The Hollow Crown: The Complete Series [DVD]

Superb on the whole, and worth watching all the way through, over and over again.1. Richard II: Some of Shakespeare's most gorgeous poetry, a heartbreaking meditation on the rights and responsibilities of a king and his subjects. Here the play is intelligently adapted and filmed with a formalism and beauty that suits the material (Rupert Goold directs).Ben Whishaw (accompanied by a pet monkey!) inhabits the character of the frivolous but articulate monarch so completely that it's hard to imagine anyone else in the role. The other characters, played by superb actors, swirl around him with increasing agitation, but Richard is the center of the play's gravity and remains so to his tragic end. (At first I wrote that he was the "center of the play's energy," but that's not quite it: he seems to inhabit time differently from the other characters, as if time slows down when it gets close to him.)Nonetheless, I have reservations about this adaptation. All the hagiography (visuals connecting Richard to Christ and St Sebastian) contribute to the film's beauty, but they also impose a Richard-as-martyr interpretation that reduces the richness of Shakespeare's treatment of politics in this play. A lighter touch would have made the allusions more powerful and also given the audience enough critical distance to see how Richard's self-representation is relativized by the point of view of all the other characters.(One note that applies to all four films: the adapters have cut a great deal of text to make the films fit a TV schedule. The cutting is usually judicious, and viewers who don't know the plays should have no trouble understanding the interpersonal dimension and how relationships shift with the political action. But if you want to connect all the dots politically, you won't quite be able to. The lines that made that possible have sometimes been cut.)2. Henry IV pt. 1. This is possibly Shakespeare's greatest history play, though often eclipsed in popular acclaim by the crowd-pleasing Henry V. Maybe some viewers will rethink their preferences now, since the Hollow Crown adaptation of Henry IV pt. 1 is easily the best episode in this very good series. But historians beware: Shakespeare takes great liberties with the historical record in order to create this brilliant plot and compelling characters.Despite the title, this is really an ensemble piece that balances four characters who have almost equal time on screen: Henry IV, his son and heir Prince Hal, the Prince's foil the rebellious Hotspur (Henry Percy), and Sir John Falstaff, who competes with the king as a pseudo father figure for the young man. So this is not a play *about* Henry IV. It's about Henry V before the fact, caught between the competing influence of two older men, and opposed to another young warrior of the same name.The directing (by Richard Eyre) and cast are perfect. Jeremy Irons is the still pugnacious but ill and beleaguered king. Simon Russell Beale is Falstaff, a charming but unscrupulous individual whom Beale invests with just enough dignity and humanity to prevent him from becoming a caricature. (This is not the cuddly, jolly Falstaff some may expect, but a fully realized human being.) Joe Armstrong is Hotspur, an inspiring but reckless young field commander, bursting with misdirected energy (he aspires "to pluck bright honor from the palefaced moon"). Tom Hiddleston is a Prince Hal who would rather play a commoner (and watch himself do it) than assume the role of apprentice-king that his father would impose on him. He's handsome, charismatic, clever, calculating, entitled (in all senses), occasionally insensitive, occasionally insolent... But you see that this young man has the potential for political survival that the pugilistic Hotspurr (so loveably, in this version) lacks.It's enough to keep you riveted the first time through, with wonderful nuances that emerge on later viewings. Watch, for example, how Hal manages to enjoy his privilege even while pretending not to, and watch the unstated antagonism of Falstaff and Poins (David Dawson), a young friend of Hal's, as they vie for the prince's attention. Enjoy the peripheral scenes that deepen our understanding of Hotspur by showing his interactions with his wife (Michelle Dockery) and his Welsh conspirators. (And thank God they decided to keep those Welsh scenes, which are a treasure.) The exquisite voiceovers continue with Hal's "I know you all" soliloquy and Falstaff's meditation on honor.3. Henry IV pt. 2. The same director and most of the same cast. It's not quite as good, and that's Shakespeare's fault. He set the bar too high with the preceding plays (and the Henry V to come), and Henry IV pt. 2 suffers from the betweens. Everything that happens is foreshadowed/necessitated by Part 1 and superbly handled, and we know pretty well how this one has to end, but the action just isn't as tight.It's still a good play, with some truly exquisite scenes (take, for example, Henry IV's soliloquy on sleep and as well as the last father-son interview between Henry IV and Hal, where Irons makes his final, *spectacular* scene). Also excruciating moments: this is the play where