#Richard II and 1 Henry IV are two of the very best Shakespeare plays and they are criminally underrated bc the history confuses people

[poorlittleyaoyao]

If you have other thoughts about other mdzs's charac (or again jgy!) in other role, I would love to read them!

Thank you for your patience, anon! I meant to answer this yesterday along with the one about JGY and Edmund. Each of these involves characters from the Henriad--Richard II, the two Henry IV plays, and Henry V.

-Hotspur, my beloved and cherished son who appears briefly in Richard II and is the antagonist (in the "opposes the protagonist" sense, not the "is a villain" sense) of 1 Henry IV, is the midpoint between Jiang Cheng and Nie Mingjue. Hotspur is essentially a child soldier; his descriptors suggest that he's a young teen when he joins his father in deposing Richard II in favor of Richard's cousin Henry IV. When we see him as a young adult in 1 Henry IV, he's fully immersed in warfare as a way of life, and while he's won great renown, he's... not really doing so great. Some of his lines are alarmingly visceral (ex: "they come like sacrifices in their trim/ and to the fire-eyed maid of smoky war/ all hot and bleeding we will offer them."), and his wife's concerned speech describing his behavior in II.3 reads like a checklist of PTSD symptoms. Hotspur also wholeheartedly believes in his personal code of honor and is clinically incapable of guile in a way that comes off to me as almost childlike. If a cause is just, then it will prevail no matter the odds (spoiler: it does not)! He loves his family and trusts that they have his and the kingdom's best interests in mind (spoiler: they do not)! Basically every line Hotspur speaks in Acts IV and V of the play could be given to Mingjue and you'd only need to replace all the proper nouns.

(Hotspur is also canonically SUCH a horse girl and so is Mingjue in my heart.)

Meanwhile, on the Jiang Cheng side of things, Hotspur also wants SO badly to do a good job. He is so so SO determined to fulfill his roles as a knight and as a son to their fullest extent, and has nothing but contempt for Hal because Hal, despite being heir to the throne, does jack shit and spends all his time drinking and pickpocketing for funsies. For all his impetuousness and general lack of an inside voice (which is NOT a Jiang Cheng problem), he shows flashes of being a strong leader--particularly in his speech outlining his grievances against Henry IV in IV.3. Personality-wise, Hotspur is filled with BIG FEELINGS and most of them manifest as cantankerousness. He is prickly and argumentative by default, which makes him lowkey one of the funniest characters in the play (see: his soliloquy arguing with a letter at the top of II.3, his entire exchange with Owen Glendower in III.1), and also make his moments of genuine vulnerability hit hard (ex: "come, wilt thou see me ride?" in II.3 and his death speech in V.4).

-On the flip side, Huaisang reminds me of Prince Hal. Remember how I said Hal doesn't do jack shit? Hal's flop era is deliberate. He knows he can't run from his responsibilities forever, so he's slacking off to lower people's expectations for him. The first soliloquy we get from him in I.2 is an EXTREME Huaisang mood and I'll try to trim it to the most relevant bits:

I know you all, and will awhile uphold The unyoked humour of your idleness: Yet herein will I imitate the sun, Who doth permit the base contagious clouds To smother up his beauty from the world, That, when he please again to be himself, Being wanted, he may be more wonder'd at... I'll so offend, to make offence a skill; Redeeming time when men think least I will.

His flop era does NOT endear him to his father, who wishes he were an accomplished warrior like Hotspur, and their relationship is rocky. When Hal becomes king upon Henry IV's death, Hal decides to jettison his past friendships, quash the joyful aspects of his identity, and go do war crimes in France. I describe Hal's actions in the play Henry V as "Hal doing his best Hotspur impression," except that whereas Hotspur honest-to-god believed he was fighting for justice, Hal is more calculating. Sure, he gives us the "once more unto the breach, dear friends" and "we few, we happy few, we band of brothers" speeches, but he also cheerfully threatens mass slaughter in response to an insult in I.2 (and ratchets up the threats in gruesome detail III.3).

-Huaisang is also Hamlet, of course, but I don't personally subscribe to the "Huaisang was always sooooo scared of JGY" interpretation of the timeskip. Fear makes you act with urgency, as Hamlet very much does post-Mousetrap and post-return to Denmark. Readers give Hamlet a lot of shit for dithering on killing Claudius, but he does get the job done in just a couple months (much of which he spends offstage with pirates) because all he wants is Claudius to be dead. Huaisang takes his sweet time because he wants JGY utterly destroyed, which is more a Hal vibe.

-Lan Xichen is NOT Richard II at all. I'm not even going to explain why he's not because he's not. However, Richard's big soliloquy when he's imprisoned alone in the penultimate scene of the play is VERY MUCH Lan Xichen in conclusion. It's long--66 lines!--but I will excerpt the relevant portion.

Music do I hear? Ha, ha! keep time: how sour sweet music is, When time is broke and no proportion kept! So is it in the music of men's lives. And here have I the daintiness of ear To cheque time broke in a disorder'd string; But for the concord of my state and time Had not an ear to hear my true time broke. I wasted time, and now doth time waste me; For now hath time made me his numbering clock: My thoughts are minutes; and with sighs they jar Their watches on unto mine eyes, the outward watch, Whereto my finger, like a dial's point, Is pointing still, in cleansing them from tears.... This music mads me; let it sound no more! For though it have holp madmen to their wits, In me it seems it will make wise men mad. Yet blessing on his heart that gives it me! For 'tis a sign of love; and love to Richard Is a strange brooch in this all-hating world.

I JUST!!!!

[lifblogs]

tell us about your Shakespeare club, that sounds like a whole lot of fun

So I am bad with words these days, so I should clarify and say it's a club I'm in, and not my own event I'm running.

One of my best friends decided to read all of Shakespeare's works this year, and he wanted to turn it into a book club over discord. We read one Shakespeare play a week, so one act per weekday.

