Showing posts with label fuck me I love Shakespeare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fuck me I love Shakespeare. Show all posts

Tuesday, 29 April 2014

Happy Birthday, Mr Swan of Avon: And Now Some Completely Uneccessary Lists About Shakespeare

Bringing the month of 450th anniversary celebrations to a close (because we all celebrated Shakespeare's birthday for a full month, with balloons and cake and don't lie to me), today we bring you Lists of Stuff You Didn't Know You Needed To Know But Definitely Do.  About Shakespeare Characters.

Now lists of this kind are ten a farthing: Best Villains, Best Monarchs, Best Women etc (because belonging to a group that comprises 50% of the population is obviously its own genre) but we at Jane Shakespeare pride ourselves on offering you a little more Bard for your buck (not sorry).  From now on, when someone turns to you on the street, cornering you with a look that betokens literary malice aforethought, and snarls, "Quick! Name Shakespeare's five biggest hipsters or I'll slice you up so thin I could print the First Folio on you", your days of gibbering in confusion and idiocy are over.  Really, I am almost too good to you, but the general festivity and several large bumpers of wine I have been consuming daily to mark the occasion mellow my usually tyrannical mood.  "Oh, that men should put an enemy in their mouths to steal away their brains." - indeed, Bill, and Happy Birthday.

(A/N: I was originally going to include a 'Top 5 Characters Most in Need of an Intervention' list but a) I had trouble limiting it to five and b) most of my notes* were "ALL'S WELL THAT ENDS WELL" written in increasingly manic handwriting.)


Top Five BFFs
There's nothing a Shakespearian protagonist needs more than a trusty second in command, someone to wipe away the tears when everyone just won't stop trying to kill you, and provide wise words of comfort when the incestuous overtones start getting a bit much.  I would personally be very grateful to have any of these at my side, and probably more than a little aroused.

5) Enobarbus (Antony and Cleopatra)
Who's BFF? Mark Antony
Why? Sometimes you just need someone to describe in fulsome terms why your girlfriend is awesome. Antony, bless him, is not the most loquacious tool in the shed, and much of his dialogue could be replaced with "totes", "STFU" and "soz babes" and you'd still very much be in reception of the gist.  Enobarbus, however, comes out with one of the most famous speeches in the canon (you know, barges, burnished thrones, that one) about his best pal's lady friend, bringing the entire Roman Empire perilously close to going "actually yeah, I'd totes provoke a civil war for her too, let's just have an amphora and call it a day". Points deducted for the fact that he eventually jumps ship for Team Octavius, who has terrible hair and his parties are lame, but he has a great speech while he makes the decision.

 4) Cassius (Julius Caesar)
Who's BFF? Brutus
Why? Every hero of a regime turned renegade needs a power behind the throne to topple that regime.  Cassius is the ideal Second in Command, the manipulator who sticks to the shadows in order to let you shine.  He's a Pete Campbell, a Littlefinger, redeemed by his totes-no-homo love for Brutus - and seriously, imagine if either Pete or Littlefinger decided to truly and deeply love another human being. Terrifying.  My version of Julius Caesar is basically called "Brutus and Cassius' Excellent Adventure", and it ends when Cassius turns to Brutus with tears in his eyes and says, "you love me not" in Act 4 Scene 3, and Brutus gives his angstful reply, "I do not like your faults", voice cracking with emotion, presumably while manfully clasping the back of Cassius' neck and peering deep into his soul. Cue Snow Patrol.

3) Poins (Henry IV Parts 1 and 2)
Who's BFF? Prince Hal
Why? Poins is kind of a weird anomaly in the Henry IV tavern scenes - he appears to belong to some kind of aristocracy but, like Hal, spends his time hanging around with lowlives and drunks.  He and Hal seem to have a closeness to rival Hal and Falstaff, tag-teaming each other for a series of hilarious public-schoolboy-style practical jokes (public humiliation of the elderly, torment of minimum wage service workers etc), and Poins is never around when Hal isn't, leading to the inevitable conclusion that Poins is desperately in love with Hal and follows him everywhere trying to pluck up the courage to tell him.  (This is a recurring theme in the selection of this list.)  Hal also unburdens himself to Poins in Part 2, when everything is going a bit mopey and minor key, and Poins gives him a sharp "suck it up, Crown Prince of all England" talking to, which is only slightly undercut by the revelation that Poins has been telling all and sundry that Hal is going to marry his sister, but I won't insult your intelligence by pointing out how obviously that's a displacement tactic for unrequited homoerotic yearning. Like Cassius, the relationship breaks down with Poins' armour-piercing line, "My honey sweet lord, you love me not." Not in a gay way though. (Totally in a gay way.)

2) Celia (As You Like It)
Who's BFF? Rosalind
Why? Celia wants to jump Rosalind's bones. Yes, I know they're cousins, and yes, I know she ends up married to a man, but these are minor details on the road to pastoral sapphic bliss.  There is no way Oliver is anything other than a beard, and perhaps a way to spite Orlando-obsessed Rosalind by stealing her thunder for continuously and concertedly ignoring the woman who has been at her side from Scene 1. Celia loves Rosalind more than her own father.  More than she loves sleeping in a soft bed, or having nice things to wear, or not smelling like sheep all the time. When people point out that Rosalind overshadows her, she does not give a single solitary fuck. She dreams of being overshadowed by Rosalind, ifyouknowwhatImean, andIthinkyoudo.  She is her friend, her constant companion, her support, her conscience and, admirably, survives the extreme sexual confusion of seeing Rosalind dressed as a boy.  When asked to perform the marriage vows for Rosalind and Orlando, she says simply, "I cannot speak the words." I will brook no other interpretations, though I admit it is entirely possible that I should have called this list 'Top 5 Cases of Unrequited Homoerotic Longing'.

1) Horatio (Hamlet)
Who's BFF? Hamlet
Why? Oh, everything.  Everything about Horatio is precious and understated and we should celebrate him like the special sunflower that he is.  It cannot be easy being the best friend of an emotionally fragile bereaved philosophy student, but somehow he manages. As with the best of Shakespeare's supporting characters, he has his own quiet arc happening in the background of the play, going from enlightened man of reason who politely exposits on Denmark's political situation to Captain of Team Hamlet, supporting him through shipwrecks, funerals and sword fights alike. He is the Agent Coulson of the Shakespeare universe. He is not afraid to call Hamlet out on his bullshit ('no, buddy, you just murdered two of our best friends, that's totally what you did') or express uncharacteristically instinctive concern for his wellbeing ('I just have a really bad feeling about this duel thing'), and even tries to die with his friend but ultimately agrees to live and honour his memory by telling his story, when, like, literally everyone he knows is dead.  And I hope you appreciate that I made it this far without pointing out, once again, that Hamlet and Horatio are totally gay bones for each other.



Top 5 Hipsters
Whilst we tend to think of hipsters as a modern invention, along with selfies and emoticons and all the loud music the kids listen to these days, Shakespeare is, as always, ahead of the game.  These five would not be out of place sporting ironically nostalgic t-shirts featuring 8-bit video game characters whilst shuffling through the Shoreditch night as the music of plastic-framed glasses clacking sounds in the background, the mating call of the hipster.

5) Edmund (King Lear)
There is no doubt in my mind that Edmund spent his school days carving the anarchy symbol all over the desks and going to detention for wearing non-regulation skinny jeans rather than school trousers.  Do not talk to Edmund about legitimacy because legitimacy is, like, so mainstream.  Edgar is legitimate and Edgar probably listens to Coldplay.  Give Edmund half a joint and ten minutes and he will be expounding his complex socio-political theories about why the system is totally fucked, man, and the only thing to do is tear it down and start again.  Later though, because there's this band playing but you haven't heard of them and you wouldn't know where.

4) Apemantus (Timon of Athens)
Timon of Athens is not performed often because it is, essentially, not a very good play.  Timon is a man who has lots of nice things and then gives them all away and then is very surprised when this leaves him with no nice things.  Timon is not very good at maths.  In the second half of the play, mostly spent wandering a wasteland that is conveniently near Athens, the only character who joins him is Apemantus.  Apemantus feels the same towards Timon now that he's poor as he did when he was rich, because he hated Timon when he was rich and he still hates him now he's poor because he hates everybody because fuck society man.  It is one of Nick Hytner's greatest failings as artistic director of the National Theatre that in his production last year, Apemantus did not sport a deep vee and unimpressive moustache. And that is all there is to be said on the matter.