Hal rejects Falstaff definitively.The true wonder of this play, though, is in the characterization. The characters that survive to this point have acquired depth they didn't possess in Part 1, where they were (mostly) new to us and there wasn't room to let them grow. A few minor characters get more time: Doll Tearsheet (Maxine Peake, of the BBC's Silk) had a nonspeaking roll in Part I but here gets another one of those exquisite scenes (with Falstaff) that turns into a masterclass of acting. A couple of new characters appear: someone found a cherubic child to play Falstaff's cheeky page, and David Bamber is the piteously inept Justice Shallow (remember Mr. Collins from the old BBC Pride and Prejudice? He's back, aged 20 years!). And it feels ungracious not to mention all the others by name, they're so wonderful, but this review is getting long....Though Tom Hiddleston's performance is excellent throughout the series, I think it's best in this play --- despite the fact that his character has very little to do! Hamlet-like, he watches and thinks, a mode that suits this very intelligent actor.The score is heavy on Handel towards the end, which is anachronistic whichever way you calculate it, but lovely nonetheless. No one does coronation music better.4. Henry V. New director, Thea Sharrock, but still with Hiddleston playing Henry. I'm so glad that they decided to keep the same actor who played the prince in the Henry IV plays and allow him to complete the personal growth that his character had begun. Unlike Branagh's Henry, Hiddleston's did not spring up from the ground one day as a fully-formed politician, rhetorician, and military tactition. He's a talented individual who found himself, at a young age, with more responsibility than he wanted or was sure he could handle, and he's improvising (sometimes well, sometimes not). Yet he makes a charismatic and inspiring king: not as gregarious as Branagh, and more thoughtful. Hiddleston has an Olivier-like subtlety. But Olivier's Henry was very self-consciously a theatrical creation, in an adaptation from which every ambivalence had been purged. Hiddleston finds himself in a realist adaptation with a screenwriter and director not afraid to explore the darker shadows of Henry's character. How could this new adaptation fail?Maybe by beginning with a funeral? That is how the Hollow Crown's Henry V begins: with his funeral. Is this Richard II? Henry IV pt 1? Henry V is in fact not one of Shakespeare's "sad stories of the death of kings." Henry's death isn't part of the play's action and is mentioned only very indirectly in the final lines (historical factoid: he died, probably of dysentery, seven years after the action of the play). Instead, the text begins with a bombastic prologue ("Oh for a muse of fire!") that announces youthful energy and ambition.There are several problems with this funeral. It overwrites Shakespeare's dramatic structure by making the entire play a flashback, but the flashback technique has been so overused to drum up suspense in mediocre TV shows that it now indicates the desperation of poor writing. Since Henry's death is never dramatized or explained in the play, the funeral will confuse viewers who don't know British history. But most of all, seeing Henry's bloodless corpse on a bier kills the energy that should carry through this play.The uninspiring score and staid pacing don't help. I can't tell whether this episode is slower than the preceding ones, or whether the problem is that the deliberate pacing of Richard II and Henry IV suit the melancholic material, whereas the energy of the language in Henry V demands a greater speed which the director has resisted. There are very few scenes that feel slow, but the scenes don't follow upon each other very fast. Take this comparison: the Hollow Crown adaptation cuts more scenes than Branagh did, but it also has a longer playing time.To be fair, Sharrock had the most difficult task of all the directors in this series, since she alone had to direct a play that had already been brought to the big screen twice with great success (Olivier, 1944 and Branagh, 1989). Everyone is going to make comparisons. The new adapter's challenge was to avoid simply replicating the earlier adaptations, and the solution --- which ought to have been adequate in itself --- was Hiddleston's reinterpretation of the character. But the opening funeral sequence is one of several moments when I had the impression that the adapters made strange decisions just to be different. In addition, York is stabbed in the back while wandering in a forest, rather than dying heroically on the battlefield. The adapters eliminated the murder of the English boys and pack animals by the French, but kept Henry's order to kill the French prisoners, which in the play was motivated by the murder of the boys (and not simply by seeing French horsemen still in the field, which, in the play, only inspired him to threaten to kill the prisoners).So there's a strong anti-heroic aspect to this adaptation that extends to every single character. In fact, Shakespeare's play does have a darker side, politically and psychologically. Henry attempts to do the right thing, but is he