Currently we're reading Henry V, which I'm very excited about. The reading order is a bit out of whack, but he has a lot of cons to attend as a panelist, and one of the authors in the merchant's/merch areas, selling his books.

And so far we've read:

Richard III

The Comedy of Errors

The Taming of the Shrew

Titus Andronicus

Romeo and Juliet

Julius Caesar

The Two Gentlemen of Verona

King John

Richard II

Hamlet

Venus and Adonis (poem)

The Rape of Lucrece (poem)

Othello

Antony and Cleopatra

Love's Labour's Lost

Pericles

Sonnets 1-154

Cymbeline

King Lear

A Midsummer Night's Dream

The Merchant of Venice

Much Ado About Nothing

As You Like It

Troilus and Cressida

Coriolanus

All's Well That Ends Well

Measure for Measure

The Merry Wives of Windsor

King Henry IV, Part I

King Henry IV, Part II

(He's also running a Tolkien book club. So far we've read The Silmarillion, The Children of Húrin, and The Hobbit. He keeps my reading schedule super busy!)

[carebohe]

organizing my brain re: literary references in ted lasso episode 2: 

there were 3-  (actually 4 but the first shakespeare one is kind of a toss away joke- the ‘perchance to dream’ bit)

1. the prince of tides reference is pretty clear cut- the novel is about troubled childhoods (understatement), coaching and complex family relationships as well as therapy, and some romance etc. 

it makes total sense that sharon, a sports psychologist, would have that as a favorite book.

2. ‘heavy is the head that wears the visor’

it’s a pretty clear cut jokey reference to henry iv part 2

and i encourage you to go read the whole soliloquy because it's good stuff, but here’s the essential part:

“Canst thou, O partial sleep, give thy repose

To the wet sea-boy in an hour so rude,

And in the calmest and most stillest night,

With all appliances and means to boot,

Deny it to a king? Then happy low, lie down!

Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.”

this is such an incredibly incisive quote for sharon to use, because it’s not only about anxieties messing up sleep which we know ted struggles with--

it’s also the fact that henry iv was a usurper with no god given right to the throne. he is portrayed as an indecisive ruler in the play with his doubt and uncertainty resulting partially from his own belief that he did not deserve the ‘crown’, even though in the previous play he’s in (richard ii) he is portrayed as ambitious and capable.

(i.e. sharon has this man’s NUMBER. she KNOWS.) (this is also what we call good fucking writing)

3. THE GODDAMN FOUNTAINHEAD? TED.

christ boy i want the explanation we were denied before i make any conclusions but imma give you one (1) yikes right off the bat.

so i am a person who has read that whole book- because rory gilmore did, obviously. i also chose rand as my author one year in high school (she had the longest books and i was a pretentious prick) so i have read just about everything she ever wrote and i’ve gotta say- that woman is absolutely mad. and she can absolutely write. and she needed a better editor, but i imagine if some bloke had come along and tried to edit her goddamn 75 page monologues i’m pretty sure she would have set him on fire.  

(howard roark blows up a building because someone fucks with his architectural plans in the fountainhead, but the longest monologues are in atlas shrugged which no one should ever feel like they need to read)

anyway, i do see how this happened, and i can *kind of* see a reason or two why ted says this. so he started high school in the late 80′s when ‘greed was good’ and books like the fountainhead that have extreme examples of individualism were very popular- so he probably first read it as a school related thing. 

and honestly, when you read that book as a teen it is quite appealing- this character who gives absolutely no fucks and follows his own ideas to the very letter at the expense of absolutely everything else. roark is unaffected by setbacks, by shitty people he works with, the woman he loves (WHOLE OTHER CONVO BTW) going off and marrying several dweebs because she's not quite at his level yet. he has absolute courage of his convictions.

it’s also just a fucking remarkable novel- like as long as you know that the philosophy in it is absolutely bonkers. all the characters are incredibly flawed- including the ‘flawless hero’- there’s just something about it.

maybe the ted lasso connection is that the fundamental quality the characters share is real no-holds-barred-belief.

for roark it’s belief in ego and the self, for ted- he believes in belief itself, the power of the human mind to be curious and entirely leave aside judgement

and deep down both of them really do believe that they are the best at what they do and that anyone else’s interference makes the whole endeavor tainted- for ted though, he may get over that. IN THERAPY. WE HOPE.

anyways there’s a bit in there that reminds me of ted during the darts scene- it’s in the fountainhead just before the ‘they killed the guy who invented fire’ speech that every dumb rand loving asshole you’ve ever known quotes. 

“Roark stood before them as each man stands in the innocence of his own mind. But Roark stood like that before a hostile crowd--and they knew suddenly that no hatred was possible to him. For the flash of an instant, they grasped the manner of his consciousness. Each asked himself: do I need anyone’s approval?--does it matter?--am I tied? And for that instant, each man was free--free enough to feel benevolence for every other man in the room.“

tldr; ted was a weird kid, and so was i, but he needs to read more books

[richmond-rex]

What do you think Henry VII remembers, if anything, of his other uncle Henry VI?

This is such an interesting question and something that I myself have been wondering, so thank you for providing me with the opportunity to expand my thoughts on here 🌹

We know that Henry VII only ever saw his uncle King Henry VI once during his life, when he was 13 years old. However, I’d argue King Henry must have caused quite a great impression on him, and considering Henry Tudor was old enough at that time, also a profoundly lasting one. So far young Henry Earl of Richmond had been living as a ward of his uncle Jasper’s enemies, the Herberts. By 1470 his old guardian, William Herbert, had been executed, and then, as the Earl of Warwick changed sides and brought about Henry VI’s readeption, Henry Tudor was returned to his uncle Jasper who took him to London to meet King Henry VI. That Jasper felt like acquainting his nephew with his brother denotes a special degree of closeness and advocates for his idea of family, in my opinion.