3) Beatrice (Much Ado About Nothing)
One cannot deny that there is more than a touch of the black-rimmed specs about Beatrice.  She definitely has a moleskin journal, and she definitely uses it to write performance poetry about why the patriarchy means the institution of marriage is inherently corrupt and also stopping her from getting a boyfriend.  She has many impressively insensitive speeches about why everyone around her is stupid and tedious and marriage is for mainstream idiots, which she then follows up with various weakly delivered lines that amount to, "Not you though, Hero.  I just meant people exactly like you."  As with most hipsters, her presence is politely tolerated by family and friends until she can be foisted off onto another of her kind.  After that, she and Benedick write each other ironic love poetry on their typewriters.

2) Hamlet (Hamlet)
Prince of Denmark, Prince of the Hipsters.  An interesting case, this one, because almost every generation has given forth a production of Hamlet in which he embodies a predominant teen stereotype of the day - grunge, emo, public school, and now hipster.  Perhaps this is because there is a certain type of studenty pretentiousness that never really dies (it just comes at the cost of crippling debt now), but nor would we want it to.  Hamlet scores pretty high on this list because he is quite a loveable hipster, really, and also has somewhat more cause than most other entries here.  Having said that, I do not want to think about how many scarves he and Horatio had in their shared student flat in Wittenberg.  Also, they definitely used to invite Rosencrantz and Guildenstern round for ironic board game night and then always pick Articulate and always win.

1) Jaques (As You Like It)
If Hamlet is Prince of the Hipsters, then Jaques is their king.  Jaques is such a hipster, any production that does not costume him in red trousers and have him entering the Forest of Arden on a fixie bike is…well, probably making the right decision, but you know.  Jaques is so hipster that laughing is too mainstream for him, unless it's laughing ironically with hollow, detached hauteur at the accidental poignancy of the hilarious peasant who probably eats fast food and likes reality television.  Jaques claims the top spot because all his problems are First World Problems in the Firstiest Worldiest way possible.  He has enough money to travel around at leisure, spending an indeterminate period of time hanging with a banished duke and ordering buskers to play weird genre mash-up music that he wrote.  He is, essentially, on a perpetual gap year, forever seeking solace in his own misery, pointing out doomed couples at their own wedding, and refusing to stick around for the disco.  Jaques, he would have you know, does not do disco.

(Honourable mention: Prince Hal. Rich kid, hangs around in East London to annoy his father. Case closed.)


Top 5 Badasses
Joss Whedon once pointed out that Shakespeare kills his characters off all the time and he gets way less flak for it (but then again, Shakespeare didn't kill off Wash). It's a dark, dark universe out there, and only the fittest/least conventionally Tragic survive.

5) Achilles (Troilus and Cressida)
For the greatest warrior ever born, Achilles sure spends a lot of his time avoiding doing any actual warrior-ing, choosing instead to lounge upon silk sheets with snarky boytoy Patroclus (this one is canon, guys, I swear), encouraging him to do impressions of his bosses.  Occasionally his bosses turn up at his tent to ask him to fight and he says something like,"Hey. Hey. How's that war going without me? Never mind, I can't hear you over the sound of me not giving a single embattled fuck." Achilles is essentially every teenage douchebag ever, but with the ability to kill a man with his little finger. Then again, such is the force of his warrior-ing that a little bit of it actually ends the play so maybe he was just being considerate.

4) Lady Macbeth (Macbeth)
Lady M scores low on the list because, despite being indisputably terrifying, she is very much all talk.  We can blame this on Ye Misogynistic Olden Dayes, of course, but we still cannot place her any higher until she actually does some killing, rather than just saying repeatedly, "I TOTALLY WOULD BUT YOU ARE THE ONE WITH THE PENIS HERE". I don't make the rules.** Also you get the impression that maybe if she'd had an actual career, she wouldn't have turned to murder and treason as a funtime hobby.  Despite this, she's still a force to be reckoned with, and thus deserves her spot (hee) for being a badass by proxy.

3) Coriolanus (Coriolanus)
Coriolanus is kind of the explicit badass of the Shakespeare food chain. He captures a town single-handedly and spends most of the first two acts wandering around wearing clothes made of blood (and then, according to some interpretations, takes a sexy shower of angst while ripping his shirt off manfully in a moment that totally contradicts every single other aspect of his character contained in the rest of the play but hey, you got to sell tickets somehow).  He doesn't score much higher though because he is the easiest unstoppable killer to manipulate in history.  The majority of the play is people telling him what to do and him saying "that sounds legit", whether the instruction in question is to don sackcloth and humble himself before the proletariat, or turn around and march on said proletariat.  Unsurprisingly, this ends with arch-nemesis/make-out buddy*** Aufidius getting so pissed off he stabs him in the heart.  Which is maybe overkill, but he was being super flaky.

2) Portia (The Merchant of Venice)
Let's change it up a bit here.  Portia might not fight any physical battles but she is scarier than everyone else in the entire play put together.  The Victorians loved her because she's wise and virtuous and blah blah blah, forget all that, she's a hideous racist bitch, basically.  She's casually xenophobic about nearly everyone who tries to hit on her who isn't the colour of cottage cheese, and completely destroys Shylock's life because JEW (this may also be why the Victorians loved her).  But what makes her most terrifying is her sheer balls.  I don't know if you've noticed, but even by the standards of Shakespeare's day, everything she does in the courtroom scene is hideously illegal.  Impersonating a lawyer, pointing out loopholes that aren't really loopholes, turning the proceedings back against Shylock (who is not, after all, the one being tried) - at the very least, he would be a due a re-trial.  Perhaps this is the point - the court is already so inherently biased against Shylock that they'll allow Portia's shenanigans, but I like to think it's also because she stared the Doge in the eye while running a knife along her teeth.

1) Henry V (Henry V)
As with Portia, there's a lot of bollocks going around when it comes to Henry V.  And as with Portia, he claims the top spot amongst Shakespearean badasses for having pure unqualified moxy.  Where guys like Achilles and Coriolanus know they are top of their game, King Harry plays russian roulette with not only his own life but the lives of an entire army.  He marches a pitifully small force over to France and plays the underdog-iest away game in the history of ever, and all because the French did some French sneering, because they are French (Shakespeare is a balanced and objective historian). At Harfleur, he never has to make good on his threats to let his soldiers rape the women and murder the children of the town if it doesn't surrender, but the jury's out on whether he would or not, had push come to naked infants spitted upon pikes.    At Agincourt, the moment that tips the battle in his favour comes just after he orders the execution of his prisoners of war (straight up war crime, in case you weren't sure).  All in all, Henry wins against extraordinary odds through a combination of fierce chat, strategic ruthlessness and a willingness to play dice with a whole lot of lives.  But I don't know, actually, maybe that doesn't make him a badass.  Maybe that just makes him a dick.



Top 5 Sexiest Characters
I once had a dream that my job was to describe attractive celebrities in entertaining ways.  Until I work out how to monetise this skill and make my dream a reality, I'm just going to write more about which fictional characters I would totally do.

5) Hector (Troilus and Cressida)
Troilus and Cressida takes place in a terrible world full of terrible people.  Shit is just constantly going down over there.  But in the midst of the carnage and betrayal and venereal disease and fedora-wearing Trojans, there stands a beacon of honourable hotness, a bright spot of old-fashioned hunkitude, one DILF to rule them all.  Go thy way, Hector, go thy way, indeed.  Hector will fight your morally dubious war and put up your shelves just because you asked nicely, probably with his baby son in his arms at the same time.  It is but one illustration of how soul-destroying Shakespeare wished this play to be that Hector meets his end at the ignoble hands of Achilles' Myrmidons hiding in ambush.  Let us take comfort, friends, in the fact that even Achilles required back-up to kill Hector, such is the force of his unadulteratedly righteous bodaciousness. Here endeth the lesson.

