The Hollow Crown: Richard II

August 19, 2024 4:13 PM - Season 1, Episode 1

KING RICHARD is called upon to settle a dispute between his cousin HENRY BOLINGBROKE and THOMAS MOWBRAY. RICHARD calls for a duel but then halts it just before swords clash. Both men are banished from the realm. RICHARD visits JOHN OF GAUNT, BOLINGBROKE’s Father, who, in the throes of death, reprimands the King. After seizing GAUNT’s money and lands, RICHARD leaves for wars against the rebels in Ireland. BOLINGBROKE returns to claim back his inheritance. Supported by his allies, NORTHUMBERLAND and the DUKE OF YORK, BOLINGBROKE takes RICHARD prisoner and lays claim to the throne.

RICHARD II is played by Ben Whishaw, BOLINGBROKE by Rory Kinnear, MOWBRAY by James Purefoy, JOHN OF GAUNT by Patrick Stewart, NORTHUMBERLAND by David Morrissey and DUKE OF YORK by David Suchet.

August Shakespeare Movie Club pick, with some new faces. This is the first movie for the Club with Patrick Stewart.

Just Watch page.
Letterboxd for those who do.

Synopsis from PBS

Matthew Lyons review.
AV Club review.

posted by fiercekitten (3 comments total)

Act 1 Scene I, not even 5 minutes in and I realized "Holy cow Patrick Stewart is playing John of Gaunt." Yes, I went into this without knowing anything other than Ben Whishaw. I thought Rory Kinnear was an effective Bolingbroke, but I wasn't expecting that either.

I've always thought that Richard II was the most tragic Shakespearean history and a somewhat sympathetic character, but this year I've started listening to Unruly by David Mitchell. I had just finished the chapter about Richard II before I watched this so it was interesting to compare what's on screen to how he's described in the book.
posted by fiercekitten at 4:20 PM on August 19 [2 favorites]

I just watched this for the first time a few weeks ago, after hearing the Hollow Crown series recommended on the Incomparable podcast (probably during their review of Branagh's Henry V but I don't remember for sure). I had very mixed feelings watching it cold, not remembering the story at all if I'd even read it during my Shakespeare class in college 30+ yrs ago. On the one hand, the cast and acting was superb -- I would watch just about anything with Whishaw or Kinnear, and both together would seem a slam-dunk -- and I would add to that the direction and overall production. But as a democratic citizen in this day and age I couldn't work up any interest at all in all of that existential angst over the ridiculous "divine right" of kings and which rich asshole cousin gets to inherit the power to tax and murder their "subjects." I finished it mostly just to watch great actors at their craft, and to see if ultimately the play would have anything interesting to say, but in the end it disappointed.
posted by Pedantzilla at 6:55 PM on August 19

I guess, Pedantzilla, I watch this play to see thoughtless entitlement get something of a comeuppance?

Productions differ about how sympathetic Richard II himself is. The David Tennant Richard II is a fair way over on the sympathetic end -- he's appropriately self-centered, but he's also incompetent at a level that's just pitiable. (There's also one fair-sized chunk of interpretation at the end that throws sympathy at little Twoie.)

Whishaw's portrayal is far more of a self-centered, childish dick who kiiiiiiiiiinda has it coming to him. (Er, so to speak.)

Both legitimate production decisions! But decidedly different ones.
posted by humbug at 4:26 PM on September 30