2013

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0481  Tuesday, 15 October 2013

 

[1] From:        Herman Gollob <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         October 14, 2013 1:26:54 PM EDT

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Crown and Roses 

 

[2] From:        Michael Barnhart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         October 14, 2013 6:35:31 PM EDT

     Subject:     Crown and Roses 

 

 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Herman Gollob <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         October 14, 2013 1:26:54 PM EDT

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Crown and Roses

 

Totally agree with Dukakis. Watched only a few scenes from Hollow Crown, found it self-consciously “cinematic,” totally lacking in intensity and immediacy and fluency, deadly dull. Whereas the 60’s b&w productions were right-on, brilliant stuff by the inimitable Robert Hardy, a neat Hotspur by Sean Connery.  Also wonderful were the BBC-Time Life productions done in the early 80s, with a great Hotspur by Tim Piggott-Smith.

 

     Herman Gollob

 

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Michael Barnhart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         October 14, 2013 6:35:31 PM EDT

Subject:     Crown and Roses

 

I too watched The Hollow Crown Richard II. And certainly the production values, visuals and “feel” of the piece exceed that of The War of the Roses. I am interested in how others might view the interpretation from the director and actors of this recent addition. I found they took the direction of literal interpretations throughout. For example, during the famous “Of comfort no man speak” monologue Richard says, “let us sit upon the ground and tell sad stories of the death of Kings . . .” And then all the actors indeed sit upon the ground. This, along with many other interpretations of the script were taken quite literally. I would not have played it that way, it seems more a speech of irony and pain and the bold realization of what wearing a “hollow crown” may bring when it’s knocked off one’s head.  That doesn’t exclude actors sitting down at that point, but played so literally it seemed rather childish to me. I’m wondering if others share my view or found that it worked well depicted in that manner. 

 

Michael Barnhart

 

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.