According to André, Henry VII’s court poet and self-styled regius historiographus, on 27 October 1470 Henry VI held ‘a splendid feast with the nobles and best men of the kingdom’ to commemorate his return to the throne. As the king was washing his hands, young Richmond was brought to his presence, and according to André, ‘the king prophesied that someday the boy would undertake the governance of the kingdom and would have all things under his own power.’ Polydore Vergil, a historian that began his service under Henry VII in 1506, wrote in his Three Books that in that 1470 meeting ‘the king... is reported to have said:’

“This truly, this is he unto whom both we and our adversaries must yield and give over the dominion.”

It seems not even Vergil lends much credence to this tale as expressed by his choice of words: reported to have said. As expected, this myth has largely been viewed as Tudor propaganda and indeed the episode has been immortalised in Shakespeare’s Henry VI part III. In the play, King Henry VI meets a toddler Henry Richmond (then escorted by Somerset), calls him ‘England’s hope’, and says Richmond was ‘Likely in time to bless a regal throne’. Given that King Henry VI had his own son Prince Edward as his heir at the time, it seems unlikely he would ever have said such a thing. However, if anything remotely close to that happened, then I agree with Leanda de Lisle in saying that it must have been King Henry VI taking Henry Tudor to be his own son Edward, who thanks to his imprisonment in the Tower he had not seen for five years (and would not ever see again). It’s absurdly sad to think King Henry VI would confound his nephew with his son but arguably also not out of the realm of possibility. We don’t know if Henry Tudor saw his uncle King Henry again, but it’s also not unlikely that he, his mother and uncle Jasper stayed at court for the feast of All Hallows’ (1 November) and All Souls’ Day (2 November).

If King Henry VI ever made such prophecy, wittingly or not, then it must have greatly impacted on Henry Tudor. Henry VII believed to have been chosen by God to, against all odds, become king of England. He once wrote about ‘the crown which it has pleased God to give us with the victory over our enemy at our first field’. Henry Tudor was reported to be very pious—he made pilgrimages to the shrine of St Thomas Becket at Canterbury every Easter, as well as frequent pilgrimages to the shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham and donations to the shrine of St Vincent Ferrer in Brittany. He also founded the cult of the Breton saint St Armel in England and boosted the teachings of St Francis by his patronage of the Franciscan order. He especially favoured the Observants (the Franciscans, also known as the Greyfriars), granting them annuities for the establishment of monasteries in England and abroad. It seems he also favoured staying at religious houses when travelling or going on progress around the kingdom.

Most importantly, Henry VII held a singular devotion to the Virgin Mary and his adoption of the red rose as his personal symbol—aside from dynastic reasons—had everything to do with the religious connotations of that flower. Henry VII could have associated himself with his uncle Henry VI by adopting his antelope badge, for example, but instead, he chose the five-petal flower associated with the Virgin Mary and the Passion of Christ. The Franciscans were noted for their devotion to the Passion, and Henry VII had come in contact with the Observants during his exile in Brittany. The rose had five petals like the five wounds of Christ—St Bernard of Clairvaux once stated: “As many wounds as there are on the Saviour’s body, so many roses are there! Look at His feet and His hands; do you not see roses?” 

Forgive me for still going on a tangent about it, but Henry VII’s personal devotion to the Virgin Mary and the doctrine of her Immaculate Conception is exemplified in his Book of Hours, where a miniature shows a figure representing the king kneeling at a prayer desk before a vision of the Virgin as a baby held by her mother, St Anne (or, alternatively, The Virgin and the Child Jesus). His devotion to the Virgin was also highlighted in his rebuilding of the Lady Chapel (now Henry VII’s Chapel) at Westminster Abbey which I will return to in a moment.

I’m not sure but I think it was Vergil who reported Henry VII as having said that religion was his ‘continual refuge’ during exile. His piety has been largely attributed to the influence of his mother Margaret Beaufort, herself also a very pious woman. But given how many years—and formative years those were—they spent apart, I imagine that Henry must have looked up to someone closer to him at the time, namely his uncle Jasper Tudor. We know that after the death of Catherine of Valois Jasper and his brother Edmund were raised by nuns at Barking Abbey, and that then at some point they joined King Henry VI’s court. According to John Blacman, Henry VI’s biographer and chaplain writing in 1485:

[…] and like pains did [Henry VI] apply in the case of his half-brothers, the Lords Jasper and Edmund, in their boyhood and youth; providing for them most strict and safe guardianship, putting them under the care of virtuous and worthy priests, both for teaching and for right living and conversation, lest the untamed practices of youth should grow rank if they lacked any to prune them.

Blacman also claimed that the king personally protected his half-brothers from sexual temptation by keeping ‘careful watch through hidden windows of his chamber’ (yes, I know). Like his uncle King Henry VI, Henry VII would also set a court that ‘maintained the highest standards of sexual behaviour’. Indeed, Retha Warnicke made an extensive compilation of scandals during the first two Tudor reigns and not a single case of sexual misconduct was found to have taken place during Henry VII’s time, marking his court as a decidedly different one than Edward IV’s had been.

Going back to Henry VI’s supposed prophecy, his words surely must have acquired a great weight in Henry Tudor’s mind by 1483 when he made his bid to the English throne. By that time King Henry VI had become a popular saint in England and even though Edward IV had tried to have him modestly—and somewhat obscurely—buried in Chertsey Abbey, Surrey, people had started to flock to his grave. A peasant claimed that Henry VI helped him when he had a bean trapped in his ear, which only popped out after he prayed to the king. Painted images of King Henry VI began showing up in churches around the country, like this one at Barton in Norfolk:

One of King Henry VI’s most ardent devotees was Henry Tudor’s mother Margaret Beaufort (Jasper’s feelings towards the cult are unknown) who had met her kinsman when she was about nine years old. When King Henry VI allegedly offered her the option of remaining married to Suffolk’s son or be remarried to his brother Edmund, Margaret says St Nicholas came to her in a dream dressed as a bishop, telling her to choose Edmund. Again, if this story is true or not, we may never know, but Margaret told that to her confessor John (bishop, then saint) Fisher—why would a famously pious woman such as Margaret Beaufort lie to her own confessor, thus committing a sin? It might be that the events took a mystical turn in Margaret’s imagination as a young girl, but that she associated divine intervention to hers and her son’s fate, and likewise to King Henry VI’s proposal, is clear.