motivated by a sense of justice or by political expediency? And he sometimes descends to savage threats or even actions. The other characters represent a full spectrum, from the clergy's cynicism to York's heroism to Pistol and his friends' cowardice and opportunism. That diversity and Henry's many unfathomable moods create a rich and balanced representation of war which has never quite been recaptured in the film versions. The screenplay of Olivier's 1944 version entirely eliminated Henry's potential for savagery (national necessity: this was England, 1944). Branagh's more realist version came closest to balance; he included much of the negative material but wasn't willing to include Henry's killing of the prisoners. The Hollow Crown puts it all back in and exacerbates it with the choices I've described. To my mind, this latest adaptation is as reductive (though in the opposite way) as Olivier's, but maybe when in the year 2012 we think of warriors, that's what our imagination gives us: individuals running around pointlessly in a wood, stabbing each other in the back.Still, this adaptation has one big advantage over the others. The scene with Henry and Princesse Catherine of France (Mélanie Thierry) is the loveliest I've ever seen. This was the weak link in Branagh's adaptation, because Emma Thompson, though a wonderful actress, cannot convince when playing a Frenchwoman (she sounds like an Englishwoman reciting French she learned in school). The scene was problematic in the Olivier version, too, because the screenplay had already established the French as ridiculous caricatures, an impression that cannot help but color Catherine herself. (Yes, I know Shakespeare spelled it with a "K"... I'm doing this on purpose.) Sharrock happily cast a young French star. To my mind, Thierry's first speaking scene (the English lesson) is too static and doesn't rise to the level of Olivier or Branagh's interpretations, but during the wooing something magical happens between Thierry and Hiddleston. It's almost enough to make up for that funeral. Almost.So when it comes to those comparisons, this is what I would say: Olivier's Henry V was largely a waste of a good actor, though it's still interesting and worth watching for individual scenes (the opening sequence and the night before Agincourt). Branagh's film remains the best screen adaptation of the play. Despite being a long-time Branagh fan, until I did this three-way Henry V comparison I didn't fully appreciate how capacious and generous Branagh's imagination as a director is. Sharrock's adaptation, on the other hand, has a thesis, and if you don't go along with it you'll have trouble liking this version. But Hiddleston's interpretation of the character of Henry V has more depth than Branagh's, so for the character, I'd say that Hiddleston is the best.

"The Hollow Crown" is an absolutely wonderful rending of Shakespeare's finest histories, and truly, the 3 plays must be watched consequentially for the viewer to come away with the picture that the weight of the crown offers. For this is what this film is about:How the burden of the Crown is treated by 3 very different men. What makes man a king? This is the question that Whishaw, Irons, and Hiddleston so beautifully answer.Richard II:Richard II is a poetically vainglorious King whose belief in the divine right of his monarchy blinds him to his atrocious lack of responsibility. Whishaw's performance is superb, and he truly must be commended for capturing the dramatic tragedy of his character with such devotion, enthusiasm, and understanding. We feel great pity for Richard even as he disgusts with his arrogant assumptions and foolish actions. He thinks himself like a god, and deserves everything that comes to him, but it is nearly impossible not to watch with despondent sorrow how he has made his own pit with his selfish ambition, and vainglorious attitude, especially toward Henry of Bolingsbroke, his cousin, and future successor. His drama and ostentatious behavior can be painful to watch at times, and you want to put your face in your hands at his blindness and self-pity. Whishaw subtly reminds us of the biblical king Reaboham, Solomon's son (for those who are familiar) and how he surrounded himself with young advisers who encouraged him to force a hand of iron upon his people, and the rebellion that it brought him. (It is quite helpful to read parts of the Bible with Shakespeare, as many of his stories and ideas were biblically inspired. Reaboham's story in the beginning of Chronicles/Kings is nearly a perfect parallel to King Richard II)Part of Richard's Tragedy comes from his blindness stemming from his obscene self-awareness- He literally does not know what kind of king he really is. He doesn't do anything intentionally evil- he is simply proud and a fool and he doesn't realize what an irresponsible fool he was until the very, very end, embodied in his (and THE most powerful line in the film: "I wasted Time, and now Time is wasting me."Rating: 5/5King Henry IVHenry of Bolingsbroke ascends his cousin's throne as King Henry IV at the end of Richard II, and while he does not force the throne from Richard per se, he is seen by many as a military