The Hollow Crown: Henry IV, Part I

[selenak]

In which Lary Mary Crawley makes out with Alan a Dale while Loki gets chewed out by Rodrigo Borgia and gets his hands on Martha Costello. In other words, the BBC continue their Histories with a stellar cast. Less cinematically in this turn, or maybe that's just my impression because any film version of Henry IV competes with the late great Orson

Comments

[bwinter]

I think it helps that Hiddleston just makes you like him. I'd love to see him play someone straight out nasty, just for variety.

And incidentally, I closed my eyes for a moment during the playacting scene, and he has Jeremy Irons' voice hands down. Creepy, that.

[likeadeuce]

I think it helps that Hiddleston just makes you like him

Hah, goes to show how subjective these things are because my first comment was, "Hiddleston is obviously well cast as Hal because he has an incredibly punchable face. It's just going to make me sad watching this movie because nobody's likely to punch him."

[selenak]

But Jeremy Irons slapped him! Doesn't that count! A good slap it was too!

[likeadeuce]

I don't know if I got that far yet (I'm watching the second half now). Though I might have been distracted in that one with, "HENRY WHY DON'T YOU HUG HIM, CAPTAIN PICARD TOTALLY HUGGED YOU."

Fucking Lancasters.

[fallingtowers]

Gah, I finally need to catch up with those. Still haven't gotten around to watching Richard II yet.

[likeadeuce]

I like to think that Hiddleston watched The Borgias to get his Jeremy Irons down.

Still pulling thoughts together, but I will say I'm generally anti 'turning-soliloquies-into-voiceovers' (especially since the first half of this isn't a particularly cinematic production, as you said, they could have played the theatricality up rather than down.) Interesting point that the thought process implies he really means it, but I feel like this soliloquy in particular you have to make him say.

I have a couple issues with the Percy stuff (I wouldn't be me if I didn't!) but Armstrong definitely gets the character's level of energy right -- I love that Henry initially approaches him like he's a 5-year-old ("Shhh, Shhh, Harry, use your words!") and the worldless exchange between him and Kate during the Mortimers' conversation is priceless.

[selenak]

It would certainly provide him with ample material. :)

I see your point re: voiceover and this particular solliloquy; like I said, I think Orson set the golden standard when letting Hal say it to Falstaff.

Does anyone NOT approach Percy like he's a 5-year-old?

[likeadeuce]

Does anyone NOT approach Percy like he's a 5-year-old?

You have to, at least some of the time (Kate certainly does), though these stagings made it explicit. There's "Henry shushes him in the first scene," and then, "Dad and uncle rush him out of the court to keep him from yelling the secret plan."

Maybe more like a puppy than a 5 year old.

[selenak]

*has Blackadder visions again*

[likeadeuce]

Okay, have seen the second half now and can comment on the battle -- I thought the staging was quite interesting, and I see this Falstaff as more despicable/cowardly (as opposed to just pragmatic/out to save his own skin) than he's usually portrayed. Having him actually watch Percy getting ready to kill Hal and not -- go out and jump on him or something -- and then try to take credit for it is a bit beyond the pale. (Not necessarily a bad thing -- Falstaff IS cowardly, it's just a question of how much). And I agree the dynamic with the two of them and John is quite nicely done. I think overall this is a more buffoonish and more contemptible Falstaff than I'm used to seeing and it will be interesting to see that plays into part 2 -- where, on the one hand, Falstaff's despicable behavior is more overt in the text, but on the other, we need to have some sympathy for him or the whole play doesn't work. I'm quite curious where they go with it

[selenak]

Hm, I would agree with you on "more cowardly", but not on "more buffoonish". I thought this Falstaff was more serious than the ones I'm familiar with; the scene where he walks around the table with "wasn't I once" etc gave me the impression of F aware of his own decay (not just physical decay), for example. And he also holds more his own and is less a victim in the roleplay scene.

[likeadeuce]

True -- he's more buffoonish in the battle scene, but not necessarily in the tavern.

[mamculuna]

I haven't seen the whole thing yet, but was also struck by that "here's my plan" speech by Hal. I had decided to take it as something Shakespeare threw in to appease the royals, who might otherwise have disliked seeing the truth about their bad boy carried out so blatantly--but of course that assumption is a huge disservice to Wm Shkspre who certainly wrote for his audience but maybe not at the expense of character.

[likeadeuce]

My thought on that speech has always been that it makes Hal look much worse than if it wasn't in there and I think Shakespeare, who's clearly ambivalent about Hal leaving the riotous life behind, is thoroughly aware of that. . .

I don't have that much familiarity with the sources, but I think that the "Hal as party animal who nobles up and ascends the throne" legend was well established by the time Shakespeare got his hands on it. (Arguably the "party animal Hal" was used by Henry IV's partisans to discredit him, and then his supporters took it back by turning it into a reformation story.) I think it's actually Shakespeare then, who complicates it by introducing ambivalence into that arc, and the sense of what is being lost and what he's turning his back on by choosing "king" over person. But somebody who knows the sources of the play can do a better job with that than I can -- I could be misunderstanding what was in existence when Shakespeare wrote his, but I don't think that I'm misunderstanding the ambivalence.

[mamculuna]

I agree that it makes Hal less likable and also that the ambivalence makes the whole thing more interesting. And I don't know the sources either--just had a vague memory of Shakespeare sometimes shaping characters a bit to show history as leading up to the glory of the Tudor reign. But here, I agree, it's too important to the character to be just that.

[likeadeuce]

just had a vague memory of Shakespeare sometimes shaping characters a bit to show history as leading up to the glory of the Tudor reign

My impression is more, "The sources were pre-shaped, in that he was working with pro-Tudor sources" -- not to say he didn't finesse certain things for the sake of the audience, but there's no bending over backwards to make the Lancasters look good, IMHO.