It seems Richard III tried to control King Henry VI’s ever-growing cult by moving Henry VI’s body from Chertsey Abbey to St George’s Chapel at Windsor, a place where visitors wouldn’t have easy access to the king. Nevertheless, when Henry VII came to the throne he wholeheartedly encouraged pilgrimages to the place. Henry VII launched an official campaign to have his uncle canonised, with several petitions to popes Innocent VIII, Alexander VI and Julius II. Henry also ordered the compilation of a book of miracles worked by his uncle, and a biography of Henry VI was published in 1500 claiming that Henry VI had been ever pious and chaste during his life, towards his queen never behaving ‘unseemly ... but with all conjugal honesty and gravity’. Henry VII planned to have the body of King Henry VI re-interred at the heart of the new Lady Chapel he was planning at Westminster Abbey. 

However much Henry VII enjoyed good relations with the papacy, especially Pope Innocent VIII, his campaign to have his uncle King Henry VI canonised never came into fruition. Henry VII decided for him and his wife to be buried at his new Lady Chapel instead, next to the tomb of his grandmother Queen Catherine of Valois. In his will, he stated his wish for his body to be buried:

“in the Chapell where our said graunt Dame laye buried, the which Chapell we have begoune to buylde of newe, in the honour of our blessed Lady.”

That doesn’t mean Henry VII set aside the memory of his uncle King Henry VI. He employed the same man that was overseeing the construction of the Lady Chapel at Westminster, Reginald Bray, to continue the rebuilding of St George’s Chapel at Windsor set in motion by his predecessor Edward IV (it came to be informally known as the Bray Chapel). The modest thirteenth-century chapel of Edward the Confessor was expanded into a vast cathedral-like chapel where, importantly, Henry VI’s body was placed alongside a famous relic, the fragment of the True Cross (a reliquary known as the Cross of Gneth) and the bones of John Schorne (revered for curing gout and toothache).

We may argue that Henry VII’s campaign to have King Henry VI’s canonised was fundamentally political (much like Richard II’s campaign for Edward II) as many historians have done. King Henry VI as a saint, combined with his supposed prophecy, would successfully contribute to the image of Henry VII’s reign as one chosen by God. When we put Henry VII’s religious devotion into perspective, though, his efforts to have ‘the glorious King Henry’ canonised take another dimension—in fact, there’s no doubt that in Henry VII’s eyes God had intervened in his favour. Henry VII’s will also stated his wish for an image of himself to be placed in St Edward’s chapel at Westminster, depicting him returning to God and the Virgin Mary the circlet with which he had been crowned at the Battle of Bosworth.

This is me purely speculating, but I think that even though Henry VII only came in contact with King Henry VI once in his life, his half-uncle might have exercised a great influence on him through his uncle Jasper. Jasper seemed to have been genuinely attached to his brother Henry on a personal level as well as devoted to his political cause. If Henry VI’s saintly qualities had been enough to impress Margaret Beaufort, it is very likely that they might have impressed young Henry of Richmond as well.

[shakespearesglobeblog]

Shakespeare’s Sequels: Henry IV Parts 1 and 2 and Henry V.

Research Assistant Hailey Bachrach looks at why you don’t need to know English monarchical history to have a good time at one of Shakespeare’s History plays. In this blog she looks at Henry IV Part 1. 

Richard II ends with a promise: the newly crowned King Henry IV vows to take a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, to atone for his role in the murder of King Richard. A couple years later, Shakespeare decided to follow up on King Henry IV’s reign, opening Henry IV Part 1 with a reiteration of this promise. He brings back a cast of characters that those who have seen Richard II will recognise: Bolingbroke, now King Henry IV; the Earl of Northumberland; and Northumberland’s son, whose fervour in battle has now earned him the nickname Hotspur—which is also the alternate title we’ve given the play.

So the two plays are definitely linked… but they’re also very capable of standing alone. In fact, in early attempts to cut down the play, co-directors Federay Holmes and Sarah Bedi tried to remove as much of the backstory relating to Richard II from the script as they could, for the sake of clarity, and recognizing that not everyone in our audiences will have seen Richard II. As rehearsals went on, however, we found that it was almost impossible not to add those lines and references back in. One of the fundamental questions of Hotspur is whether the present can ever really make a clean break from the past… so it makes sense that the characters can’t stop reminiscing about it.

However, this definitely doesn’t mean that you need to have seen Richard II in order to understand Hotspur (or Henry IV Part One to understand Part Two, for that matter). Hotspur develops its own characters and its own versions of past events. One conspicuous example is Northumberland’s brother, the Earl of Worcester, who is frequently referenced in Richard II, but never seen in that play. In Hotspur, he is treated as a central conspirator, and characters describe him as if he was present for events that Richard II does not depict him as a participant in.

This slight disconnect can help us understand how early modern writers and audiences may have approached the idea of sequels. Multi-part plays, especially those based on history or mythology, were very popular during the 1590s. However, this wasn’t the only way audiences experienced sequential historical narratives. As I discussed in my previous post, audiences could also watch multiple versions of the same historical figure’s life in different plays by different companies, or even by different writers for the same company. When we remember this, the not-quite-seamless nature of Shakespeare’s sequels begins to make a lot of sense. People were accustomed to seeing multiple ‘takes’ on a single set of historical figures and events. Serial history plays feel less like a box set or a TV drama and more like big superhero movies, where different writers offer slightly different takes on characters and events that all coalesce into a collective mythology rather than a single linear storyline.