4) Prince Hal (Henry IV Parts 1 and 2)
I am aware that people do not always share my high opinion of Prince Hal, but then again, people are not always as naturally blessed with such inherent and unwavering rightness as I, and also people can suck it.  Moral ambiguity.  Quick wit.  Desperate craving for fatherly approval complicated by deep love for a surrogate father figure he knows he will ultimately have to reject. Symbolic defeat of his foil in single combat, complete with knicker-dropping Shakespearian smack talk ("I am the Prince of Wales, and think not, Percy,/ To share with me in glory any more./ Two stars keep not their motion in one sphere,/ Nor can one England brook a double reign/ Of Harry Percy and the Prince of Wales." PHWOAR.)  Hal is a sexy little bundle of angst and quips.  He is, essentially, a Joss Whedon character.  And I can give no higher praise than that.

3) Rosalind (As You Like It)
I think I can best sum this up with a line from The Mighty Boosh: "They call me the Confuser. Is it a man? Is it a woman? Ooh, I'm not sure I mind." But before there was Noel Fielding, there was Rosalind.  Rosalind, let us be clear, will mess you up in the head.  She is a magical fantasy androgynous wizard coquette, and she waltzes through the Forest of Arden like she owns it, leaving a trail of sexually confused hysteria in her wake.  The worst one can say of her, perhaps, is that she bestows herself upon a man not worth her time and who can bring little to the relationship besides some terrible poetry and light vandalism of trees, and perhaps also that she fails to notice Celia waiting patiently at her side (see above).  Whilst in Twelfth Night, Orsino has a visible moment of heterosexual relief upon the revelation of Viola's identity, Orlando - one suspects - is easy either way.  And so, undoubtedly, is the audience.

2) Edmund (King Lear)
If there's one thing we love here at Jane Shakespeare, it's a rebel with a cause.  And Edmund is the rebel-iest cause-iest rebel with a cause that ever did rebel, with a cause. As with the best of his kind, he flits back and forth across the line of the redeemable, not so much immoral as twistedly amoral, but (BE STILL MY HEART) in the end, just wants to be loved.  In a play full of world-beating lines, his dying words - "Yet Edmund was beloved" - go straight to the below stairs area as a simple statement of fact from someone who still can't quite believe it.  And when the Marvel films wheel out their Loki version during his inevitable redemption via death (for nothing is truer than the fact that Thor is King Lear In Space), I will cheer out loud in the cinema.  Edmund beat out Hamlet for this list for several reasons (see here for details), but mostly because you get all of the moody introspection coupled with the remarkable ability to get shit done (shit, in this case, is usurpation and eye-gouging by proxy).  Brooding and motivated? Get it, Edmund. Get. It.

1) Cleopatra (Antony and Cleopatra)
There is only one character in the canon whose sex drive starts an actual war (shut up yes also Helen of Troy) and only one character who can justly wear the crown of Shakespearian Bangability. Cleo is not only one of the greatest roles maybe ever, she's also an indisputable MILF.  Part of her appeal is her capriciousness - imperious and coquettish by turns, all throwing shade about Antony's boring wife one minute, and threatening to stab up unfortunate messengers the next.  If 30 Rock's 'MILF Island' was an actual thing, she would win by a landslide.  (New idea. MILF Island: Shakespeare Edition.  NO WAIT - THE HUNGER GAMES: SHAKESPEARE EDITION.****)  But Cleopatra wins mostly because, while she is undoubtedly slammin' of mind and body, all the descriptions of her seem to revolve around the aura of awesomeness she carries with her into the room.  Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale her infinite variety. Cleopatra has sexy in her soul and that, ladies and gentlemen, is something to which we can all aspire.


And that's it. Much as I tried to keep it to one entry per character, Edmund wangled two (he's like that) and looking it over, some of my favourite plays are glaringly, painfully apparent (haha screw you Othello).  All that remains to be said is that, of course, these are only a matter of personal opinion and completely open to debate so feel free to put your own suggestions in the comments.  No, go on.  Really, I would love that.  Disagree with me.  I dare you.

*Yes, I make notes.  These poorly-structured over-emotional outbursts don't just spring into being fully-formed.  (Actually they mostly do, but sometimes I need to procrastinate.)
**Lies.
***No seriously, Aufidius has this whole speech when the two enemies join forces that basically says, "I have such a hate-boner for you.  No seriously, I have dreams about this. Sweaty dreams."
****It cannot be just me that routinely assesses the room they are in by determining the order in which its inhabitants would die in the Hunger Games.

Friday, 11 April 2014

Happy Birthday, Mr Swan of Avon: An Unnecessary and Rambling Defence of William Shakespeare

It was going on four years ago that, casting about for a name for the blog I had decided to start so that I might make the option of engaging with my Doctor Who rants voluntary rather than inescapable, I settled on Jane Shakespeare.  ‘Shakespeare’ is, natch, my favourite writer, which seemed appropriate for a blog that was sure to be devoted to vital and pressing literary journalism and not at all discussions of which fictional characters I’d most like to bang, and ‘Jane’ had a pleasantly anonymous feel to it, making it suitable for my sophisticated and mysterious alter ego.

I shall allow you a moment to finish mirthfully wiping your eyes.

‘Jane’ is also, of course, a reference to my favourite novelist and, as such, she has already been made the subject of a celebratory post.  Shakespeare, though, not so much. There were my reviews of The Hollow Crown, which remains to this day my post with the highest hit count, teaching me the valuable lesson that if you want traffic to your blog, include pictures of Tom Hiddleston in a sauna (I’d love it if there was just an insatiable hunger for over-enthusiastic dissection of televised Shakespeare but I am, occasionally, a realist).  I’ve started Shakespeare-centric posts a couple of times – my top ten characters, the five greatest performances I’ve seen, and so on and so forth.  Shakespeare has featured in several other posts.  But for one reason or another, having his own has never quite happened.  Until now. The man turns 450 this year and by god, I’m going to acknowledge it.

Let’s be clear: much of the 450 celebrations are tourism.  Shakespeare  the ‘national poet’ is an export, a cartoon guy in a ruff with a bald head and maybe he’s like holding a skull or something because that’s from one of the plays right? No snobbery or denigration is intended here (well, not much) because Stratford as a town basically runs off of Shakespeare tourism, despite the irony that he spent much of his life trying to objectively not be in Stratford.  Shakespeare also gets caught up in nationalism debates a lot – when Jez Butterworth’s Jerusalem (essentially a treatise on the whole notion of Englishness) was in the theatres, one of the most frequent name-drops in reviews was Shakespeare, with the play being received as a kind of mixture of Henry V and A Midsummer Night’s Dream (like, so many feelings about that but the margin being too narrow for my purposes etc etc). Keats has a right old fanboy squee about the “Chief Poet!” and his work: “The bitter-sweet of this Shakespearian fruit” (but I can’t stay mad at Keats for long, bless him).  It’s natural, in a way – there is no more famous writer in the English language, no other playwright who has their own company, their own theatre, their own place on every syllabus at every age. Shakespeare is inextricably part of the make-up, the DNA of Britain – if you don’t believe me, then Hugh Grant says it in Love Actually too (but frankly I’m quite offended that you believe Hugh Grant over me, especially in Love Actually).

But. But. But. That is not a good enough reason to make such a song and dance about it.  Of course it isn’t. Tradition on its own never is. And tradition is not why every single person ever should be acquainted with Shakespeare in some way.  Because I do believe that, I really do.  The first thing to say here is that I’m not saying it should be compulsory in schools (although I think it already is). Schools, for the most part, make kids hate Shakespeare. And no wonder. I get bored reading it sometimes and he is my very favourite playwright ever. But it should be seen and it should be heard and it should be spoken and it should be talked about.  That’s what he wrote it for – entertainment.  To make people laugh and cry and throw up in their mouths a little bit (Titus Andronicus). It’s silly enough to make stupid jokes and high school comedy adaptations of (not an insult, 10 Things I Hate About You was perhaps the peak of artistic endeavour in the early 2000s), and it’s serious enough to bring hope and solace to those in need (personal experience applies but also the Robben Island Bible and so many, many other instances).  I like arguing, and most Shakespeare plays could be argued about forever.  It’s a natural partnership, you might say.

