The
Hollow Crown is a story of family, politics and power. The film tells the tale
of the rise and fall of three Kings and how their destiny shaped our history.
Richard II is a self-indulgent, vain man who rules with little regard for his
people’s welfare. Richard II is overthrown by his cousin Bolingbroke who
ascends the throne as Henry IV. Henry IV’s reign is scarred by his own guilt
over Richard’s death, civil war, and the fear that his son Hal is a total
deadbeat. When Hal comes to the throne as Henry V he is left to bury the ghosts
of his father’s past while dealing with his own demons.
The BBC The Hollow Crown adaptation of
Shakespeare’s Henry V concentrates
too much on Henry as king and excludes some of the comical moments to maintain
focus on the seriousness of war. The production has a high profile cast and wonderful cinematography with
beautiful landscapes, however the dedication to Shakespeare is lacking. Henry V
is a history play and attention must be on the war. Still we need to remember what makes
Shakespeare so great; he infuses comedy into everything from love to war. That comedy is what allows us to relax so we
are unprepared for the shock Shakespeare has in store for us.
The final series of the B.B.C’s Hollow Crown season
begins at the end showing Henry V with the death of its
protagonist. Henry is dead with his loved ones around him as Chorus transports
the audience back in time presenting the newly crowned king. Despite his youth
Henry has clearly shed his irresponsible ways and matured to cope with his new
responsibilities. This adaptation does not focus just on the brave heroics of
the king, but rather the demands and necessity of a good leader and war.
Unfortunately this message is not delivered well. Hollow Crown Henry V was a
disappointment which did not nearly reach the standard of its predecessors.
There is
not much competition for filmed Richard IIs or Henry IVs, but to follow in the
footsteps of not only Laurence Olivier, but also Kenneth Branagh's 1989 film
is daunting task.
It was not the play that was the problem- it
has political intrigue, romance, heroism, battle scenes, acts of courage and
emotional poignancy to make a first rate Drama, but very little comic
relief. There have been wonderful
adaptations of it in the past, most notably Kenneth Branagh's 1989 version.
However, the casting, quality of acting and editing of the BBC The Hollow
Crown version created a disjointed and rather dry adaptation. Many of the
characters seemed to have lacked depth, and simply delivered their lines
without sounding like their heart was really in it. There was little feeling or
emotion in this version as there is in Branagh's. A deeper seriousness is felt in the three
preceding plays of The Hollow Crown. Although
a real disappointment was Falstaff who for the most part simply seemed not
funny. He sounded like an unhinged old
man talking to himself when he delivered the soliloquies that were meant to
give insights into his character. His mumbled speech lacked definition to give
his message the boisterous and comical delivery that Shakespeare intended.
Simon Beale as Falstaff was nowhere near as entertaining as Shakespeare
portrayed him. Even the famous Crispin's Day speech (`We Few we happy
few') did not feel at all moving or
inspiring, and the humorous scenes and interludes failed to deliver any comic
relief. The famous speeches are not
delivered to the masses Henry goes to France, he is addressing only a few
individuals. While this creates sincerity when presenting a king that is not
governed by his passions or prone to great shows of theatrics. Instead, Henry remains
largely composed throughout the play. Henry does not react to the Dauphin’s
tennis ball taunt with rage, but responds in a soft voice, suggesting a king
who is in control of his emotions. In contrast, Dauphin’s anger when faced with
the English messenger signals his own immaturity. The brutalities of war are
shown but glorification or patriotism is downplayed heavily. The adaptation
concentrates sharply on Henry as a king avoiding attention on the lower
characters and plots not essential to the play. The comic moments are subdued
adding to the seriousness and reality of war. The Welsh captain Fluellen taking
great pride in the discipline of the army is not mocked he is admired. Henry
does not take the opportunity to play a harmless trick after the victory
either. Instead he takes it upon himself to present the glove of the solider he
quarreled with the previous night. Despite
the scenes of slaughtered bodies strewn across muddy fields once the battle has
ended, Henry( although thankful) does not take any glory from the victory. The
action moves on swiftly to Henry wooing Katherine in search of a resolution to
prolong the peace. While the cruel murder of Falstaff’s boy does not occur he
does witness murder up close symbolizing the loss of innocence that war
incites. This epitomizes the message of kingship at the heart of this
adaptation Henry V’s story is not of the underdog’s victory. It is a journey
from rebellious youth to responsible maturity.
The filmmakers cut out a
number of scenes and passages: including the Southampton Plot when three nobles
were discovered to have planned to kill King Henry before he left for France.
This scene was arguably important in its depiction of Henry's character
development as it shows he was capable of making tough and even painful decisions
to protect his kingdom and the harsh reality for kings as well as showing that
there was opposition to him. Henry's two brothers Humphrey Duke of Gloucester
and John Duke of Bedford (formerly John of Lancaster in Henry IV) are absent
from this version for unknown reasons. Though Bedford's absence can be
historically justified because he was not at Agincourt, his brother Gloucester
was.
Despite his sibling's absence Henry is still
heard to say 'we are in God's hand brother' after treating with the French
herald, a line originally delivered in response to Gloucester's stating he hoped
that the French would not come upon the English too soon, when his brother is
not even there. Instead the Duke of York,
a minor character with only a few lines in the original play replaces them in a
prominent role, constantly appearing as something like the King's 'right hand
man' and sometimes seemingly being given
other characters' lines or roles, undoubtedly to stress the importance of the
role of King. It was the King's uncle the Duke of Exeter that Pistol
asked Llewellyn to intercede with to stop Bardolph being hanged in the original
play and for some reason in this version York is the one who is responsible for
this. Finally events surrounding the killing of the prisoners at Agincourt
(which was cut out of Branagh's version) did not seem to be well
portrayed. It is shown that Henry feared
the French would regroup and make a fresh attack so then Henry gives the order
to kill the prisoners, but all we see are three French knights riding by not
enough to pose a threat. The whole scene
is doubtful especially when Henry refers to the French knights still riding
over the field when only he and a few English soldiers are visible.
The beginning and final
scene of The Hollow Crown featuring Henry's funeral seemed to help to round off the story and give the audience a sense of
finality as well as letting them know what happened to Henry. Chorus' closing
speech recounting the loss of France and demise of the Lancastrian dynasty gave
the ending a poignantly tragic note but not enough make up for the deficiencies
of the rest of the play. You search in vain for the fun and fury through
a play spoken in Franglais (French and English words) and expect boisterous
good humor as the tale of Hal-turned-Harry's rise to king only to be strewn
along a king/war focused adaptation that omits the humor and lacks the
character delivery of comic relief so valuable to Shakespeare’s plays.
By Stacy Tyo ENG 640: Shakespeare Spring 2013