Hotspur is therefore a continuation of Shakespeare’s own play, but also a continuation of the broader mythology of Henry IV, the king who usurped his crown. The play introduces another well-known figure, the future Henry V, who was famous for his reckless, irresponsible youth and surprise transformation into an adept military commander and widely-admired king. Both of these cultural legacies are as important to the play’s background as any of the specific events of Shakespeare’s Richard II.

This naturally raises the question of whether the same principle applies to Shakespeare’s other history plays. Do you need to see the histories we’ll be performing this summer—Henry IV Part One and Two and Henry V—in that order? We think that you don’t. That’s one reason why we’ve given them new individual names: Hotspur, Falstaff, and Harry England. As with Richard II, all three plays both do and do not follow directly on from one another. Time moves forward across the plays, and they reference past events. But they also slightly reset themselves, giving the characters the chance to re-enact the story arc they’re best known for. In all three, Prince Hal must labour to convince the world that he’s better than his reputation; in both Hotspur and Falstaff, King Henry must grapple anew with his guilt over the crown and his mistrust of the son who will inherit it. In Falstaff, Falstaff remembers an event that actually took place in a completely different play about the youth of Henry V, while King Henry IV and one of his lords reminisce about a scene from Richard II for which neither were present. This is a perfect example of the complex ways in which early modern ‘sequels’ relate to one another and to other plays about the same characters, the way they exist in sequence and in parallel at the same time. The order that you see our productions in will change your understanding of each play, but the plays are designed to withstand being seen in any order, with any level of prior knowledge of the characters and events they depict.

In short, if you loved Richard II, come join us to see the next chapter in the story of Bolingbroke, Northumberland, and Harry Percy. And if you missed it, choose any play you like and embark on an entirely new adventure this summer.

Henry IV Part 1 opens on 23 April. Henry IV Part 2 opens on 25 April and Henry V opens on 30 April. 

Photography by Pete Le May 

[malvoliowithin]

What Your Favorite Shakespeare Play Says About You:

Romeo and Juliet: You’re either a hopeless romantic or you really like YA lit, or both. Or you’re in high school and just haven’t read any other plays yet.

Hamlet: You’re gay, emo, death-obsessed, or some combination of the above. OR you’re one of those really pretentious types who like to talk about Shakespeare’s ‘masterpiece’ but I don’t think there’s a lot of those on Tumblr I hope

Othello: You’re either in high school in your Edgy Phase where you think Iago is cool, or you just like the speeches.

Macbeth: You either want to be Lady Macbeth, are gay for Lady Macbeth, or think the witches are rad, which they are. 

Titus Andronicus: You like slasher movies and also laugh in the face of death, probably.

King Lear: You’ve been around too long and have Seen Some Shit. You like to go for long walks and watch sad movies that you know will make you cry. You feel a lingering sense of despair and are yet ever enchanted by the continuing beauty in a grim and thoughtless world. Or you stan Edmund

Julius Caesar: You took Latin in high school and have very strong opinions about the Republic. You will cry about long-dead Romans at the drop of a hat and you are not ashamed. 

Antony and Cleopatra: You’re gay, love war movies, or you only like it because of ‘I wish you all the joy o’ th’ worm’

Coriolanus: You’re REALLY gay and probably most of what’s up there about Julius Caesar applies to you. You have a lot of Feelings also.

Timon of Athens: You love your friends. SO much. Too much

King John: You’re a medieval history nerd in love with the time period, have a weird relationship with your family, or you just like Lady Constance a whole lot. 

Richard II: You’re gay, on a first name basis with a lot of dead monarchs, or you really enjoy David Tennant. 

Henry IV, part 1: You like buddy comedies and having a good time. You cried when Hotspur died and felt no shame in this fact. You probably also like the entire Second Tetralogy but this one is just the most exciting. 

Henry IV, part 2: You watch movies and read books for the theme rather than for entertainment value.

Henry V: You can recite at least one speech from this play from memory, if not more (and will gladly do so if asked). You might be a medieval history nerd, or maybe you just think the battles are cool. You either love Tom Hiddleston or you hate Tom Hiddleston. 

Henry VI, part 1: You like Joan of Arc. A LOT. You’re very defensive and excitable. You think banter is funnier than well-played jokes.

Henry VI, part 2: You like Game of Thrones. You have mixed feelings about Humphrey of Gloucester.

Henry VI, part 3: You will defend Henry with your LIFE but he’s not your favorite character. Your favorite is either Margaret of Anjou or Richard of Gloucester. Also, you think death is funny. 

Richard III: You’re a self-hating misanthrope, or you’re one of those people who liked Iago in high school but grown up. 

Henry VIII: You like Wolsey, probably. 

A Midsummer Night’s Dream: You think romance is hilarious and no, you’re not romantic. You actually think love is stupid. Alternatively your favorite genres are fantasy and science fiction and you have Thoughts about the line “though she be but little, she is fierce” 

The Comedy of Errors: You’re easygoing. You love a good wholesome comedy without a lot of weird dark stuff. Puns are your favorite thing. You also have a soft spot for family (especially sibling) dynamics. 

Twelfth Night: You’re gay as hell but don’t have enough angst-ridden darkness in your soul to enjoy Hamlet. You have all the love of sibling dynamics mentioned for CoE but MORE SO. And you have Opinions about the plight of Malvolio.

The Taming of the Shrew: You lowkey ship Katerina and Petruchio but don’t know why. You secretly love this play but don’t say much about it because it’s really distasteful to modern audiences. Or you spend a lot of time and energy defending it to modern audiences.

Much Ado About Nothing: You wish it would get more notice in the fandom besides the ‘Kill Claudio’ meme but also have to bite your tongue because the meme is actually pretty funny. 