But one of the most common complaints I hear about Shakespeare is that he’s irrelevant.  Who cares what a Dead White Guy has to say about stuff four hundred odd years ago?  And yes, it bothers me sometimes that as both a feminist and a literary person, my favourite writers are pretty much all of the Dead White Male persuasion (notable exceptions included).  I couldn’t say why but early on in my education, Shakespeare, Keats and Austen formed a triumvirate that retains its empire over my heart to this day.  One thing they have in common is that they’re all writers who are passionately misunderstood by their most passionate fans.* Allow me to put on my hipster glasses for a moment.  Keats is thrillingly romantic but he’s first and foremost Romantic, in a small, angry, dying man kind of way.  Austen gives her characters happy endings but I wouldn’t have wanted to sit next to her at a dinner party (actually I totes would, if only because I’d feel more out of the line of fire there than opposite her, and we could bitch behind our fans). Shakespeare...yeah. I say Shakespeare is misunderstood by his fans, because I think to some extent he’s misunderstood by everybody.  Misunderstood isn’t even the right word really – ungraspable would be a better adjective, or unknowable, or subversive. Contemporary accounts of the man himself are rare, and those that exist aren’t always reliable, but they all seem to say the same thing: a quiet man, an observer. From his will, we know he wasn’t especially generous – not so much the second best bed furore, but the fact that his bequeathments to the Stratford poor are negligible compared to what other writers of similar financial status left behind. Then there’s also the fact that, as mentioned, he skipped town to London pretty quickly after his shotgun marriage to Anne Hathaway (although again, debate continues over how loving or unloving this marriage was).

From very little evidence and completely unscientific instinct, the picture painted seems to me more writer than man, someone not entirely engaged in the business of living his own life and much more concerned with recording others. But he was a man, and that – I think – is where we go so wrong.  Milton, as a young poet, wrote a sonnet about reading Shakespeare and being helplessly paralysed in the wake of it – what would be the point of writing, when you knew you would never be as good? And that was from the guy who wrote Paradise Lost. But Shakespeare was just a man, and he was a lucky one – he lived at a time when theatre was the dominant form of entertainment, and a form of entertainment that was about hearing, about language, which he was, y’know, pretty good at. The vocabulary of English as a whole was rapidly expanding, he lived through the turn of a century and a crisis of succession, not to mention the aftermath of a hundred or so years of religious wrangling, and the end of a dynasty. It’s all so much more complicated than I can ever fully explain, but something shifted during Shakespeare’s lifetime, and he was the right man in the right place at the right time.  Jonson famously wrote that he was “not of an age but for all time” – true, but it’s the first bit that we tend to forget about. He was completely of his age, and it was the age that he happened to belong to that allowed him to be ‘of all time’.

All this means – confusingly, as someone who obviously loves Shakespeare a lot – that I think we could stand to knock him off the pedestal a little.  Sometimes as a director I get asked why I keep doing Shakespeare plays (of the eleven full length plays I have directed, seven are Shakespeare plays, and that’s not counting workshops) and the answer is always the same: within the Complete Works is every story I could ever want to tell. I believe that it is directors, rather than writers, who are the descendants of storytellers, travelling bards – we don’t make up our own stories, but we take ones that already exist and embellish, alter, bring elements in and out of focus.  Basically, if a play has too many stage directions, I go “nope” and get out the Complete Works again because those plays are robustThey withstand a lot of loving dicking about. Age shall not wither them etc. They don’t endure because Shakespeare is some mysterious dude up on a monument, but because they’re low down and dirty plays, quick and living and breathing and painful. Bad Shakespeare happens when people approach with too much reverence – of course, it also happens when people approach without actually having a single clue about the play they’re doing, which is kind of the opposite end of the spectrum. But at least those disasters tend to be fascinating car crashes that you can’t look away from – the greatest sin, born of too much veneration, is to make it boring.  You can do kind of anything with these plays.  I’m not saying every idea is gold but theoretically, you can.

And to purists who insist that Shakespeare should be performed in tights and ruffs, or have all male casts because ‘original practice’ (yet curiously displaying a casual disregard for ‘original practice’ in, oh, every other area of the production, Propellor, I mean you and your huge amount of Arts Council funding**), to you I say this: he’s been dead for four hundred years. He doesn’t care.  In fact, what with the way Renaissance playwrights rewrote each others’ work to keep it up to date, he’d probably just shrug and be all, “Whatevs, forsooth” if you told him you were relocating A Midsummer Night’s Dream to a secondary school and replacing the fairy music with Miley Cyrus.*** And while ‘original practice’ is actually very interesting and can provide hugely valuable insights into the way the plays work (for example, knowing that The Winter’s Tale was written for the Blackfriars indoor theatre tells you a lot about why the pacing of it is so much statelier and more intimate than, say, Henry V which is a Globe play and involves lots of rushing about to cover all the entrances and exits), that doesn’t mean we have to slavishly reproduce those practices for an audience that has changed a lot in the four intervening centuries.  The fact is, these plays can and do adapt beautifully because they are about people, and people do not change all that much, whether they are in medieval Verona or 1920s Berlin or present day Afghanistan (also Will was not exactly historically accurate himself, cf chiming clocks in Ancient Rome)Furthermore, it is people who are going to see your play, and you have a duty to share your story with them because selfish theatre that doesn’t care about its audience is just no good to anyone, and I could be doing stuff with your funding.

The exception to all of this is that I am an absolute devotee to understanding iambic pentameter and verse – but Picasso did not jump straight in with the eyes on the sides of heads, he learnt how to draw from life first.  It astonishes me the number of Shakespeare productions I see where the director has jumped straight to the concept and ignored the fundamentals of actually speaking the goddamn script – and that, really, is what makes a great production.  One of the best I’ve seen was Thea Sharrock’s As You Like It at the Globe.  I don’t even like As You Like It (ha).  Plus, it was in period dress.  But every single moment was clear and golden and the play just swept you along and Rosalind was a sexy butch lesbian type and Orlando looked like a goddamn rock star and Celia and Oliver**** were real, proper characters, and gah, my heart.  Verse is also something that I hear a lot of uncertainty about.  I won’t lie, it takes some getting used to, and there are rules to it that take some time to learn – but once you do, it unlocks a whole new, extraordinary level of meaning and, from a dramatic point of view, basically tells you how to do the play. Another young director once said to me that she would find Shakespeare too difficult to direct because it was this unbreachable, alien fortress of a thing– I wanted to shout, “No! I’m a fraud! It’s so easy! It’s the easiest thing in the world! The director of every Shakespeare play is Shakespeare! You just have to learn how to listen!” But I did not. But I wish I had. Because you should know that understanding it has absolutely nothing to do with schooling and everything to do with listening and instinct. Anyway.

In the end, the point I wish to make is this.  To end where I began, the episode of Doctor Who that has Shakespeare in it describes him as “the most human human”.  I can’t really get much closer than that.  He is the least Dead, White or Male of any of the DWMs I know and love – his perspective, that quiet, observer’s perspective, is always that of the outsider.  His plays are full of people trying to get in, always excluded from something, no matter what their social status.  His characters are creatures of want, of desire, and their happiness is predicated on getting that thing – I’m not sure Hamlet is a tragedy, and I’m not sure All’s Well That Ends Well is a comedy (ok, well, it’s definitely not a comedy, but I’m not going to get into why ‘problem play’ is too easy a cop-out now).  He takes the part of the dispossessed, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free – there is compassion and sorrow running through and through the veins of Shakespeare, not least in the plays that take place in crappy universes where everything is terrible always (King Lear, Troilus and Cressida). That’s why he’s relevant, that’s why he goes on.  Not always, of course, there are areas that are hugely problematic – Coriolanus’ whole “give political power to the poor? That is ridiculous” stance, the minefield that is the gender politics of The Taming of the Shrew*****, the casual racism of The Merchant of Venice’s deceptively awesome heroine Portia, and so on and so forth forever. But that’s part of the deal. That’s the package of being human, and no production will ever make a definitive discovery on any of this.

