![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Hollow Crown: Richard II
Jul. 3rd, 2012 08:48 amRichard II. never was my favourite of the histories, and I only read it once, which I felt guilty about when getting on lj and finding fabulous meta and intriguing fanfic about it. On the other hand, it also means I'm not going mentally "what did they cut there?" and can appreciate this latest Shakespeare on film project on its own merits. (Except that even my vague one time reading memory tells me they cut the whole backstory business with Gloucester's death, which admittedly streamlines the opening scene and makes it easier for newbies but also takes away a good deal of everyone's motivations for their behaviour, especially Richard and Bolingbroke.)
Anyway, the verdict: as everyone else has observed, this is an exceedingly pretty film, which uses beautiful landscape to match the gorgeous language, and thus avoids the "studio" feel of so many tv Shakespeare adaptions. The acting, as was to be expected with such a stellar cast, is also top notch. I'm awed on how Lindsay Duncan with her two scenes as the Duchess of York manages to convey so much that you feel you know the entire York family history. If the BBC after doing the Lancaster histories (Richard II, Henry IV part 1 and 2, Henry V) also goes for the York ones (Henry VI part 1,2,3 and Richard III), can she play either Cecily Neville (speaking of York duchesses) or Marguerite d'Anjou in their old age? Pretty please? Anyway: she was awesome. Especially conveying that while being desperate to save her son she was also quietly fuming that Aumerle got himself into that situation to begin with. And Patrick Stewart as John of Gaunt actually managed that "island in the silver sea" speech sound fresh and spontanous instead of a Shakespeare's Biggest Hits recitation, and the conclusion that gets left out when it's part of a Shakespeare's Biggest Hits recitation sound like a logical follow up.
One thing that makes Richard II both difficult and interesting is that we're coming at it from a completely different world view than the Elizabethans. The divine right of kings isn't something we believe in anymore; deposing a crappy ruler isn't an ethical problem. (Well, other than the people wielding the actual knife never get any sympathy for it, and usually a third party benefits. Speaking of Lindsay Duncan, the film with her playing Thatcher, Margaret: The Final Days makes that very point, as Michael Heseltine finds out while John Major cleverly hides behind a toothache until the coup is accomplished and then reaps the benefits while everyone hates on Heseltine despite being glad to see Thatcher gone.) Of course, Shakespeare's play already doesn't rely on the whole divine prerogative but problematizes it by showing Richard really is rubbish at being king, and callous as a human being (see reaction to John of Gaunt's death), but then from the moment he's disposed makes him more and more sympathetic. And actually using the power of words which is the one thing he's excellent at to troll everyone and their large and small hypocrisies into feeling lousy about doing something that they consider right. You need an actor who can carry that off, or all tlhe great ones in minor roles won't save your production, and I thought Ben Wishaw came through. (In addition to looking exceedingly pretty.) The production also played up the Richard II as gay angle, and I've seen at least one review confused why he's then tender towards his wife in their farewell. Dude or dudette, not everyone is Edward II.! (Who also wasn't exactly like Marlowe wrote him, but never mind that.) (Historical Richard, btw, who comes across as bisexual to me was very uxorious, but never mind history, within the play's world, it's entirely possible to behave kindly towards your wife while being sexually inclined elsewhere - especially if your wife is still a kid but the play doesn't allude to the actual age of Richard's II wife at all.) Which means that John of Gaunt's and Bolingbroke's outbursts about flattterers etc. really come across as "You gayed up the king!", with a side of subtext on Bolingbroke's part that he's really crushing on Richard himself but unable to admit it. He flashes back to the moment Richard touched his cheek a lot, is all I'm saying.