usurper, and people are disturbed by how he came by the throne. This was one of the first times that a King had done so in this nature. It takes place some 25ish year afterward, and we see how the crown is a burden to King Henry. He wants to be a good king, and he is an effective one. He feels a great deal of guilt about his late cousin Richard who perished tragically in a misunderstanding leading to his murder in prison on Henry's behalf. Henry bore no ill-will toward Richard and feels responsible for the former King's miserable demise. Irons spectacularly captures this king who bears his crown with indomitable will, and strength, yet wearied by a burden that he knows he brought upon himself even though he didn't directly ask for it. He didn't refuse when it was offered him, and we see a man who wishes that he did. It is hard to be a king. His burden has hardened him with the guilt it brings, but he bears the responsibility because he MUST, contrary to the appalling lack of responsibility shown by his eldest son, Prince Hal. (Harry/Henry)Henry IV is also about Prince Hal's coming-of-age in a sense. Hiddleston, charmingly regal as always, steps right into the role from scene one, and is persuasive in the frivolous role of the careless prince despite the elegance and aristocratic refinement that his characters usually radiate. Indeed, it is a huge testament to his acting ability to embody such an irresponsibly role believably because of his naturally profound spirit of mature eloquence. Nevertheless, those talents serve him well as Prince Hal (and pretty much every other role he inhabits). One thing that sets Hiddleston a rather large notch above the rest of his peers is his absolute embracing of the Shakespearean language. This may sound like a strange thing to say- certainly all the actors have an immense appreciation for Shakespeare, and it is seen in the care they give to their inhabited characters. YET- and this is in no way a pro/con statement, nor a knock to any of the other actors' extreme talent- they speak Shakespeare like it's written- like poetry. It is quite lovely and embodies our perception of Shakespeare in the truest sense. However, from scene one, Hiddleston comes in and speaks Shakespeare like it's english. (No surprise- the man normally talks like this anyways). Okay, so let me rephrase that. He speaks Shakespeare like he's speaking everyday normal english, and doesn't even think about what he's saying, and you can tell that he understand Exactly what he's saying, whereas the other actors, it comes off more as traditional Shakespeare poetic prose. Make no mistake: Hiddleston certainly does prose when called for, but his command of Shakespeare is so profound, that an"unshakespearized" audience can grasp Shakespeare in his mouth more easily than the other characters, simply because he speaks it with the common spirit of man, while at the same time sounding regal. In other words, Hiddleston actually understands what he's saying, so the people watching understand what he's saying. (If he doesn't, then he's an even better actor than we think) People don't talk like poets in real life.This is merely an observation which not all may agree with, but I'm sure that most will appreciate in the sense that we like to understand what we're hearing/watching.All right, back from the Hiddles Praise Train, (amazing how quickly we can derail, ehehe) Hal's evolution as a character is what the primary focus is of King Henry IV, despite the title. We see how even though Hal acts foolish and irresponsible, he does not do so out of an inherent immaturity. Rather, he is so fearful of the crown, he runs from what he knows will soon be his burden to bear. He has seen what the crown has done to his father in all these years, and there is nothing he fears more than becoming his father. He doesn't just loathe it, he dreads it. He masks this fear with flippancy, all the while knowing that he will soon have to bear this burden himself. His true turning-about comes when he realizes that he has a choice: The crown is what he makes it. He will choose what kind of man he will be, and in doing so, he will determine the kind of king he is. The man makes the king- the king does not make the man. It is a beautiful portrayal of a man making the CHOICE to be responsible versus immature, and Accepting what he was born for. He loves his father, and knows that the crown is responsible for his father's weariness. It is a powerful scene between Irons and Hiddleston (Well, all their scenes are powerful!) when Hal takes the crown from his father's bedside when he believes his ill father to be dead. The King is furious with his son and accuses him of being power-hungry, and an irresponsible brat, basically, until he learns that what Hal did, he did out of love, not of greed. King Henry knows what the crown as done to him, and before he dies, he is able to see himself through his son's eyes, and dies, but not before knowing that Hal will be a better king- a better man- than he was, and this brings him a peace that we are sure he has not known since Richard's death.Henry IV can get slow at times- especially part II, and the character of Falstaff dominates the