I am fairly unread in Shakespeare. I was exposed to his work many years ago at school - The Merchant of Venice and King Lear - and was not particularly appreciative of it at the time. I have attended occasional plays and have seen some films. I've been reading your posts with interest as I would like to become more knowledgeable and to experience the pleasures of Shakespeare. I'm curious to know why you described Richard II as the jewel in the Shakespearean crown. Over the years I've been aware of the various Shakespeare plays and films that are about, but I can't remember much ever being made about Richard II. I must add that I live in New Zealand so the scope for exposure to a range of Shakespeare is more limited than in the UK.
it is excellent generally in terms of theme and plot and character, but it is full of wonderful poetry, there is a good film of it on theBBC "th hollow crown", available on amazon which I recommend highly!
The Hollow Crown is well worth watching, but I have a huge issue with their simplifying sentimental overlay.
Tom Hiddleston is far too nice as Hal, making the trilogy he features in, despite their high production values and quality performances, far less interesting plays than the ones Shakespeare actually wrote. Shakespeare's Hal is a more complex character, and this sentimental rewriting (or selective representation) of his character robs Hal of his edge, and the plays of much of their political edge.
Similarly, Shakespeare's Bolingbroke in Richard ii is very politic. On one level, you don't really get to know him: he has no soliloquies (in this play!), and he is at all times highly calculating and politically aware in his public conduct. Rory Kinnear's representation of Bolingbroke as a man of simple bluff integrity, supposedly completely clueless that he would end up having to seize the throne on his return, and gazing into space at the end, sentimentally recalling Richard, as a once loyal subject, in flashbacks with lush emotive music, is actually a complete travesty of the play Shakespeare wrote! It again robs the play of its sharp politics.
The pervasive tendency to sentimentalise Shakespeare is one of my pet peeves, and The Hollow Crown is very much a case in point (absolutely no shade on Hiddleston and Kinnear, by the way, who are both very fine actors who gave the performances they were directed to give).
Ben Whishaw and Simon Russell Beale are excellent as Richard and Falstaff.
Some aspects of these plays don't translate so well, or so easily, to screen adaptation.
do you think it's feasible Shakespeare ever worked as a translator? (of Latin I'm guessing, not clear to me if it was likely he ever spoke, say, French too or something)
I am fairly unread in Shakespeare. I was exposed to his work many years ago at school - The Merchant of Venice and King Lear - and was not particularly appreciative of it at the time. I have attended occasional plays and have seen some films. I've been reading your posts with interest as I would like to become more knowledgeable and to experience the pleasures of Shakespeare. I'm curious to know why you described Richard II as the jewel in the Shakespearean crown. Over the years I've been aware of the various Shakespeare plays and films that are about, but I can't remember much ever being made about Richard II. I must add that I live in New Zealand so the scope for exposure to a range of Shakespeare is more limited than in the UK.
it is excellent generally in terms of theme and plot and character, but it is full of wonderful poetry, there is a good film of it on theBBC "th hollow crown", available on amazon which I recommend highly!
Thank you, I had noted that film and will follow up
The Hollow Crown is well worth watching, but I have a huge issue with their simplifying sentimental overlay.
Tom Hiddleston is far too nice as Hal, making the trilogy he features in, despite their high production values and quality performances, far less interesting plays than the ones Shakespeare actually wrote. Shakespeare's Hal is a more complex character, and this sentimental rewriting (or selective representation) of his character robs Hal of his edge, and the plays of much of their political edge.
Similarly, Shakespeare's Bolingbroke in Richard ii is very politic. On one level, you don't really get to know him: he has no soliloquies (in this play!), and he is at all times highly calculating and politically aware in his public conduct. Rory Kinnear's representation of Bolingbroke as a man of simple bluff integrity, supposedly completely clueless that he would end up having to seize the throne on his return, and gazing into space at the end, sentimentally recalling Richard, as a once loyal subject, in flashbacks with lush emotive music, is actually a complete travesty of the play Shakespeare wrote! It again robs the play of its sharp politics.
The pervasive tendency to sentimentalise Shakespeare is one of my pet peeves, and The Hollow Crown is very much a case in point (absolutely no shade on Hiddleston and Kinnear, by the way, who are both very fine actors who gave the performances they were directed to give).
Ben Whishaw and Simon Russell Beale are excellent as Richard and Falstaff.
Some aspects of these plays don't translate so well, or so easily, to screen adaptation.
s
do you think it's feasible Shakespeare ever worked as a translator? (of Latin I'm guessing, not clear to me if it was likely he ever spoke, say, French too or something)
I don't think so, no