations, it falls to their king (Ben Whishaw) to try to settle matters. Thing is, Richard II isn't the most imposing of characters and when his attempts at arbitration fall pretty flat, a joust to the death is arranged. Even then, the king cannot bear to see either of these two nobles die so he banishes them for six years. Thereafter, this hapless monarch makes a series of poor judgments, not least the confiscation of the assets of John of Gaunt (Sir Patrick Stewart) which only irritates his son (Kinnear) who returns in a position of strength far exceeding that of the unpopular and deserted king so an usurpation duly ensues. The result of the change at the top causes issues of conscience for both men, though curiously enough very few scruples amongst the subservient underlings like Aumerle (Tom Hughes), the duplicitous Northumberland (David Morrisey) and the traitorous Duke of York (David Suchet). Unlike many of Shakespeare's other characterful histories, this one is an out and out tragedy. Even those that win don't really win, and it's probably the finest effort I've seen from Whishaw. His slightness of physique and pallid skin (usually exacerbated by wearing an almost virginal white) exudes vulnerability and a political frailty that certainly elicits a sympathy as the wolves surround him without him really realising. The story also benefits from having distinct timelines and a denouement that allows the presentation to be comprehensive and complete. It's a story about political intrigue and oaths that mean nothing as those who gain the crown find it's not quite what it's cracked up to be. The production design is excellent and the flowing direction allows each of these frequently unsavoury individuals their moment in the sun.
CinemaSerf wrote:Henry VI, Part 1: Now that Henry V has died young, the crown passes to his infant son who grows under the regency of his uncle, the lord protector Gloucester (Hugh Bonneville), into Tom Sturridge. Despite claims to his throne from others with quite possibly more legitimacy, there is a period of stability in England whilst the warmongers battle it out in France against Jean D'Arc (Laura Morgan). As part of a complex series of negotiations, a deal is struck that will see the young king marry Margaret of Anjou (Sophie Okonedo). It's a bit of an one-sided arrangement that essentially sees the King dispossessed of his French possessions. Back at home, and with the married king now in his majority, the conspiracy from Somerset (Ben Miles) and York (Adrian Dunbar) works to manoeuvre Gloucester from power and ultimatly restore the deposed Plantagenet line to the throne. The king's problems aren't helped by his wife's infidelities with Somerset or by Gloucester's wife (Sally Hawkins) being accused of witchcraft! It's actually Okonedo who steals the show here as the clearly ambitious and manipulative Queen; Bonneville is decent enough too, as is the underused Dunbar, but Sturridge doesn't impress so easily and that leaves part one of the story of Henry VI's near forty year reign looking great but lacking a degree of potency. By it's very nature, this has less variety to it's history and so delivers a more dry and less engaging tale of court intrigues and betrayals. Both Richard II & Henry IV (especially part 1) have more diversionary visuals to help keep the narrative from becoming too bogged down in the dialogue. This has fewer elements to entertain in that fashion and so, despite it's fiery start, is a much more procedural enterprise to watch. It's the second part of this play where the bolder elements emerge, but this lays the ground well for even more turbulent times to come.
CinemaSerf wrote:Henry VI, Part 2: With virtually nothing left to call English in France now, the ailing and mentally strained Henry VI (Tom Sturridge) returns home with his French wife Margaret (Sophie Okonedo) to a court that is just as rife with intrigue as the one he has just left. The King has been enthroned for many a year now, but that isn't going to stop Warwick (Stanley Townsend) from advancing the claims of Edward (Geoffrey Streatfield) as more legitimate by way of his lineage from the deposed Richard II and before. What does temper his treasonable intent is the decency of York (Adrian Dunbar) who having the throne at his feet, agrees to allow Henry to continue to reign provided he grants the succession to the Yorkist heirs. Needless to say, this irks his wife who brutally ensures the truce is broken. Now Edward and Warwick imprison the King whilst she and her son flee to the court of King Louis XI (Andrew Scott). To cement his role as kingmaker, Warwick follows shorty afterwards and proposes a marriage of state without realising that his new boss has fallen deeply for Elizabeth Woodville (Keeley Hawes). Feeling embarrassed and betrayed, he jumps ship (again) and promises to restore Henry VI to his crown. We all know how that went, and also just how brutally menacing Shakespeare liked to portray his real villain of the piece - Richard (Benedict Cumberbatch). This production ventures outdoors a lot more and the combat scenes are really well arranged to give us a genuine feeling of not just the terrain and conditions, but of the severity of the weapons at the time - no quick kills here! The acting is really only adequate here, though - Sturridge does well as he slowly loses what grasp on the plot her ever had, but is rarely on screen as the king and I didn't really find Townsend's duplicitous Warwick nor Dunbar's ambitious York to have quite the impact I would have wanted. Cumberbatch does give us an indication of what is to come but otherwise this has much more of an holding role in the tale of the War of the Roses, condensing the decline of one king and the ascension of the other in quite a rushed fashion. I know that was as much down to the bard as to Dominic Cooke, but it still seemed a bit shallow at times and a little too much of a chronology. Still, it's a great piece of television theatre that does illustrate well that the crown might well be hollow, but never more than when the head that wore it was even more so.
CinemaSerf wrote:Richard III: Historians now dispute the extent to which Richard III (Benedict Cumberbatch) was actually the malevolent and power-hungry creature depicted here, but there can be no doubt as to William Shakespeare's interpretation - nor of Cumberbatch's either. With the sudden death of his brother Edward IV and his other brother Clarence having been reputedly drowned in a vat of wine, it falls to the young Edward V to succeed. His uncle, though, has other plans and whilst demonstrating all outward signs of friendship he manages to concoct a deviously effective plan to sow seeds of doubt on the legitimacy of this young lad (Caspar Morley) by suggesting his mother (Keeley Hawes) wasn't legally married. Cleverly, he ensures that it looks like he is responding to a public plea as he supplants his nephew, takes crown and so spawns the still largely unsolved mystery of the princes in the Tower. Even his own mother (Dame Judi Dench) is apalled by this action, but not so aggrieved as Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond and a claimant via Edward III (Luke Treadaway) who raises an army determined to restore the throne to the Lancastrians. It's a fairly well known story and this adaptation from Dominic Cooke and Ben Power stays fairly faithful to the bard's assessment of the man's character - and it's that character than Benedict Cumberbatch plays extraordinarily well. Right from the start he has an evil glint in his eye and throughout he maintains a characterfully unpleasant and duplicitous nature. This playwright was used to using ghostly apparitions in his work, or using mind tricks to symbolise guilt - and here he does both to harangue the king's conscience as his sins mount up with fairly incredible speed. Even the laws of sanctuary are not sacrosanct. There features a solid cast to support, though this play doesn't really offer much meat on the bones for Ben Daniels, Keeley Hawes, James Fleet or the scarcely featured Treadaway. That doesn't rally matter so much as this is essentially a one-man show and from very capable hands it is presented, too. With well executed battle scenes and a great aesthetic depicting dark castles and perfect costume design, this is a fitting conclusion to this superior seven part history of a time when neither God nor birth guaranteed the king would keep the crown ere long.