I want to direct Shakespeare because, as I said, travelling storyteller. There is not just one Hamlet to tell, there are as many Hamlets as there are actors. I have at least three different ways of doing King Lear, and everything I’ve already directed only makes me want to do it again. It will never stop being new to me, which is exciting and beneficently humbling. With other writers I may direct one of their plays and feel it has been exorcised from me – with Shakespeare it’s just a Zen matter of waiting for the wheel to come full circle, and feeling out when the time is right for a particular story in a particular way.  I am sceptical of the books and talks and teachers who say, “The thing you need to know about Richard III is...” because if you are a sufficiently good storyteller, I believe that in the end the only manual you need is the text itself. By being you, an individual reading it at your place in your time, it becomes a new play again – perhaps this is true of any good writer, but it is Shakespeare, who finds time for every walk of life and every strain of feeling, who lends himself to it most.

And just to prove that I learn from past experience:



You’re welcome.

*Also in this category: Byron.  I’m told that Byron conventions are full of men who think they are Byron, and women who want to go back in time and sleep with Byron, to which I say, ladies, please. Think of the syphilis. Yes, he was a rake and a cad and a brooding, wandering, tortured soul but he was also an absolutely on the ball, incisive and keenly-minded genius and his greatest work is basically a sex tour of Europe, in rhyme.
**I do know Propeller are not in any way purists, and I really enjoy their productions but also I cannot really get on board with the idea of a company being funded to take jobs away from women, especially when there are so few in the first place.
***Not actually being facetious, I would probably enjoy this production a lot.
****Massively helped by Oliver being played by Jamie Parker, who can get it. More Jamie Parker doing Shakespeare, for it is what the people want.
*****I will never stop saying this: it is not a sparky tale of two social misfits playing a sexy sex game, it is a tale of a woman being systematically abused until she gives up her desire to speak her own thoughts, at which point she is rewarded with the opportunity to speak her husband’s thoughts. However, 10 Things I Hate About You will never not be excellent, so maybe let’s all just watch that instead.

Tuesday, 25 March 2014

Theatre Director Confessions, or How to Sabotage Your Career in Fourty-Four Easy Steps

As the more astute amongst you may be aware from the subtle hints I have dropped from time to time in this blog, my chosen career is that of theatre director (also it's in the sidebar).  I don't often delve into the world of theatre here - this is a sacred space reserved for vital and pressing journalism about which Batman is best, after all - but sometimes the muse pipes a tune and I must dance to it.  To put it in a way that is slightly less absolutely appalling, as the amount of time I spend doing my job increases, the amount of time available to spend thinking about Batman decreases.  Since I am unwilling to give up the one dominion in which I occupy the role of benevolent dictator, I thought I'd try combining the two.

The following is a sum total of all the things I will one day end up proclaiming loudly at the Oliviers at the same moment the room goes unexpectedly quiet.  Howard Davies will shake his head in dissapointment.  Rufus Norris will delicately avert his gaze.  Thea Sharrock will make an awkward face to her left.  I will drink champagne with great dignity, and trip as I leave the room. Thus:


Theatre Director Confessions, or How to Sabotage Your Career in Forty-Four Easy Steps

1) Sometimes when I watch Mark Rylance act, I hear Liz Lemon’s voice in my head saying “Nope. Hipster nonsense.”

2) Every time I try to read a Beckett play I giggle uncontrollably and have to put it down because it’s so very Beckett. Consequently the only Beckett play I have read is Waiting for Godot and it took me three goes to get past the first page.

3) I like Tom Stoppard. Haters to the left.

4) It is ridiculous that any high profile production directed by a female director should have to represent all work by female directors but I am irrationally panicky when such productions are anything less than flawless and I read the reviews poised in a state of hyper-tense paranoia, scouring them for anything that would not have been said about a male director.

5) I am more angry than I let on about the fact that Michael Grandage was allowed to spunk an astronomical amount of money on a season of work that never rose beyond “okay, I guess”, simply by virtue of being Michael Grandage.

6) I have only ever seen one Katie Mitchell production but sometimes I lie and say I have seen others.

7) I lied to Ben Whishaw about being a fan of Katie Mitchell.

8) I have never read Katie Mitchell’s A Director’s Craft.

9) I have never read Peter Brook’s The Empty Space.

10) I own both, and still believe that I will read them one day.

11) I have an irrational fondness for female directors who swear a lot.

12) I get uneasy when directors are criticised for having gone to Oxbridge because I went to Oxbridge and I try and calculate how much my level of privilege is offset by being female and always conclude that it is not enough.

13) I am far too easily influenced by other people’s opinions. I no longer know how I feel about London Road, having heard it praised and eviscerated with equal ferocity.

14) I sometimes have trouble telling Simon Stephens plays apart, which feels a bit like being racist.

15) I believe that everyone has the right to fail, and fail big time, at least once, but I am scared that the reality is such that I have to be hitting home runs from the start.

16) Sometimes my attention wanders in rehearsal. I am secretly convinced that no other director has ever let their focus slip, ever.

17) I would like to be able to point to a defining incident in my childhood that explains why I decided to become a theatre director, like a supervillain origin story. Sadly, I can’t get beyond ‘I like plays and I like being in charge and I have no transferrable skills.’*

18) I can, however, pinpoint the moment when I acknowledged to myself that I wanted to be a theatre director. It was New Year’s Eve 2009/2010 and after repeatedly being turned away from the club my friends were in for being too drunk, I was eventually allowed access, belted up the stairs just in time for the countdown and looked out through the floor-to-ceiling windows to see the National Theatre lit up across the river. “In ten years’ time,” I slurred to the assembled party, few of whom were paying attention, “I’m going to be on the other side of the river.” Four and a bit years later, I no longer retain the same sense of certainty, but have at least never been clubbing on New Year’s Eve since.

19) The best thing anyone has ever said to me over the course of my fledgling career is, "I'm not scared of Nick Hytner.  I'm scared of you."

20) The worst thing anyone has ever said to me over the course of my directing career was not actually a comment but they laughed openly at a play I had spent six months working on.  The play was not, per se, a comedy.

21) I am sort of waiting for a certain generation of theatre makers to die out.

22) I am definitely waiting for a certain generation of audiences to die out.

23) I will always rather go and see a Shakespeare play than any other writer, and I believe he is objectively the best playwrighdt in the English language. Fine if there is someone else you prefer, but do not fool yourself that there is someone better. There isn’t.

24) Equally, I sort of wish the RSC was just Greg Doran directing and no-one else.

25) I feel slightly sorry for the Marlowe Society. I feel like they sit around pretending Shakespeare doesn’t exist and if someone says the word ‘Stratford’ the room goes silent except for the sound of a single glass shattering on the floor.

26) I think less of people who dismiss Sarah Kane.

27) I worry that ‘edginess’ is going to become the defining factor in how well a play is received amongst my generation of theatre practitioners.

28) I feel like I should feel like more of a nonsense about using the word ‘practitioners’ but I don’t.

29) I feel guilty that I am more likely to remember young male actors I like than young female actors.

30) I find actors easier to get along with than playwrights, which is why I prefer working with dead ones.

31) I am a bit sad when actors like Benedict Cumberbatch and Tom Hiddleston find international film and television fame because it means I am less likely to see them in the theatre again and, probably, less likely to see performances as good as the theatre ones I saw at the beginning of their careers. Andrew Scott, stay with us.

32) I have invented a fictional Royal Court playwright whose work includes such plays as 'Savage Genuflection' and 'The Quiet of Skin'. The title of the play is said in context approximately two-thirds of the way through each.  I am not sure to what purpose this imaginary person exists but I'm sure I’ll find out in due course.

33) I’m pretty certain I’ll write a humorously personal yet insightful collection of essays about Shakespeare plays one day and when I do, I’ll probably call it ‘Lear’s Button’. It will have moderate success, read mostly by dramatically minded English undergraduates, being too academic for most theatre-goers and too silly for most academics.

34) I once had a whole conversation with another theatre director I was trying to impress that I thought was about the Marvel Comics Avengers but was actually about the 1960s television series Avengers.

35) I once thought my cast had locked me in the lighting booth where I was doing some work so they could order pizza without me.  It later transpired they were writing individual thank you cards.  I still would have liked some pizza though.

36) The fact that I will now never direct Richard Griffiths as King Lear almost makes me not want to bother directing King Lear at all.

37) I think anyone who actually likes Titus Andronicus will grow out of it.

