I may be off my mark, but there's a bit of a black mark on Shakespeare's treatment of the Wars of the Roses. For those unfamiliar with the phrase, it's a shorthand to describe a swath of medieval years in British history that was marked by dynastic struggles, loss of French lands, and civil war between the houses of York and Lancaster. For me, it's a period of time that I've only lightly studied, having taught a little about Joan of Arc, who features in 1 Henry VI. After that, it's much the same as ever happens to me: I learn the history well enough to understand the basics of the play.
Now, I've read all of Shakespeare's plays--though I admit that I read some more than others. And the Wars of the Roses are...less good than others. In some ways, even the bizarre and bloody Titus Andronicus and the bitter Timon of Athens are more enjoyable reads than the three parts of Henry VI. While I personally find Henry V more tiresome than inspirational (which puts my tastes at odds for most playgoers), very few look at the Henry VI plays and think, "Yeah, that's my bag." Taken as a whole, they almost function correctly as a story, but then become too long to process in that mode.
Enter The Hollow Crown: The Wars of the Roses. A few years back, the BBC put together The Hollow Crown, a tetralogy of Richard II, 1 Henry IV, 2 Henry IV, and Henry V. Due to Tom Hiddleston's role as Prince Hal/Henry V, the series had a large cachet to cash in on. This helped to elevate the series, along with the idea of, for the Henry plays at least, maintaining the same actors in their roles. This provided a continuity that helped keep the story grounded--though, to be honest, I liked Richard II the most of the entire set. Indeed, were it not for Falstaff, I would infinitely prefer Richard II from basically all the history plays.
This "sequel" to the first Hollow Crown (a phrase taken from the plays) is interesting. It takes the three Henry VI plays and conflates them into two, then gives Benedict Cumberbatch freedom to chew the scenery as Richard III in the play of the same name. With the death of Richard in that play, the Wars of the Roses come to a close and, save a late, late play about Henry VIII, ends Shakespeare's interest in English history.
I've finally found the time to watch the condensed version of the first part of Henry VI, so I decided to give a quick hot-take on it before diving in for the next round. (Essentially, I needed to make sure I got my daily writing done, and this is large in my mind.) I'll be brief, however, as I'd prefer to take a longer look at the entire sequence once I've invested the requisite 360 minutes to watch all of the productions.
The cut was what stood out to me. To compress three plays into two, you have to make fairly large sacrifices. The most noticeable for me was the extraction of Joan d'Pucelle, who provides a pivotal role in what Tina Packer considers, for lack of a better phrase, his high school project. "I have gotten the idea that Shakespeare began Henry VI Part I while he was still in school. It is stuffed full of fights and the dialogue between the men is all bombast and pontificating, very little actual human interaction--that only happens when the women appear" (Women of Will 9). I don't know if I agree with her there, but it's true that the first part is...hard. Some of Shakespeare is easy enough to read--in large part because the characters are so strongly drawn that, unless for deliberate effect (like with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern), the characters' desires, flaws, and, well, characteristics are unique and decipherable. With the plotting, intrigue, and switching of sides, it's difficult to keep who is in which camp, so the stage is the better experience of these plays than the page.
So why focus on the cut? Well, to put all of that intrigue together requires excising swaths of the subplots, which in 1 Henry VI basically revolves around Joan. In the film, she gets the short shrift--is a one-note character who doesn't try to manipulate her way out of her fate, which she definitely tries in the play. The less-than-subtle sexism poured over her in the play is missing, which from a personal stand point is not a loss, but from a lens for looking at attitudes and behaviors of the time, is a loss. But it would distract from the larger story they're telling, which focuses on the intrigue of the court, intermingled with some straightforward fight scenes and a close-ups-of-the-faces-only sex scene.
The final shot of the first film, however, is fabulous and made me smile like a villain.
At any rate, I'm back to the wars.
Now, I've read all of Shakespeare's plays--though I admit that I read some more than others. And the Wars of the Roses are...less good than others. In some ways, even the bizarre and bloody Titus Andronicus and the bitter Timon of Athens are more enjoyable reads than the three parts of Henry VI. While I personally find Henry V more tiresome than inspirational (which puts my tastes at odds for most playgoers), very few look at the Henry VI plays and think, "Yeah, that's my bag." Taken as a whole, they almost function correctly as a story, but then become too long to process in that mode.
Enter The Hollow Crown: The Wars of the Roses. A few years back, the BBC put together The Hollow Crown, a tetralogy of Richard II, 1 Henry IV, 2 Henry IV, and Henry V. Due to Tom Hiddleston's role as Prince Hal/Henry V, the series had a large cachet to cash in on. This helped to elevate the series, along with the idea of, for the Henry plays at least, maintaining the same actors in their roles. This provided a continuity that helped keep the story grounded--though, to be honest, I liked Richard II the most of the entire set. Indeed, were it not for Falstaff, I would infinitely prefer Richard II from basically all the history plays.
This "sequel" to the first Hollow Crown (a phrase taken from the plays) is interesting. It takes the three Henry VI plays and conflates them into two, then gives Benedict Cumberbatch freedom to chew the scenery as Richard III in the play of the same name. With the death of Richard in that play, the Wars of the Roses come to a close and, save a late, late play about Henry VIII, ends Shakespeare's interest in English history.
I've finally found the time to watch the condensed version of the first part of Henry VI, so I decided to give a quick hot-take on it before diving in for the next round. (Essentially, I needed to make sure I got my daily writing done, and this is large in my mind.) I'll be brief, however, as I'd prefer to take a longer look at the entire sequence once I've invested the requisite 360 minutes to watch all of the productions.
The cut was what stood out to me. To compress three plays into two, you have to make fairly large sacrifices. The most noticeable for me was the extraction of Joan d'Pucelle, who provides a pivotal role in what Tina Packer considers, for lack of a better phrase, his high school project. "I have gotten the idea that Shakespeare began Henry VI Part I while he was still in school. It is stuffed full of fights and the dialogue between the men is all bombast and pontificating, very little actual human interaction--that only happens when the women appear" (Women of Will 9). I don't know if I agree with her there, but it's true that the first part is...hard. Some of Shakespeare is easy enough to read--in large part because the characters are so strongly drawn that, unless for deliberate effect (like with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern), the characters' desires, flaws, and, well, characteristics are unique and decipherable. With the plotting, intrigue, and switching of sides, it's difficult to keep who is in which camp, so the stage is the better experience of these plays than the page.
So why focus on the cut? Well, to put all of that intrigue together requires excising swaths of the subplots, which in 1 Henry VI basically revolves around Joan. In the film, she gets the short shrift--is a one-note character who doesn't try to manipulate her way out of her fate, which she definitely tries in the play. The less-than-subtle sexism poured over her in the play is missing, which from a personal stand point is not a loss, but from a lens for looking at attitudes and behaviors of the time, is a loss. But it would distract from the larger story they're telling, which focuses on the intrigue of the court, intermingled with some straightforward fight scenes and a close-ups-of-the-faces-only sex scene.
The final shot of the first film, however, is fabulous and made me smile like a villain.
At any rate, I'm back to the wars.