The Hollow Crown

I always found Richard II rather overshadowed by the rest of Shakespeare’s works; not for its atypical, flowery versed form, but purely because the main character always seemed perhaps the least interesting of all of Shakespeare’s major main protagonists. Which is a direct contrast to Bollingbroke, who, despite having much less space and fewer lines, is in my eyes a far more fascinating and unbalanced character. In any case, Whishaw’s bold “effeminate" interpretation of Richard II considerably redeemed this character for me. When you realize just how much his performance is bound by absolute faithfulness to the original text, then he definitely deserves nothing less than the word “respect". In any case, this changes nothing about the fact that for me, Bollingbroke is the main protagonist in Richard II and the person who acts him is the stumbling block for this adaptation. However much I like Rory Kinnear (and he certainly isn’t a bad actor), in this Milky Way of stars, you have to admit he plays second fiddle. Which is a crying shame even despite the premature climax being the confrontation between John of Gaunt and Richard. (18/05/2013)

The only problem with this otherwise very successful adaptation stems from the original; even there, a sharp conversational comedy about the debauched life of a young dandy and a prince in one person somewhat clashes with the dramatic approach to the historical problems of his father, Henry. One cannot reproach the cast and much less their performances. Apart from the enthusiasm for the rewarding central trio "Hal – Henry IV – Falstaff", I was particularly thrilled by Joe Armstrong in the role of Henry "Hotspur" Percy. It is a pity that they have recast the roles already cast in “Part 1"; it could have been even a bit more interesting. (20/05/2013)

I quite understand why both parts of Henry IV are so often performed as a single shortened play, because why have two very good parts when you can have one phenomenal one, right? In any case, as the action somewhat stagnates in part two, the development of the characters culminates (commensurate with the acting performances). The exception is Tom Hiddleston, who "only" jumps from the mode of charismatic dandy to the mode of uncompromising charismatic statesman and nothing in between, even though the material gives him enough space to do so. But do not be mistaken, in both of these modes he is insurmountable. (21/05/2013)

Who could have guessed that an adaptation of Henry V would suffer from a lack internal tension? Who knew that the series, which was adorned by its cast, would be betrayed by the actors in their new roles? Definitely not me. Paterson Joseph's amateurish bugging out of his eyes as York is as ridiculous as can be, but even so, his amateurism is completely overshadowed by the tragedy of Edward Akrout's performance; there are no decent words to describe it. One might understand it in the early days of the silent film era, but to play a serious dramatic role in the twenty-first century, stylizing himself into a powder-pale villain who constantly casts hateful, glaring glances - that’s really too much. To crown it all, Richard Griffiths’ absolute lack of diction and uncertain speech completely failed to convey his lines. If he were evaluated at school he would have received a disapproving "you didn't please me, nor will I please you" from his teacher. In this mess it is not surprising that the routine direction ruins even such potentially rewarding scenes, such as the St. Christopher's Day speech before the Battle of Agincourt, and renders them unnoticeable. In addition, the appalling, pathetic-sounding soft trumpets often play as a musical undertone, leaving you waiting as the English standard slowly falls to the ground... The result is not bad, the original is too good for that, and the actors (led by those from last time) are too good, but here the only scenes that really work are those of studying and speaking amorously in the Frenglish of the time. (21/05/2013)