38) If I were offered a choice between running any theatre building I wanted or being the next companion on Doctor Who, I am genuinely unsure what I would say.

39) Everyone always uses the example of a Shakespeare play 'on the moon' to denote ridiculous relocations of classics.  I have never seen a Shakespeare play set on the moon.  I would like to.

40) I thought Joss Whedon's Much Ado film was better than Kenneth Branagh's.

41) There is no role I would not like to see Cush Jumbo play.  Literally no role.

42) Going to see a high-profile production of a play you know and thinking to yourself ‘I could probably do that better’ is one of the most enjoyable feelings you can have in this business, and you must never ever tell anyone about it out loud.

43) I genuinely don’t understand why Hamlet at least is not played equally by male and female actors now. (Hedda Gabler is not the female equivalent of Hamlet. Hamlet is the female equivalent of Hamlet.)

44) Jerusalem wasn’t all that.




*Slightly disingenuous, but I don’t think you want to hear the long-winded, over-earnest version I save for job interviews.

Sunday, 22 July 2012

The BBC Gives Me a Present: 'The Hollow Crown' Review

A/N: Each mini review was written after the film in question was aired so this is really a record of my week-by-week responses rather than a response to the whole.  Consequently it's quite long, even for this blog.  Epic blogging for an epic series.  That's what it is.

...

The degree of excitement with which I greeted the BBC's announcement that they would be televising the Henriad, aka Shakespeare's Richard II, Henry IV Part 1, Henry IV Part 2 and Henry V, aka some of my favourite plays of all time ever, directed by Rupert Goold, Richard Eyre and Thea Sharrock aka some my favourite theatre directors of all time ever, with a cast that would not only include Jeremy Irons, Ben Whishaw and Simon Russell Beale but would also feature Tom Hiddleston aka my favourite actor of all time ever (I might have mentioned him here a few times) as Prince Hal, aka one of my favourite parts in Shakespeare of all time ever, could, in nuclear terms, have levelled a small conurbation. The BBC, it seemed, was like a drunken uncle in a generous mood who knows that your parents have been arguing: "Would you like a present?  There you go.  No wait, you've been such a good girl, have another.  No, that's not nearly enough.  Here, take my kidney."  Or similar.

I was very excited.  Like, Avengers-level of excitement.  And I'm not ashamed of being so plebbishly thrilled.  History plays were the Dallas and Dynasty of Shakespeare's day: sexy, glamorous men and women shagging and trying to kill each other, all for the benefit of grubby little groundlings like me watching with one hand in a bucket of popcorn (or holding an orange stuck with cloves for the historical pedants amongst you), gaping maw slackened with delight and reverence.  They're meant to be enjoyed, is what I'm trying to say.

Having said that, I didn't want to just come here and flail.  I purposefully have refrained from posting reaction posts or excessive abuse of the caps lock key.  These are my favourite plays, and I want to respond to them like the adult with an English degree that I am.

AND THEN THIS HAPPENED.




The BBC doesn't want me to respond like a mature, intellectual adult.  The BBC wants me to just offer my ovaries up on a plate and say, "I'm so sorry I ever tried to have coherent thoughts about your Shakespeare plays, I'm probably just over stretching my woman-brain."  The patriarchy has a new weapon, and its name is TOM HIDDLESTON IN A FUCKING SAUNA.



Pictured: patriarchy.


I am really quite annoyed.

Despite this obvious attempt by the forces of retrogressiveness to prevent me from giving a considered analysis of The Hollow Crown, I have overcome all obstacles and done so.  I have also rewatched the sauna scene several times in order to prove that its bewitching enchantments have no hold over me, thou foul televisual wizards at the BBC.  So let that be a lesson to you.  Anyway, on with the show.

...

Richard II is a funny old play.  It's full of pomp and circumstance (phrase copyright Shakespeare, cf Othello), and a huge percentage of it is spoken in rhyming couplets which are not the easiest things to make sound spontaneous.  It was slightly to my surprise then that Goold's Richard II was - Act 1 to Act 5 - completely stunning.  I'd like to go into more detail than I can, mainly because I watched it three weeks ago now, but also because there's not much else to say.  The way it was translated into film was gorgeous: long, locked-off shots holding the court inside them like a series of picture-frames, the couplets delivered carefully but fiercely.  The great risk of any production of this play is that it will stale quickly, everyone caught inside the huge, slow-moving machine of the court and its rituals; Goold avoided this beautifully and the whole thing flowed like gossamer.

Whishaw is perfect casting for Richard - a man who is a bad king yet good at being king.  He was perfectly juxtaposed with Rory Kinnear's Bolingbroke, an actor who will never set the world on fire for me but was well cast here.  Whishaw is elegant and neurotic where Kinnear is heavy and direct, Richard's growing astonishment that he could ever be deposed beautifully paralleled with Bolingbroke's astonishment that he must be the one to depose him.  Also Whishaw is beautiful and Kinnear looks like a turnip but I'm sure that's beside the point.  The deposition scene in particular was magic; Richard's unwillingness to physically let go of the crown devolves into a grown man having a temper tantrum - but what a temper tantrum it is.  Goold and Whishaw understand what Richard understands - to be a king requires an essential theatricality, one that Bolingbroke does not have (but his son totally will).  It's not often you can watch an adult man lying on the floor kicking and screaming because someone is taking his toy (really, Richard's whole objection to Bolingbroke taking over as king amounts to "BUT HE DOESN'T LOOK AS GOOD AS MEEEE.  LOOK AT MY BONE STRUCTURE, THERE'S NO WAY HE CAN PULL OFF THIS CROWN.  I WANT A BIGGER LOLLY") and your overwhelming reaction is to hug them.

The cast as a whole is an embarrassment of riches - Patrick Stewart turns up to deliver the 'sceptered isle' speech ("Oh," says everyone with polite surprise, "so that's where that comes from") and then dies.  David Suchet turns up as York, which was actually less surprising than Lindsay Duncan turning up for all of two scenes as his wife and, apparently, mother to the guy with slamming cheekbones from the first series of Silk.  James Purefoy and David Morrissey are also just about discernible under a layer of grime and beards as Mowbray and Northumberland respectively, and Clemence Poesy does a very good job of swanning about being French and beautiful as Queen Isabella.

Speaking of queens, I was both amused and skeptical about the heavy Saint Sebastian imagery: as a play, Richard II owes a large debt to Marlowe's Edward II, which features a similarly idle king insensitive to his kingdom's needs who is then deposed and murdered, this time by his wife (another Isabella, conveniently) and her lover.  Marlowe, let's be frank, makes quite clear the reasons for Edward's wife's displeasure in the form a strapping young lad called Gaveston who Edward seems much more interested in spending time with.  I've always unconsciously assumed similar things about Richard and, it seems, so has Goold, except without the unconscious bit.  Richard lingers around nubile young models being painted as Saint Sebastian - adopted as a gay icon, as I found out when I proudly brought home a postcard of a very lovingly rendered Caravaggio-esque version of the pierced saint from the National Gallery and got some very questioning looks from my family - before dying in a similar fashion, shot full of crossbow bolts.  It's sort of reassuring that someone else had the same thoughts but also I'm still mentally thirteen and all the Saint Sebastian stuff was so heavy handed that it did make me giggle uncontrollably.  Not enough to put me off the production as a whole though: a gorgeous, gorgeous rendering of a difficult play.

...

On first watch, Henry IV Part 1 was a much more mixed bag.  I must confess, the Henry IVs have a special place in my heart, much of which is owed to the wonderful productions at the Globe in 2010, much of which is owed to Roger Allam's Falstaff and a slightly smaller amount of which is owed to Jamie Parker's Hal, who between them stole my affections much more successfully than Falstaff manages the robbery at Gadshill.  That was a joke to show you I've read Shakespeare.  It was a production that could only have worked at the Globe: rowdy, slightly pedestrian in interpretation and thoroughly reliant on a few charismatic lead performances, but ultimately big-hearted and sort of magical.