screen. Simon Russel Beale's portrayal of Falstaff is both brutally honest, and somewhat bittersweet, as he capture's the character of a man who is, though outwardly adorable at first, is a flatterer and coward at heart, and has no integrity and no honor. Yet, we do feel sorry for him- unlike Richard, he knows his own faults- but he will never change. His heart is lazy and hardened with the years of his scornful habits. Yet, he invokes pity because of his affection for Hal, and Hal's justified rejection of him at the end, during his coronation. Falstaff fully deserves it, and it is a huge milestone for the new King Henry V, but it makes the audience shake their heads. He had it coming, but it hurts because he doesn't understand himself enough, and so he cannot understand the vastly out-of-his-league Henry. The whole of Henry IV is worth watching simply for the final scene.Rating: 5/5Henry V:It has been said that no one does Shakespeare better than Branaugh- and in many ways, that is true. However, Branaugh's influence clearly comes across in Hiddleston's rendition of the british monarch, though they play Henry with slightly different attitudes, of course. Branaugh put such care into each line, that it is difficult to imagine how anyone could top it. And, to be fair to both sides... Hiddleston doesn't top Branaugh- but I'd put his portrayal of Henry V as Branaugh's equal. They portray the King differently, emphasizing slightly different traits while keeping the heart of the character whole. There is honestly so much to be said about King Henry V, that I really couldn't, not without writing an essay. (Which I've practically already done.) The speeches are pure, and the adaption marvelous, and Hiddelston captures Shakespeares intent with a different attitude than Branaugh; less fiery, but just as hearty, less bravado and more introspective, just as careful, being no less genuine or inspirational than Branaugh was while delivering the same lines 24 years earlier. Gotta say, Branaugh's Agincourt speech is tough to beat- Hiddleston's, while perhaps less memorable, is no less meaningful or insightful. They go about the speech with different attitudes: Branaugh speaking to his whole army in a "Son of Scotland/Gondor" moment, while Hiddleston speaks quietly to the hearts of the brothers in arms that he has fought with for so long, giving them a quiet courage and strength. The two renditions can't really be compared because the intent was different. No less effective, in a sense. It depends on which of the two arts more speaks to you. As a whole, in and of itself Henry V is a true masterpiece, and hinges on Hiddleston's impressive performance as the ascended, challenged King of England rising in faith and courage in a cause he believes just. Tender romance aside. (On that note, it's fabulous when actors actually understand a foreign language they're hearing/supposed to be speaking. Gives performance so much more weight.) Hiddleston's enthusiasm for his role and in his character is infectious, and as an audience, if Henry V was as noble a man and leader of integrity and honor as both Hiddleston and Branaugh make him out to be, there is very little that would stop us from joining his army. (Something the former seems to have done in spades these days.)Rating: 5/5Conclusion:To get the full meaning of the intent behind "The Hollow Crown", it must be watched consequentially, even though any one of them make for an excellent singular viewing. It is an adaption made much more comprehensive than the original plays, while still keeping everything meaningful that Shakespeare intended. A careful, genuine performance by talented, dedicated actor in whom is clearly scene a vast appreciation for their heart, which, as an interested viewer, makes the experience so much more enjoyable and real.A sincere admirer of literature as art,Kungfu Jedip.s.On a light note, does anyone else agree that Loki would benefit from watching as well? :P

Si le interesa la historia esta es la mejor pelicula en serie que he visto de los tres reyes mas importantes de Inglaterra. La recomiendo

Pour les amoureux de Shakespeare mais pas seulement...... un sublimissime Richard III termine la série.....je suis restée scotchée

Cette série se basant sur des pièces très connues de Shakespeare évoquant le destin de 5 rois d'Angleterre dont certains se sont opposés à la France (on y retrouve d'ailleurs Jeanne d'Arc) est absolument remarquable à tous points de vue. Elle est tournée dans de superbes décors extérieurs, elle est merveilleusement jouée par des acteurs particulièrement bien choisis et on se passionne pour l,histoire haute en couleurs de ces rois. A voir et à revoir.

What a good serie which I did appreciate though I am not a scholar about Shakespeare's plays. Those I enjoyed best are Richard II and Henry V played by two very talented actors : Ben Whishaw and Tom Hiddlleston. As for Henry IV, Jeremy Irons was, of course good but maybe a bit too old for the part and the play is a bit too long with a Falstaff I did not like too much.

I wanted to see the stories, did not expect such a bath of ShakespeareSo I have put them away to a day when I really want Shakespeare RichardD