excited for Henry times

[angevin2]

So I finally got a chance to watch the next installment of The Hollow Crown! I hadn't had a chance previously because I was visiting family, and then I kept getting distracted by the fact that Richard II was in the same file folder and I kept thinking "oh, hey, I could watch that again!" Plus it's been really good for taking my mind off of the

Comments

[angevin2]

AWESOME. I feel like a production of 2 Henry IV is a success if it leaves me an emotional wreck afterwards.

[angevin2]

OH MY GOD I CAN'T WAIT

BRING ON THE PAIN

[doreyg]

I think my main problem was with how much they cut. Which I'd actually, weirdly, say is a testament to how good the rest of it was - because I was left clawing at my screen and yelling "WHY ISN'T THERE MORE OF THESE FLAWLESS FOLK BEING FLAWLESS WHYYYYYY?" (But, seriously, I would've loved to watch more banter between Simon Russell Beale and Hiddleston. Since they both proved that they could handle it in the other scenes! (I'm also wondering how emotionally affected I'll be at the end of Part II without all the banter building the relationship up. But, then, saying that I'll probably end up sobbing like a baby anyway. SO

[angevin2]

I can't remember if it was you I was telling about this, so if it was, you can ignore me, but one great thing about 2H4 is that the big scenes at the end still pack a wallop even if the rest of the play is crummy. I saw an otherwise-terrible production a few years ago in which nobody could act and all the chainmail was poorly-knitted stuff that was the color of Winnie-the-Pooh, and Henry IV wore a sparkly nightgown the whole time, and yet his last scene was still pretty effective, so I can only conclude that those parts of the play are essentially actor-proof.

Also, I always get so outraged when they don't do the decoys! BECAUSE. SO VERY SYMBOLIC. (Another production I saw went to the trouble of actually casting someone as Blunt who resembled Henry and then they still didn't do it. Bah.)

[doreyg]

I don't think it was me, but... Oh god, that sounds absolutely awful. Sparkly nightgown? I have the fashion sense of a particularly oblivious tortoise but even I can tell that that's NOT A GOOD IDEA.

And I'm not sure how I'll react to the Falstaff scene yet, though by the reviews coming in I'll probably be eating my words while crying loudly, but I'm pretty sure that the last Henry IV scene will have me on the point of hysteria. I love Jeremy Irons, I want more of Jeremy Irons all the time.

THE DECOYS ARE AMAZING AND EVERYBODY SHOULD DO THEM! Because, yeah, it jsut says SO MUCH about Henry's character - you wouldn't really see Richard doing that, or Hal. And so it's very important and character defining and JUST KEEP IT IN, IT IS A GREAT SCENE! ;;

[angevin2]

And seriously, Henry IV is possibly the least likely character in Shakespeare -- or at least in the histories -- to wear a sparkly nightgown. ;) My local Shakespeare company makes very poor costume choices, and I would forgive them for it if I'd ever seen a decent performance there.

Also, I think it's so telling that the other person in Shakespeare's histories who does the decoy thing is Richmond in Richard III! I've never felt that RIII is just straight-up Tudor propaganda at all, and that is one of the suggestive bits in that regard. (I mean, I also am apparently a distinct minority among medieval English history fans, because I also don't think Henry VII was History's Greatest Monster, but that's a complicated topic. Maybe if this does well enough that they decide to do the other tetralogy. /pipe dream)

[angevin2]

One of the things I meant to get into in my post and didn't get around to was the possible difficulty of doing the Henry IVs on screen; a great deal of the energy depends on a certain level of rapport with the audience. Of the best filmed productions of them that I've seen, two of them (the Globe and the ESC versions) are recordings of stage productions, and the third is Chimes at Midnight. One of Welles' solutions is to unsoliloquize the soliloquies, so that Falstaff gets an onscreen audience to connect with, which helps a lot (obviously the Beeb version does this a little bit too with Falstaff's encomium on sack). Plus, you know, Welles was a genius director and stuff. But yeah, it's probably not fair to compare across media, and I probably need to watch this again to get a better feel for SRB's performance on its own terms.

(also I so can't wait for part II, zomg)

[arcadiaego]

I don't really know Henry IV well so can't comment (I have absolutly no clue what they did or didn't cut) but it made me like the play and I didn't before, so, it works on stupid people like me I guess. :D I still don't like Part 2 but the end and the crown nicking scene were both brilliant. Jeremy Irons needs to remember how to be in good things more often.

[ambrmerlinus]

they leave out, for instance, Henry's use of decoys in the battle, which is a pointed comment on the changing nature of royal power, and also Hal's rescue of his father from the Douglas (who has, like, one line in this whole thing) where he's rewarded by learning of his father's assumption of parricidal expectations.

THE UNKINDEST CUT OF ALL imho. Seriously, still so mad.

Was rather amused that they went with the least gay staging of the first Hal/Falstaff scene possible

That... that was the least gay? Really!? Because all of the friends I watched it with are convinced that Falstaff/Hal/Poins are in some kind of queer December-May polyamorous triad, and that the tavern is a mollyhouse.

EYRE YOU BASTARD. I'LL HAVE A STARLING TAUGHT TO SPEAK NOTHING BUT [THAT SPEECH] AND GIVE IT YOU TO KEEP YOUR ANGER STILL IN MOTION.

lol

And Hiddleston's Jeremy Irons impression was so uncanny as to be seriously creepyHiddleston is disturbingly good at imitating people. Have you seen his Owen Wilson impression

[angevin2]

Because all of the friends I watched it with are convinced that Falstaff/Hal/Poins are in some kind of queer December-May polyamorous triad, and that the tavern is a mollyhouse.

Well, all of those things are completely accurate, but also, sometimes they do stuff like this. Or the production in Sydney where Hal gave Falstaff a blowjob onstage. So yeah, it can get substantially more gay than this production did it. ;)

[ambrmerlinus]

...oh my God.

Well now I just feel cheated.