Eyre's Henry IV was, on a personal level, less successful.  It is a rather chilly, loveless interpretation of a hugely generous play that demands imagination from its dramatists.  The Henry IVs present life in all its little permutations, in all its unimportant nuances.  Perhaps the reminisces of Falstaff and Justice Shallow in Part 2 don't affect the movement of history but I dare you to listen to an actor - any actor - deliver Falstaff's line, "We have heard the chimes at midnight" and not feel like it's important to life.  This, perhaps, is what Eyre misses.  A history play is usually the story of a king; it is no accident that the Henry IVs, that seem so preoccupied with lowlives and rebels and general scum, tell the story of a prince.  The simple genius of these plays is that Hal isn't king yet: he's still a man (well, boy) and he responds to things like a man.  Henry V is a political play about war, no two ways about it, but so long as Hal is around, his drama is that of a man, encompassing life at its grandest and its most trivial and Shakespeare makes every moment of it important.

Eyre's production was a disappointment only in this respect: I simply didn't laugh enough.  I'm not being a pleb demanding more rotten fruit being thrown, it's intrinsic to the way the play works.  There is no other Shakespeare play that draws you so thoroughly into the protagonist's journey - we, with Hal, are seduced by Falstaff (though, thank heaven, not literally) and we, with Hal, are shocked when the cracks start to creep into the relationship even though we, with Hal, have always known that the party has to end sometime because when you are the crown prince the ending is kind of a foregone conclusion.  With Simon Russell Beale's dour, downbeat Falstaff, there was none of this seduction.  I was unsurprised by Falstaff's callous disregard for human life towards his pathetic band of soldiers -"food for power" he mutters as he marches - which is usually the point at we which we (and Hal) start to suspect it's not all Elizabethan Santa Claus and cups of sack.

Eyre's approach to the language was brilliant and frustrating in equal measure. On the one hand, it was treated like actual, living, breathing language that people uttered carelessly while they were riding or fighting or drinking or reigning, which was wonderful.  No-one proclaimed or declaimed or recited; Hal's eulogy for Hotspur after he kills him (roughly translated into modern English as "I'm really sorry I had to kill you so my dad would love me") was all the more affecting because Hiddleston - covered in blood and dirt and sweat - could barely get the words out for shortness of breath and pain from his wounds.  On the other hand, some of Shakespeare's most glorious and inventive language was simply glossed over, lines that held so much potential just thrown away.  In the 2010 production, something was made out of every single line, which may not be the way that people speak but it's a pure delight to watch.  Here, Beale's introspective, insecure Falstaff practically mumbles the man's most audacious and brilliant lie - that he knew all along it was Hal under the buckram cloak robbing him of his own ill-gotten gains.

This is not to say that Beale was a bad Falstaff - no-one was bad.  Jeremy Irons nailed it as Henry IV - though I can only assume that they decided to recast and not have Rory Kinnear reprising the role because there is no way Kinnear's children would be that good looking.  (Wow, he's really taking a pounding here.  Sorry, Rory.)  Joe Armstrong was a strong Hotspur with an enjoyably broad accent, managing to make a lot of out of part that can be fairly thankless and tiresome (but then again, Hotspur is Hal's foil and Hal is great so yeah, suck it Hotspur).  I also very much enjoyed the casting gag of having his real-life dad Alun Armstrong play Hotspur's dad Northumberland (also supposed to be an older version of David Morrissey from Richard II, again I will assume that having an attractive son came into this decision).  There was also a nice little moment for the unfortunates amongst us who happened to become somewhat attached to the BBCs execrable Robin Hood series that ran a few years ago (call it morbid curiosity that kept me watching), reuniting Joe Armstrong as Hotspur/Alan-a-Dale with Harry Lloyd's Mortimer/Will Scarlett.  They even had a little bromance moment.  For a moment, I was seventeen again.  Then when I had finished blacking out from the horror and taken a shower, I carried on watching.

Hiddleston's Hal gave me a multitude of FEELINGS (yes, it has to be in capital letters), most of them signals from my brain to my ovaries telling them to shut the hell up.*  He excels at characters that are hard to read and this ambiguity works perfectly with Hal, a character that writes the book on playing his cards close to the chest.  He tells us in the first scene that he's going to ditch his friends to make himself look better and then does so in a needlessly brutal way, and at the same time he's disaffected, displaced and unhappy, and suffers from a major case of Daddy-doesn't-love-me...itis (this is becoming another Hiddleston trademark, and regular readers will know that you will hear no complaints from me on this front).  Hiddleston is marvellously subtle and compelling and was a canny casting choice in so far as he knows how to use the camera - to the point where this almost overshadows the rest of his performance.  Maybe he's been away from the stage too long, maybe he's not picked up some Shakespeare for a while but there were a few moments of disconnect from the words; the beauty of the performance lay in his reactions, his expressions.  I'm not complaining because it contributed to the great strength of this production: Eyre's translation of Shakespeare from stage to screen.  Shakespeare's characters lie.  They lie all the time - to each others and to themselves and Hiddleston conveys this wonderfully.  Falstaff asks him if he's afraid of Hotspur.  Hal replies, "Not a whit, in faith."  Bollocks.  Hal's clearly shit-scared - and Eyre lets you know that with close-ups that focus on details too small to be read from the auditorium, twitches and half-smiles and grimaces that reveal a whole different narrative underneath the text.  Eyre's other trick of cutting away during monologues, often to the next room, is more frustrating.  It's sort of like someone changing the channel in the middle of your programme.  Hey.  Richard.  I was watching that.  I was also disappointed that Hal and Falstaff's great soliloquies about (respectively) image management and honour were done in voiceover - it's a good trick for the camera but goddammit, I'm an audience member.  Talk to me.  Share with me.  It's what Shakespearean characters do.

...

Watching Henry IV Part 2 made a lot of things a lot clearer.  My general concept of these two plays is as a great duet: major key and minor key, fast and slow, young and old etc etc.  Eyre takes this idea and shoves it out the window, giving us a slow, bitter breakdown of relationships between Hal and Falstaff, Hal and Henry, Hal and himself, Falstaff and the world - everyone and everyone, really.  Unwilling as I am to part with my view of these plays as simultaneously rambunctious, savage, warm, carnivalesque, etc, Eyre's conceit of them is compelling.  It is very much a cold, empty universe that Hal inherits as he steps up to become king; Part 2 is often observed to have a twilight feel to it - by which I mean everyone is tired and conscious of their own mortality, not stalking teenagers and walking around sparkling.

For me, the most electrifying of Eyre's directorial decisions comes in the scene where Hal, believing his father to have died, picks up the crown and puts it on.  Henry promptly wakes up and berates his son for being so eager to see him kick the bucket; it's a great scene anyway but Eyre directs it with incredible nuance, working through its arc beautifully.  Those close-ups I was talking about work overtime to give you Hiddleston wandering from his dead father's bed to the empty throne room, sitting and crowning himself before starting to cry.  By relocating the moment to the throne (in the play, Hal performs his self-coronation by the bedside) Hal becomes isolated and, most importantly, frightened.  It gives the moment a significance I never would have considered: for all his tactics, Hal is deeply insecure of himself.  I have always taken it as read that Hal has an intrinsic self-knowledge that enables him to pull off his prodigal son trick: he can defeat Hotspur in battle and he will be a good king.  Hiddleston's poker-faced prince is revealed to have no such certainty but, just when he should be assuming the mantle of authority, he collapses into grief like the young man that he is.  It's a brilliant counterpoint to Beale's Falstaff, who was immediately more satisfying in the melancholy rural world of Part 2, also playing his own great insecurity: that he is too old.

I am surprised that Part 2 should be more successful than Part 1 - it's a much less substantive play - but perhaps it allows the strengths of the actors to shine through more.  Hiddleston is a cerebral actor and doesn't entirely convince in Hal's carousing scenes, but in Part 2's long, introspective speeches and moments of self-realisation, he shines.  The famous dismissal of Falstaff loses some of its shock factor only because Eyre builds up to it so organically: when it comes, we wonder how Falstaff can have had any other notion of how this story would end.  No-one is suggested to be at fault - there is no calculating, opportunist Hal or sly, opportunist Falstaff - but it is merely the price of kingship.

I would suggest watching both parts of Henry IV together.  It's a long viewing experience, but you need the second part to make sense of the first.  Eyre connects the two stories in a way I never thought possible, not presenting you with a replaying of the same arcs in major and minor key, but the full and dazzling story of a young man's ascent.  Hal's coronation is the dynastic high point of The Henriad, yet it is packed full of attendant sorrows.  This seems to be the best way of describing Eyre's films: the ascent is grim and full of obstacles, but the triumph is earned.