 As You Like It: You’re gay and you hate the ending of this play. You have rewritten various versions of your own ending. 

The Merry Wives of Windsor: You really, really love John Falstaff. 

The Two Gentlemen of Verona: You like Romeo and Juliet. And Twelfth Night. You like both of them better than this play, you just feel like someone should stan for Two Gentlemen.

Love’s Labors Lost: MAYHEM IS YOUR LIFE. Also you like a touch of depth to your comedy. Jokes are all well and good, but it’s the ending that really brings the point home. 

All’s Well That Ends Well: I don’t actually think anyone likes this play, honestly. 

The Merchant of Venice: You like being Conflicted and want a lot of themes in your comedy, dammit! Intrigue? Attempted murder? Racism? Homosexual undertones? Moneylending? Cross-dressing? Lawyer fraud? Weird fairy-tale-esque betrothal games? You want ALL of it. 

Measure for Measure: You either love the Duke or hate the Duke. You will protect Isabella with your life. You also kind of like being Conflicted but prefer (somewhat) happier endings than the Merchant crowd.

Troilus and Cressida: You love the Iliad. You actually don’t care about the title characters as much as you care about the war. Most people have not even heard of this play and you will explain in full detail. 

Cymbeline: You like fairy tales. Actually you love fairy tales. You’re close to your family, but you have a lot of self-reliance. 

Pericles: You probably like mythology and old drama. Also you would kill a man for Marina and think she deserved better. 

The Tempest: You loved Harry Potter as a kid. You love adventure stories the best, and have a dreamer’s spirit. You have a lot of opinions about the treatment of Ariel and Caliban, and you almost certainly cried when Ariel left for the last time. 

The Winter’s Tale: The use of ‘exeunt, pursued by a bear’ as comedy lowkey rubs you wrong but you’re still slightly enthused about claiming the line for your favorite. You love nature and feel at one with it. 

[heartofstanding]

During January this year, an Sydney-based theatre company put on something called “Rose Riot”, which condenses Shakespeare’s History plays from Richard II to Richard III into a two-part play, the first called The Hollow Crown (Richard II to Henry V) and the second The Wars of the Roses (the Henry VIs and Richard III).

I saw the first part (The Hollow Crown) on Friday evening and really enjoyed it. Though I will say that 1) I was lucky that I am a little familiar with the plays and 2) I wished I knew even more because I would’ve gotten so much more out of the way that the plays have been cut and (sometimes) remixed and sewn together.

Basically, the first act was Richard II and Henry IV Pt 1, ending just before Shrewsbury, second act combining the Shrewsbury climax of Henry IV Pt 1, Henry IV Pt 2 and Henry V. Obviously, there’s a lot of reductions going on. In Richard II, there is nothing about the Duke of Gloucester’s death, nothing about the feud and then duel between Bolingbroke and Mowbray. A lot of Henry IV Pt 2 is also cut with Prince John gone or merged into Henry IV’s other sons (genderswapped) and Northumberland quickly disappears after Shrewsbury – what remains, iirc, are pretty much the Hal-Falstaff scenes, Henry IV’s insomnia and death.

We had a genderswapped Bolingbroke/Henry IV, Hal/Henry V, Falstaff and Princess Katherine (who is called Kylian in the play), and other characters as well. Katherine’s nurse is reimagined as Kylian’s lover who is also present for the wooing scene (ouch). I thought the wooing scene played a little odd as a result of the genderswapping, but everyone else was great and, after becoming fed up with Falstaff in the BBC Hollow Crown, I freaking loved Falstaff in this.

As a result of the cuts, remixes and reimagining of the play, I do think the characters and their arcs suffered. I often didn’t really know how I was meant to feel about each character. We don’t really know why Richard II is a bad king (besides having annoying friends) – the reasons the play gives are cut, we start with the garden scene and thus Richard’s deposition is already on the cards – and then I don’t think we really get enough time to feel his fall (we go immediately from the deposition to his separation from the queen to his prison soliloquy with no real space in between to breathe and feel it). Bolingbroke reminded me a bit of a parodic female politician in Richard II, but I don’t really know how I was meant to think of her in Henry IV. I think Hal/Henry V, had the best of the bad lot because she’s there for most of the play. 

In terms of the story cuts and remixes… With the duel between Mowbray and Bolingbroke gone, what we get instead is Gaunt’s dying rebuke to Richard, who then banishes Bolingbroke as punishment for Gaunt’s words. I think (I’m like 99.9% sure, but also deeply aware of my ignorance about Henry VI so) that instead of the gage scene, we get a scene from one of the Henry VIs in which the parliament disrupts in a squabble and individuals pick a white rose for York or a red rose for Lancaster. I think it helps set up the divisions that lead into The Wars of the Roses (the second play/part of this production) and reinforces the idea that it was the historical Richard II’s deposition directly led to the historical Wars of the Roses.

Aumerle actually starts off the rose-picking scene, and his characterisation was fiercely protective of Richard, remaining defiant towards Bolingbroke’s usurpation. I freaking loved him. We do not get stabby Aumerle, yay, but Piers Exton (I can’t remember who played him, but definitely not Aumerle who also played Kylian/Katherine and Poins - there’s a cast list here, though it covers both parts of the production).

One of the things that I really liked is that Hal’s first appearance (wearing a dress that’s very little girl-ish, Peter Pan collar and all) is immediately after Richard’s body is presented to Bolingbroke/Henry IV, and it’s there she meets (for the first time) Falstaff – the implication being that Richard’s murder and Bolingbroke’s involvement in it leads into Hal’s wildness, her attachment to Falstaff and the collapse in the relationship between Hal and Bolingbroke.