Speaking of Bolingbroke, the play leaves it open whether or not he meant it when declaring he's only coming back to England to get his inheritance and basically can't help that everyone gratefully runs to his banners and decides he'd make a so much better king than Richard, or whether he was intending to go for the top spot from the start, so it depends on the individual actor how that comes across. Rory Kinnear's Bolingbroke to me looked like the fact he can become King really is something that occurs to him only once he's actually in the country; I can't help but wonder whether it would feel differently if he'd be played by Jeremy Irons already, which he's going to be in the next play as the title character of Henry IV. Because Jeremy Irons generally looks too intelligent and/or calculating for that "oh, but I didn't mean to!" thing to work. (One reason why the film version of M. Butterfly fell flat for me. I saw the play on stage in London with Anthony Hopkins in the lead, and this was before Silence of the Lambs revived Hopkins' career. You bought him a bluff Frenchman with no idea that the female roles in Chinese opera are danced and sung by men, but not Jeremy Irons.) Otoh both play and Rory Kinnear were clear that Henry/Bolingbroke at the end meant both - that he wanted Richard dead but that he hates that it happened anyway.
(One mystery unsolved in the film version: how will balding Kinnear become still-has-his-hair Irons years later?)
Point at which I thought: someone clearly liked Polanski's MacBeth: not the rolling heads, actually, but the twist in making Aumerle one of Richard's killers in order to make up for his wannabe assasination of Henry. Which isn't in the play at all, and if you're a Yorkist you're inclined to call it mean Lancastrian slander. (As Aumerle's descendants are going to duke it out with Bolingbroke's for the throne.) I am a Yorkist but as mentioned instead thought: aha, someone liked the Polanski MacBeth a lot! Because Polanski has a similar twist by making Ross into the Third Murderer and the guy supervising the killing of Lady Macdufff and her children, and letting him keep the throne game going symbolically at the end of the film. Thereby making what's a nondescript very minor role in the play into a Scottish Littlefinger. Aumerle in this Richard II doesn't get to be Machiavellian, but this last twist gives him an actual emotional arc with a more dramatic, albeit more sinister conclusion than his parents saving his neck. (To stick with the Martin characters comparison, basically he's now Theon Greyjoy?) Fanfic has reminded me Aumerle is the Duke of York who is played by Brian Blessed in Kenneth Branagh's Henry V., which given Aumerle's actor is this thin, fragile creature is, err, an interesting development. Am looking forward to finding out whether they'll keep the actor and age him up for The Hollow Crown's Henry V. or go for a new one.
Anyway, the verdict: as everyone else has observed, this is an exceedingly pretty film, which uses beautiful landscape to match the gorgeous language, and thus avoids the "studio" feel of so many tv Shakespeare adaptions. The acting, as was to be expected with such a stellar cast, is also top notch. I'm awed on how Lindsay Duncan with her two scenes as the Duchess of York manages to convey so much that you feel you know the entire York family history. If the BBC after doing the Lancaster histories (Richard II, Henry IV part 1 and 2, Henry V) also goes for the York ones (Henry VI part 1,2,3 and Richard III), can she play either Cecily Neville (speaking of York duchesses) or Marguerite d'Anjou in their old age? Pretty please? Anyway: she was awesome. Especially conveying that while being desperate to save her son she was also quietly fuming that Aumerle got himself into that situation to begin with. And Patrick Stewart as John of Gaunt actually managed that "island in the silver sea" speech sound fresh and spontanous instead of a Shakespeare's Biggest Hits recitation, and the conclusion that gets left out when it's part of a Shakespeare's Biggest Hits recitation sound like a logical follow up.