...

It's hard to be really surprised by Henry V anymore.  It's amongst the most adapted Shakespeare plays, with Branagh's and Olivier's being the obvious contenders and massive box office smashes in their day.  All that potential for blockbuster action sequences, all those rousing speeches etc etc, it's Hollywood's wet dream.  I've always found its popularity strange, though, seeing as it essentially starts with a Chorus apologising for CGI not having been invented yet.  The entire play is an exhortation of the imagination, a plea that the audience go along with it - because if they don't, all that patriotic guff about England's favourite warrior-king sounds terribly hollow.  Thea Sharrock's Henry V is, to my very great surprise, my hands-down favourite of the Hollow Crown films.  Why? Because she locates the heart of the play in this: the audience's understanding of Henry as a man.  She refuses to make the play either pro-war (as Olivier does) or a commentary on the horrors of war (as Branagh does).  She simply tells you the story of Henry.  And I was surprised again and again and again.

It is entirely valid to argue that the visual spectacle is what lets this film down: indeed, there is a little of the usual television-epic-army-of-twenty syndrome in the battle scenes and the courts are neither spectacular nor imposing.  I understand that some might be disappointed in this film precisely because it isn't Branagh's huge, roaring blockbuster.  But as I said that's not the story being told.  There's a huge preponderance of close-ups - not just of Harry but everyone, from the high-ups to the low-lives.  Sharrock tells the story of a series of individuals in war.  Of the four plays, it is the most successful in using film to convey the interiority of its players.  Heavily cut down to just over two hours, the paring back of the story to its essentials (the Scroop/Gray treason subplot is cut) allows us to focus on the lives at stake.  For god's sake, I cried over the Duke of York's death (an excellent Patterson Joseph).  I couldn't have told you for certain that there even was a York in Henry V previously but now I don't think I'll ever forget.  Sharrock also navigates the issue of the Chorus being a fundamentally theatrical device fantastically - Olivier and Branagh both took a meta approach, with the film starting on the stage of the Globe, and the Chorus walking through a film set respectively - by having Falstaff's page (usually martyred in the slaughter of the baggage train, an episode which was cut) morph into John Hurt's Chorus, present only in voiceover until that moment, still holding his bloodstained St George armband.  It's incredibly poignant, not because of the George's cross, but because we understand that we've simply been hearing the story of a man told by another man who was there.  Henry V is a mythologised king; Sharrock un-mythologises him brilliantly.

A large part of this is due to Hiddleston's performance, carrying on from the Henry IVs.  I freely admit that I was wrong in my predictions that Hiddleston would make a better Hal than Henry - while he was good in the previous instalments, he's extraordinary here.  Sharrock and Hiddleston explode all my lazy prejudices about Henry being an unsatisfying cipher of a hero; this is a young king learning on the job and all too frequently making mistakes.  "Once more unto the breach" is delivered to a small group of soldiers, each one addressed individually by a king who is clearly bricking it himself.  The threats to rape the women and murder the children of Harfleur are delivered with a desperation and tension that suggests Henry is shocking himself as he speaks.  It stands in beautiful contrast to his later order that all the French prisoners be killed, coming in a fit of rage after York's death and the apparent refusal of the French to surrender.  "I was never angry since I came to France/ Until this moment" he says, and boy do we believe him.  The Agincourt speech is not - as it usually is - a rousing call to the whole army but a quiet and simple exhortation to his nearest and dearest to simply be brave.  It brings out something dazzling in the speech - that Henry never actually says they're going to win.  All he asks is that they do their best.  It is perhaps the most affecting interpretation of it that I've heard.

This is the thread that Sharrock finds in a play usually cast as being pro- or anti- war or patriotism: the idea of courage.  It is never suggested that the English victory is due to Henry - heavy emphasis is placed on his prayers that God be on his side.  Rather than confront the validity of the war, this Henry resorts to something unquestioningly admirable: bravery.  Yet even then, bravery is not presented as morally superior; Paul Ritter's bitter, raging Pistol suffers a form of PTSD - faced with the battlefield, this "swaggerer" from Eastcheap simply breaks down.  Williams, the soldier that questions Harry in disguise, is likewise not condemned for his view that the king has blood on his hands - rather, you get the sense that Henry agrees.  York asks to lead the vanguard and dies - yet he dies at the hands of a rogue Frenchman (damn those rogue Frenchmen) and we never question his sincerity or wisdom.  It is a fantastically nuanced portrait of individual responses to war, from command to foot soldiers.

I'd also like to mention Tom Brooke's Corporal Nim, who was something of a revelation.  I've honestly never thought that hard about Nim before - another Eastcheap tavern sweller who goes off to war because there's sod-all else to do in Medieval England - but Brooke's unhappy, melancholic performance imbued the part with a huge amount of pathos and yet again reminded us not of the 'cost of war' or anything so sweeping, but simply of the single human lives that interweave throughout the story.  Similarly Melanie Thierry's Katherine - usually such a thankless task with the awkward lurching from war drama to rom-com - was brilliantly rendered.  The scene where she starts to learn English was imbued with a tension I'd always suspected was lurking there: she knows that her future is going to involve England in some way, and there's a war going on - something, anything to distract.  It's both pragmatic and strangely affecting.  The wooing scene is less successful but I'm going to blame Shakespeare here - it always seems oddly bathetic after the charge and energy of the battle scenes. Nevertheless, it is charmingly and (remarkably) convincingly done: the pledge of two young pragmatists who understand that their futures are linked and start to see that they could, despite everything, love each other some day.

Ultimately, Sharrock does things I never thought to see in a Henry V. Rather than cutting the play's problematic epilogue, in which we are reminded that Henry died not long after his conquest of France and left his infant son in the hands of the nobles who would begin the Wars of the Roses, Sharrock allows Shakespeare his final note of tragedy.  Opening and closing on Henry's funeral, we are left with a heavy mix of pride and grief: never for a moment is Hiddleston's distinctly flawed and human king anything less than the text's "star of England" - but stars fade, and history marches on.

...

Overall, The Hollow Crown has been stunning television.  It has not only lived up to my expectations, it has surprised me over and over again with its deft, intelligent, even revelatory interpretations from directors and actors.  Is it perfect? No.  Do the four films hang together? Not really.  Could it have afforded a bigger budget?  Almost definitely.  But it has, I think, changed the way we think of Shakespeare on film.  All four are defiantly cinematic envisionings of a series of plays that demand much of their dramatists.  Richard II is slow and gorgeous; Henry IV 1 and 2 is an uncompromising look at plays that usually go affectionately unchallenged; Henry V is a brilliant answer to a play that the nation seems simultaneously obsessed with and troubled by.  I really couldn't have asked for more than this: a series that presents some of my favourite plays beautifully, intelligently and viscerally, yet reminds me that no matter how many times I think I've got the measure of them, the Henriad still has more treasures to give.  Standing ovations all round.

...

*It sounded something like this: "oh huh wonder why they cut that line look they gave that bit to Doll oh that's interesting HIS SHIRT IS OPEN ooh I like that interpretation interesting I never thought of it like that OH MY GOD HIS HAIR IS WET AND ALSO HIS SHIRT jeremy irons is great oh look its will and alan from robin hood man that show was bad oh yeah shakespeare FUCK DID YOU SEE THE LIGHTING ON HIS COLLARBONE JUST THEN I wish these soliloquies weren't in voiceover HE JUST LOOKED INTO THE CAMERA oh no why did you cut that speech down HOLY FUCK LOOK AT HIS HANDS SO I GUESS I HAVE A HAND THING NOW OR SOMETHING IS THAT NORMAL LOOK HOW BLUE HIS EYES ARE CONCENTRATE ON THE SHAKESPEARE YOU HAVE A DEGREE OH FUCK HE WINKED AND NOW I'M DEAD".  But also he looked like this:

Oh hello.


And also all the promo shots for Henry V looked like this:

STOP LOOKING INTO MY SOUL.

THAT IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE WAY FOR A KING TO SIT.


So on balance I think I did quite well.