Obviously, as someone who likes to be buried in feels over Richard and Hal’s relationship, this was wonderful though I thought it could have been teased out more – is Hal’s wildness because of Hal’s relationship with Richard (historically, one that Henry V remembered with affection)? Or because of her mother’s complicity in a murder? Or suddenly having her mother become the queen and the weight of the knowledge she’ll be the queen next if they don’t get usurped and kill themselves? Or all of the reasons I’ve given and more?

The Hal and Falstaff relationship was more of a reinterpretation, with the second act presenting them falling out. We have Falstaff claiming Hotspur as her kill after Hal killed him, and then shortly after the scene where Hal overhears Falstaff insulting her to Doll Tearsheet, is played with Hal becoming very, very upset over it and there’s no resolution or softening before the scene is interrupted by the news Henry IV is dying. Thus, it does imply that Hal’s rejection of Falstaff comes as a reaction to this split in their relationship, a sense that Falstaff has wronged and upset Hal – of course, we still have the earlier scenes (Hal imitating Henry IV and promising to banish her friends, the “I know you all” soliloquy) so the relationship isn’t completely rewritten.

Also, after the rejection Falstaff strips off her outer costume and fat-suit while (I think) giving dialogue about Falstaff’s death from Henry V, which gives the sense that Falstaff, like Hal, was playing a role that must now be discarded.

What I really, really loved was how, because of the compilation nature of the play, the characters were ‘haunted’ by the dead characters. Gaunt hung around the stage after his death, witnessing Richard’s land-grab (Duchy-grab? Lancaster-grab?) and Bolingbroke’s permanent exile. Hotspur also hung around for a bit, though my mind’s blanked on what his ghost did. Richard’s body “rises” and briefly joins the party-goers at the Boar’s Head, appears in Hal’s “I know you all speech” (quoting “I wasted time and now time doth waste me”), Henry V’s prayer before Agincourt (where she’s talking about reburying Richard) and, my personal favourite, Henry IV’s death scene, where Richard is the one to tell Henry IV the chamber is called Jerusalem.

The aesthetic of the play was gorgeous. The cast initially starts off wearing all rose-patterned clothes (e.g. Aumerle wears leggings, Bolingbroke a shirt, Hal a skimpy dress), or wear light or dark army fatigues for war scenes or if they’re more military-minded (e.g. Hotspur). In the Henry V portion of the play, most of the cast wear white underwear (women shifts, men underpants and singlets) while Henry V remains in black fatigues throughout, even during her courtship with Kylian. The disguises Falstaff and co wear in the robbery are masks made from photographs of Australia’s past five Prime Ministers (all but one of the five have been deposed by their parties without serving a full term; the fifth is going to lose the next election thank god). I think it breaks the reality of the play a bit, but it is funny. There photos of rehearsals and performance here (the performance is from last December, in a different performance space so the staging and some costumes are different to what I saw, and features both parts of the “Rose Riot”).

The choreography was fantastic – it was amazing to see how the limitations of the staging led to something more symbolic but absolutely stunning and understandable. They had a horse skull for Hotspur’s horse, where the cast made the body carried him on their shoulders. I thought the cast did very well and my “notes” about the characters are more about the choices made by the adaptation and the direction. I really, really loved Falstaff.

Random things I also loved: the music Richard hears in his prison soliloquy is revealed to be the music for Bolingbroke’s coronation (which is acted out around him). The Queen being the one to break the mirror in Richard’s deposition scene, as a way to sort of snap him out of his despair. Also Poins. Poins was really great, and the dynamic between Poins and Hal was amazing. 

I should absolutely mention the setting which was absolutely gorgeous. The production was set in the Leura Everglades Garden Theatre, up in Australia’s Blue Mountains. Cockatoos flew overhead and kookaburras laughed during the performance, the sun set and the stars came out. The garden theatre was gorgeous and I love how it tied into the idea of England as a garden in Richard II, and, if I turned to the right during the performance there was a beautiful view of mountains and valleys.  I loved the location so much that I went back on Sunday morning to explore the area more fully and take photos (so the sun is in the opposite position than what it was when the performance was on, the mountain photograph was taken at interval on Friday night, hence the dusk lighting and it’s zoomed in a lot because otherwise my camera wouldn’t pick up the mountains).

I do really, really, really regret and am saddened by the fact that I didn’t see the second part. It’s a limited run and the last performance is playing as I write this (if it hasn’t been affected by storms). But I think it was a wise choice. I’m utterly unfamiliar with the plays and feel like I need not to be to understand and appreciate the decisions they made. The venue is also a fair distance from me and combined with the late finish, it meant I needed to stay overnight nearby, and I just didn’t have the time yesterday to see it. I would also have been really tempted to see it again – there was nothing on TV tonight and I didn’t feel like watching any of the DVDs I have on the go, so I put on the BBC Hollow Crown and it just didn’t hit the sweet spot for me and I couldn’t stand Hiddleston’s Hal, boo.

As well as the rose-picking scene mentioned above, we also had Henry VI appear when the chorus was talking about Henry V’s death and Henry VI’s failures. Which makes me want to see Pt 2 even more to see if the characters from the Henriad make an appearance… and also makes me want a miniseries that has the option to weave the stories of the plays together and have the “ghosts” appearing – sort of like the BBC Hollow Crown if they’d not made that decision belatedly and were less of a “straight” adaptation with the horrible flashbacks in Henry V to Bardolf and Falstaff.

It does make me desperate to get the RSC and Globe Henriad boxsets though, to expand my knowledge about the plays, and also to watch the BBC Hollow Crown: Wars of the Roses so I can at least see those plays.

I want to keep talking about it because I really enjoyed it and have feels omg.

[findingthebard]

Best of the Bard: My top 6 favorite Shakespeare plays

When I started this project, I was curious to see if I would find any new favorite Shakespeare plays, or if my favorites would still be the same ones that I already loved. As I was making this list, I realized that it’s the plays I am most familiar with that I love the most (in general). That hardly seems a coincidence, and I think it says a lot about the importance and value of rereading literature.