One thing that makes Richard II both difficult and interesting is that we're coming at it from a completely different world view than the Elizabethans. The divine right of kings isn't something we believe in anymore; deposing a crappy ruler isn't an ethical problem. (Well, other than the people wielding the actual knife never get any sympathy for it, and usually a third party benefits. Speaking of Lindsay Duncan, the film with her playing Thatcher, Margaret: The Final Days makes that very point, as Michael Heseltine finds out while John Major cleverly hides behind a toothache until the coup is accomplished and then reaps the benefits while everyone hates on Heseltine despite being glad to see Thatcher gone.) Of course, Shakespeare's play already doesn't rely on the whole divine prerogative but problematizes it by showing Richard really is rubbish at being king, and callous as a human being (see reaction to John of Gaunt's death), but then from the moment he's disposed makes him more and more sympathetic. And actually using the power of words which is the one thing he's excellent at to troll everyone and their large and small hypocrisies into feeling lousy about doing something that they consider right. You need an actor who can carry that off, or all tlhe great ones in minor roles won't save your production, and I thought Ben Wishaw came through. (In addition to looking exceedingly pretty.) The production also played up the Richard II as gay angle, and I've seen at least one review confused why he's then tender towards his wife in their farewell. Dude or dudette, not everyone is Edward II.! (Who also wasn't exactly like Marlowe wrote him, but never mind that.) (Historical Richard, btw, who comes across as bisexual to me was very uxorious, but never mind history, within the play's world, it's entirely possible to behave kindly towards your wife while being sexually inclined elsewhere - especially if your wife is still a kid but the play doesn't allude to the actual age of Richard's II wife at all.) Which means that John of Gaunt's and Bolingbroke's outbursts about flattterers etc. really come across as "You gayed up the king!", with a side of subtext on Bolingbroke's part that he's really crushing on Richard himself but unable to admit it. He flashes back to the moment Richard touched his cheek a lot, is all I'm saying.
Speaking of Bolingbroke, the play leaves it open whether or not he meant it when declaring he's only coming back to England to get his inheritance and basically can't help that everyone gratefully runs to his banners and decides he'd make a so much better king than Richard, or whether he was intending to go for the top spot from the start, so it depends on the individual actor how that comes across. Rory Kinnear's Bolingbroke to me looked like the fact he can become King really is something that occurs to him only once he's actually in the country; I can't help but wonder whether it would feel differently if he'd be played by Jeremy Irons already, which he's going to be in the next play as the title character of Henry IV. Because Jeremy Irons generally looks too intelligent and/or calculating for that "oh, but I didn't mean to!" thing to work. (One reason why the film version of M. Butterfly fell flat for me. I saw the play on stage in London with Anthony Hopkins in the lead, and this was before Silence of the Lambs revived Hopkins' career. You bought him a bluff Frenchman with no idea that the female roles in Chinese opera are danced and sung by men, but not Jeremy Irons.) Otoh both play and Rory Kinnear were clear that Henry/Bolingbroke at the end meant both - that he wanted Richard dead but that he hates that it happened anyway.
(One mystery unsolved in the film version: how will balding Kinnear become still-has-his-hair Irons years later?)
Point at which I thought: someone clearly liked Polanski's MacBeth: not the rolling heads, actually, but the twist in making Aumerle one of Richard's killers in order to make up for his wannabe assasination of Henry. Which isn't in the play at all, and if you're a Yorkist you're inclined to call it mean Lancastrian slander. (As Aumerle's descendants are going to duke it out with Bolingbroke's for the throne.) I am a Yorkist but as mentioned instead thought: aha, someone liked the Polanski MacBeth a lot! Because Polanski has a similar twist by making Ross into the Third Murderer and the guy supervising the killing of Lady Macdufff and her children, and letting him keep the throne game going symbolically at the end of the film. Thereby making what's a nondescript very minor role in the play into a Scottish Littlefinger. Aumerle in this Richard II doesn't get to be Machiavellian, but this last twist gives him an actual emotional arc with a more dramatic, albeit more sinister conclusion than his parents saving his neck. (To stick with the Martin characters comparison, basically he's now Theon Greyjoy?) Fanfic has reminded me Aumerle is the Duke of York who is played by Brian Blessed in Kenneth Branagh's Henry V., which given Aumerle's actor is this thin, fragile creature is, err, an interesting development. Am looking forward to finding out whether they'll keep the actor and age him up for The Hollow Crown's Henry V. or go for a new one.
