BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 / The Hollow Crown: The Wars of the Roses (was "Richard III")

**Posted by SusiGo** May 16, 2016 10:19 pm

Sorry to disappoint you but King Louis he is not in "Richard III".

**Posted by besleybean** May 17, 2016 5:29 am

Oh well then I have misunderstood.
I thought he was in 2 episodes.

**Posted by nakahara** May 17, 2016 7:34 am

**Posted by SusiGo** May 17, 2016 7:54 am

This is beautiful. I think they did a very good job in letting him look like that in one scene and totally crazed and devilish in the next. I prefer this look to things like the Olivier nose job. There must be something seductive about Richard and Benedict makes this contrast between seductiveness and horror very believable.

**Posted by miriel68** May 17, 2016 7:56 am

It has been said that today the viewers abroad have an advantage over English people when it comes to Shakspeare, because they can get him in a contemporary translation, instead of struggling with Early Modern English. I admit, without subtitles I struggle too, even if I have read all the plays and know them well.

But I must say they did such an excellent job with Henry VI! Some time ago I watched Henry V with my daughter and she was bored, in spite of excellent acting and her adored Tom Hiddleston being in it. So she was a bit skeptical about watching this one, but after 10 minutes she was hooked.
Of course, the Times complained that Cooke and Powers have "rewritten" Shakespeare, so it cannot be advised for students: I really think British critics' attitude (not all, but many) is if S. was holy Bible may result only in putting the audience off.

**Posted by SusiGo** May 17, 2016 8:06 am

I have just read again all four plays and I must say that there are no extensive changes as for the message of the plays and the stories that are told. And if we are honest, Shakespeare is not infallible. The Henry VI are sometimes repetitive which can be tiring and confusing and changes can serve to make them more accessible and understandable.

IMO the most decisive change was to show young Richard as being pampered and having to live among the children and women instead of going into battle. This is the only real change I noticed.

But most important: I am sure Shakespeare would not mind at all. He was pragmatic, a man of the theatre. If something did not work with the audience, it would be changed. And what is more, those plays were not even written to be printed. It is our luck that his colleagues compiled them for the first folio edition and kept them for generations to come. This was not the usual way. Written plays were regarded as working material for the actors, nothing more.

Last edited by SusiGo (May 17, 2016 8:08 am)

**Posted by nakahara** May 17, 2016 9:50 am

**Posted by This Is The Phantom Lady** May 17, 2016 11:04 am

Wow!

**Posted by besleybean** May 17, 2016 3:44 pm

Fantastic stills.
Sorry, I feel I must say: if non-native speakers find modern translations helpful, fine.
But as an Englishwoman, I really want to hear/read the text in it's original language.

**Posted by This Is The Phantom Lady** May 17, 2016 3:57 pm

Watching it on iPlayer, you can turn subtitles on, which does always help a bit...

I always prefer original Shakespeare, I think it would be a loss if it all became modernised. There is so much humour in the language of the original texts that you just can't translate... but I respect it takes a bit to learn as a non-native...

**Posted by besleybean** May 17, 2016 3:58 pm

The original language is so beautiful and I just feel you cannot improve on the master.

**Posted by Yitzock** May 17, 2016 6:28 pm

I agree, though I can understand people having trouble understanding it sometimes. I have gotten used to it over time from reading many plays, and you get used to it as you go, but I have to say that even when I understand a Shakespeare play I will sometimes miss something. But also, even the Elizabethan audience didn't always understand it.
But if you are able to listen closely or read it at your own pace, you can appreciate the beauty of it.
Nothing wrong with modernized versions, but I think it would be a loss if we didn't keep the original text. For me, that's part of the enjoyment, is the way things are expressed - it sometimes makes me feel like we talk in such a boring way in comparison.

**Posted by SusiGo** May 17, 2016 6:32 pm

I agree, Yitzock. I think at least for me being not a native speaker the tragedies and histories are easier to understand since there is less wordplay. Shakespeare always has wordplay but in the comedies it features much stronger. And while modernised versions can help to understand the plot, the language itself is such a great part of the joy that I would not want to miss it.

**Posted by besleybean** May 17, 2016 6:32 pm

One part of me thinks modern language is a bit dumbing down...but then I suppose you could argue that 'street talk', text language etc, are just new forms of richness!
But certainly many sayings come from Shakespearean text.

**Posted by Liberty** May 17, 2016 6:40 pm

I've been watching with the subtitles, although thankfully the sound is quite good and they're not always needed. But they're useful sometimes for the spelling which helps distinguish words (due to Shakespeare using words that have gone out of favour, or that have changed meaning - and there's so much punning and wordplay!). I haven't read, never mind studied, any of the history plays, so I feel I'm really having to concentrate and think about the words. Sometimes I've been pausing just to make sure I understand something. (And sometimes I don't quite understand anyway!). I think it's great to see Shakespeare being made so accessible. There's so much emphasis on reading the plays in school - you can study Shakespeare at school and never see a play performed, and I think we end being given the impression that you have to have read the play to understand it, before seeing it. But in fact, I think that seeing it can be easier than reading, because the acting, the staging and so on can help so much with the meaning and context of the words.

I'm really enjoying reading this discussion. I find it fascinating that Shakespeare has a similar appeal for non-native English speakers. I can't explain what appeals about his writing to me, but it seems to strike a chord so often. And the translations (to modern English) don't seem to work, somehow.

**Posted by nakahara** May 18, 2016 7:06 am

Modernising Shakespeare´s language is like painting a new picture over Mona Lisa...

**Posted by nakahara** May 18, 2016 11:45 am

**Posted by This Is The Phantom Lady** May 18, 2016 2:09 pm

Awesome gifs!

**Posted by besleybean** May 18, 2016 4:15 pm

Indeed.

**Posted by Russell** May 18, 2016 9:58 pm

Wow, yes, cool discussion. And definitely agree Shakespeare is meant to be 'seen', although depending on the play or production, I'm also one of those with varied levels of feeling pulled into it enough/understanding it. This current production, I'm definitely envious of those watching and thinking I should give it a try when can!

Just a slightly unrelated question though... remember a good number of posts back, those amazing gifs from another teaser or something, where you see his disfigurement, and the 'winter of our discontent' line? What clip was that from again? Because not seeing it in the usual main trailers... (but wow... awesome new gifs too!)