Tuesday, December 06, 2016
Beautiful, fascinating, even if Shakespeare's magic is not always there
WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE – THE HOLLOW CROWN – 2012 – THE HOLLOW
CROWN:THE WARS OF THE ROSES – 2015
The first "volume” covers
Richard II, Henry IV, Part I and Part II, and Henry V. The second “volume”
covers Henry VI, Part I and Part II and Richard III. These plays by Shakespeare
have been adapted, the most concerned being Henry VI reduced from three parts
to two.
I will not enter the historic
content since I have already covered that with the BBC collection of the Complete Shakespeare, play after play.
What is important is to see what this new production – and adaptation – brings
us, and I must say it brings a lot.
First the language is still
Shakespeare’s but the pronunciation has been modernized so that we can follow
the text a lot better. By modernized I mean some archaic pronunciations have
been dropped and the rhythmic pattern does not dictate the tempo and balance of
the language. Instead of the traditional at times forced iambic diction this new
production uses a more fluent and common linguistic flow that is closer to what
we know and hear everyday. Of course when the poetic or archaic syntax is
respected that produces strange sentences but since it flows more naturally we
can deal with that. For those who are not conversant in Shakespearean English,
post middle and pre modern English, the subtitles are there to help even if at
times they are too abundant when the speech is particularly fast. But I am sure
that a second watching would make that English perfectly clear, and for those
who have some practice they should be up to it in about fifteen minutes at the
most. Then I would suggest you use that language in everyday life for fun or
entertainment.
The second improvement is the
fact the whole series is shot in real settings, both natural and built. Hence
we are really feeling – with our eyes – the coarse and rough stone castles,
including the Tower
of London Westminster Palace
The third improvement is that the
actors are modern actors who are used to work for cinema productions. They are
very flexible, expressive and emotional. Some may regret they don’t cry that
much but crying is not necessarily the best way to express grief. Facial
language and body language are pretty nice too along that line and probably more
realistic. We do not cry that much in real life. They are also dressed with
costumes that must be lighter and that are definitely easier to wear. That also
helps the production and makes it light, effective and even impressive.
The last improvement is that it
is a cinema production done for High Definition TV and what’s more color. So
the series can use the full palette of colors when necessary though in the
popular scenes with Falstaff, for example, and battles the dominant colors are
brown and grey, sometimes black. But they can easily use red for spilling blood
for instance and the red rose can really be red instead of dark grey or black. This
production can also work on small details since modern flat TV plasma screen
can include small details due to the size and the definition of the screen.
That really improves the pleasure you way get with the very active scenes and
with pageants or inside scenes that provides a lot of detail.
But at the same time this
production is an adaptation and special effects permit to have a “real” burning
stake for Joan of Arc and enable the action to be realistic and fast. You will
not always notice the scenes that are cut in the original, though you should
see the battle of Orleans
has been entirely cut off at the beginning of Henry VI Part One. But most of
the time you will not really see the difference except if you know the original
plays very well. I am just going to give one example at the end of Richard III,
the famous ghost scene or nightmare that is in the original doubled with the
positive dreams of the future Henry VII. This scene is essential because it
testifies of Shakespeare’s great art that invest some symbolical forms in his
plays. The last battle is in 1485 at Bosworth. The numerical symbols are 1+8 = 9,
4+5 = 9, 1+4+8+5 = 18 = 9x2. The numerical symbol or key of Richard III is
NINE, the devilish number of them all: Jesus’ time of death, the ninth hour,
the Beast in the Apocalypse, and many other diabolical and deadly values.
In the nightmare NINE is necessary
to complete the prophecy, the prediction, by identifying the beast, in this
case Richard the Third before the battle. And sure enough the ghosts are going
to curse Richard III with a simple formula: “despair and die.” And in that
ghost scene this mantra is repeated NINE times. You can note too the characters
who are haunting Richard III and alternately lauding Henry of Richmond.
1-
Prince Edward, son to Henry the Sixth: “despair,
therefore, and die”;
2
& 3- King Henry the Sixth: “despair
and die” “despair and die”;
4-
Clarence: “despair and die”;
5
& 6- Rivers, Grey and Vaughan: “despair
and die” “despair and die”;
7- Hastings : “despair and die”;
8-
the two young princes, sons of Edward IV: “despair
and die”;
9-
Queen Anne: “despair and die”;
Ø- Buckingham:
Ø.
In this adaptation the
number of ghosts is reduced and the number of repetitions of the mantra is also
reduced though the presence of Henry VI’s wife Margaret (who is not a ghost)
holding a mirror in which Richard III sees the ghosts is a brilliant idea,
though of course it prevents the parallel lauding apparitions to Henry of
Richmond who has nothing to do with Margaret. I guess the research teams did
not read my study of Richard III published at the end of the 1990s in France but in
English where I pushed that element a lot farther than what I just said. We
must understand that in Elizabethan times, after the Reformation and in the
ascending phase of chapels and Puritanism, such biblical references were
unavoidable elements that everyone understood and appreciated. What’s more it
is very effective in the “propaganda” (rather self-justification) of the
Tudors: the killing of the crucifixion with 4 (in this case of the evil
character, hence an anti-Passion) is prophesied; the Second Coming is announced
with 8 (this time Henry of Richmond, the savior of England); and the Beast is
identified with 9 (Richard III), all contained in the date of the battle itself.
And 5 is no better as for the diabolical value it carries. We are in the midst
of medieval numerical symbolism directly inherited from Romanesque culture and
alchemy.
This final battle is Bosworth
which is supposedly in Old English a proper name Bosa + worth. I am not
entirely satisfied by this meaning and I recognize in /bos-/ the root of Anglo-Saxon
‘bosm’, Middle English ‘bosom’, an old Germanic root:
bosom (n.)
Old English bosm "breast; womb; surface; ship's
hold," from West Germanic *bosm- (source also of Old
Frisian bosm, Old Saxon bosom, Middle Dutchboesem,
Dutch boezem, Old High German buosam, German Busen "bosom,
breast"), perhaps from PIE root *bhou- "to grow,
swell," or *bhaghus "arm" (in which case the
primary notion would be "enclosure formed by the breast and the
arms"). Narrowed meaning "a woman's breasts" is from 1959;
but bosomy"big-breasted" is from 1928. Bosom-friend is
attested 1580s; bosom buddy from 1920s. (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bosom,
accessed December 6, 2016)
The
name Bosworth must have been meaningful for Shakespeare, especially with
“bosom-friend” appearing in his period. We then can understand this battle is
worth a lot to the heart of anyone who believes the Tudors have brought peace
and prosperity to England, since the heart is directly in the breast, the bosom
on which my bosom friend can rest his head in my hugging arms, note the space
between my hugging arms and my breast or chest is the bosom.
Of
course this is elaborate and subtle. It was probably well understood by the
greater part of the audience of the Globe Theater but it is lost today, and
that’s probably why this production has modified the end of the play Richard III, but I regret it because it
turns the Shakespearean magic into some plain action film, even if it is a good
one.
Dr
Jacques COULARDEAU
# posted by Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU @ 3:15 PM 
