The Hollow Crown: Henry IV, Part II

[selenak]

Last time on "It's Hard Out There For A Lancaster": yes, they do previouslies instead of the "Rumours" chorus, which actually I admit I don't miss at all. This second part is generally less popular than the first, but in this version I felt it was actually the better one. Still suffers from Chimes at Midnight comparison as far as cinematography is

Comments

[likeadeuce]

Production wise, it's also notable that Hal is played as genuinenly angry with Falstaff and cold in his "good night, Falstaff" here as opposed to amused by Falstaff's lies the way he was in part I, which is a good lead-up to the big finale.This is the part I really didn't like -- I didn't believe Hal would act like that (either that he would be genuinely surprised or offended that Falstaff talked shit about him, or that he would expres that in a sincere way.) But I also think I have a philosophical difference with this production about how the comedy is supposed to work and what the tavern stuff is for. I mean, I agree with you that Poins is an ass but it doesn't bother me because I'm most interested in the tavern milieu as a demonstration of the emotional violence at the root of a lot of comedy. So the sort of wobbling between fun-loving & earnest mostly didn't work for me (aside from the role-play scene in 1, which is just such a great scene that it works on its own, whereas the eavesdrop scene works in a context that didn't really

[selenak]

why Falstaff was so confident of a good reception after the way they had left things

You have a point there, but the way it came across to me was that Falstaff when Pistol brings the news first is utterly shocked precisely because what happened earlier gave him an inkling this will be the end of things, but then the Falstaffian capacity for denial and make believe overrides everything else, and of course it's going to be fine, party time at infinitum, Hal loves him, of course he does, off to Westminster etc.

Re: Hal, I agree he wouldn't be genuinenly suprised Falstaff talks shit about him, but as I said in my review - I saw it as projecting self disgust because here he is, going through the same old routine with Falstaff (and spying on Falstaff had been his idea) when his father is dying elsewhere, and what does that make him? Hence lashing out in genuine anger at the person in front of him, Falstaff.

Glad the Lancaster family dynamics worked for you as well, and Irons! (Who should get some sort of award.)

[likeadeuce]

I can see that about Hal and Falstaff. It's just not an interpretation that did much for me or touched on what I generally find interesting about the play.

However, since the Lancaster family parts and Henry himself often get short shrift, it was well worth watching for that.

[kathyh]

Jeremy Irons, how so awesome? This is the first production where Henry IV doesn't feel like a minor guest star in the plays named after him

I know! He absolutely owned the role and made Henry genuinely tragic, a man of many good qualities overthrown by his guilt over his usurpation. There's also a rather good "Shakespeare Unbound" documentary about the play presented by Jeremy Irons, where he gets to row across the Thames and stride nobly over various locations as well as talk about the play *g*. It's worth watching if you get the chance (and Tom Hiddleston came over well too).

I've seen a lot of reaction that Falstaff is too dark and not sympathetic enough

I wasn't overkeen on Simon Russell Beale's Falstaff in part 1 because I saw Roger Allam do it at the Globe and he was electrifyingly good as the greater humour made the darkness darker, but I liked SRB much better in Part II (not sure like is quite the word). The touching and moving scenes with Doll and Shallow made Hal's renunciation that much harsher.

this is the last time he

[selenak]

Alas my time is limited but I'll try to get back to Jeremy Irons nobly striding in the documentary later, as I believe it is on YouTube. But I'm seriously psyched about his performance. Never ever has Henry been the character I felt deepest for in those plays, but this time he so was. I've been scanning the newspaper reviews and note with satisfaction the feeling that Irons stole the two parter seems to be shared by the pros as well. :)

re: Roger Allam, as everyone brings him up I'm double sorry I never saw that particular Globe production.

re: eye contact, I plan on rewatching on Wednesday, and will pay attention to that.

[likeadeuce]

re: Roger Allam, as everyone brings him up I'm double sorry I never saw that particular Globe production.

It was filmed and there is a DVD version of both parts, though I don't know about availability where you are. The Internet likely has it. I've only seen the first part so far, but it's definitely an interesting compare/contrast to this one, as I recall really liking the Hal/Falstaff dynamic, but finding Henry relatively weak. It also really takes advantage of being a staged production, which I tend to think serves these particular plays better (a radical re-imagination like Chimes aside) than filming does -- as opposed to Richard II, which really benefited from the cinematic opening up.

[redfiona10]

I do like the bit at the start of Henry V where the two bishops go 'Henry knows we're up to something, let's distract him with France, that always works', so I'm hoping they'll keep that in.

[selenak]

So do I, and not in a comedy fashion a la Olivier. But then Branagh played it straight, too.

[cereswunderkind]

As FW and I said to each other, drop-jawed: who would have guessed Jeremy Irons could do that? Richard Eyre, presumably, so top credit to both of them

[selenak]

I am amused by the reviewer who wrote that Jeremy Irons "now snaps at the heels of greatness" and could someone make him play Lear already. It tells you something about Shakespeare versus Oscars, I suppose, since Jeremy Irons did win one of the later in the 90s, but yes, his Henry here is something else again. Who'd have thought when he was callow Charles Ryder?

Well, my guess is that, as the Part 1 humour - which is meant to be rumbustious good fun - comes over today as self-entitled and cruel bullying, it was hard for SRB to put his heart into it

Good theory. I'm really curious about the much praised Roger Allem performance in this regard, too. Because I never found the part I pranks Hal and Poins play funny, either, including the My very own Idaho version when it was River Phoenix and Keanu Reeves doing the pranking. But evidently it comes across as funny in the Roger Allam version? Anyway. My own guess is SRB might agree with Orson Welles who once said he didn't find Falstaff funny at all, but deeply melancholy and only putting