This list was originally much longer, but I wanted to make this just about the plays that have touched and changed me, that I adore with my whole being, and that hold a truly, truly special place in my heart. There are others (like Henry V, Julius Caesar, Henry IV Part 2 and more) that I love deeply, but when I’m honest with myself, this list is a more accurate version of the plays that mean the world to me and that consistently take my breath away when I read or think about them.

Macbeth—If I had to pick just one Shakespeare play as a favorite, I think it would have to be Macbeth. It has fascinating characters, stunning writing, and is creepy enough to give me goosebumps. I think it is one of Shakespeare’s true masterpieces, and it is one I love to come back to again and again.

Hamlet—I wholeheartedly adore this play. It’s so heartbreaking to watch Hamlet’s journey towards its inevitable end, but I love everything we see along the way. It is a very long play, but I find it gripping, moving, and beautiful. This play deserves its status as perhaps the greatest play of all time. Certainly it’s one with endless room for analysis, interpretation, and discussion, which makes it an absolute delight.

As You Like It—One of only two comedies to make even my original extended list. This play warms my heart in a way that no others do. Rosalind is without a doubt one of Shakespeare’s greatest creations, and it is nothing short of a joy and pleasure to watch her on stage or the page work through everything that happens. I feel like you can’t help but see her as your best friend by the time you finish reading or watching As You Like It. She is an absolute standout among a cast packed full to bursting of genius characters, so that everyone you see on stage captures your heart and refuses to give it back.

Richard II—This one may not make it onto a lot of other Shakespeare favorite lists, but I love it. The language is superb, it asks interesting questions, and the characters are wonderful. More than any of the other histories, it shows Shakespeare’s genius in taking real historical events and editing them into pure artistic genius. It’s a fascinating play, and is responsible for beginning my love of Shakespeare’s histories.

Henry IV Part 1—This is an incredible play and an absolute treat to read or watch. The characters are amazing, and Shakespeare finds a way to make it all feel so personal even though I’m guessing none of us have been a roguish and irresponsible prince or a disappointed king crippled by guilt. But in typical Shakespearean fashion, it’s not about those things. It’s about a child who is struggling under the burden of responsibility and a father who doesn’t know how to communicate with that child. It’s about maturing and realizing that you have to make difficult choices even though you’d rather not have to worry about any of it. And it’s about becoming what others expect of you and reaching for the best version of yourself.

Much Ado About Nothing—The first 3 acts are the reason that I had to include this play on my list. After that, my feelings about it are much more complicated, but I adore the first part of Much Ado About Nothing so much that I couldn’t leave it off this list. There are only a handful of moments in Shakespeare’s canon that are better than the moments we see between Beatrice and Benedick at the beginning of this play. To say they are delightful is not even strong enough. They are delicious and hilarious and brilliant and an utter pleasure to read or watch. It is for that reason, in honor of dear Beatrice and Benedick, that I include Much Ado About Nothing among my all-time favorites.

A Midsummer Night's Dream (honorable mention)—I believe there is no better stage comedy than Midsummer Night’s Dream. Period. It only receives an honorable mention because I feel it does not translate well when you read it, but as an actual piece of theater, there is very little that can top it. It is a hilarious romp through some magical mischief that feels unmatched anywhere else. It’s an absolute joy.

[spryfilm]

“The Hollow Crown” (2012)

Historical Drama

Three years after the BBC filmed the four Elizabethan docudramas known as “The Henriad” – “Richard II,” “Henry IV” (parts 1 and 2) and “Henry V” – as “The Hollow Crown,” it picks up the history with “The Hollow Crown: The Wars of the Roses”. It recounts the history of the houses of Lancaster and York as they vie for control of England across much of the 15th century.

Henry VI, Part 1 (111 minutes)

Adapted by Ben Power; Directed by Dominic Cooke

WITH: Sophie Okonedo (Queen Margaret), Hugh Bonneville (Gloucester), Sally Hawkins (Duchess of Gloucester), Tom Sturridge (Henry VI), Adrian Dunbar (Richard of York), Stuart McQuarrie (Vernon), Lucy Robinson (Young Cecily), Samuel West (Bishop of Winchester), Stanley Townsend (Warwick), Michael Gambon (Mortimer), Anton Lesser (Exeter), Ben Miles (Somerset), Jason Watkins (Suffolk), Philip Glenister (Talbot), David Troughton (Duke of Anjou) and Laura Frances-Morgan (Joan of Arc)

Henry VI, Parts II & III (123 minutes)

Adapted by Ben Power; Directed by Dominic Cooke

WITH: Benedict Cumberbatch (Richard Plantagenet), Sophie Okonedo (Queen Margaret), Keeley Hawes (Queen Elizabeth), Tom Sturridge (Henry VI), Angus Imrie (Edmund Plantagenet), Adrian Dunbar (Plantagenet), Geoffrey Streatfeild (Edward IV), Sam Troughton (Clarence), Stuart McQuarrie (Vernon), Kyle Soller (Clifford), Richard Lynch (Westmorland), Lucy Robinson (Young Cecily), Stanley Townsend (Warwick), Anton Lesser (Exeter), Ben Daniels (Buckingham), Ben Miles (Somerset), Jason Watkins (Suffolk), Phoebe Fox (Lady Anne), James Fleet (Hastings), Andrew Scott (King Louis)

Richard III (130 minutes)

Adapted by Ben Power; Directed by Dominic Cooke

WITH: Judi Dench (Cecily, Duchess of York), Benedict Cumberbatch (Richard III), Sophie Okonedo (Queen Margaret), Keeley Hawes (Queen Elizabeth), Geoffrey Streatfeild (Edward IV), Sam Troughton (Clarence), Ben Daniels (Buckingham), James Fleet (Hastings), Phoebe Fox (Queen Anne), Luke Treadaway (Henry VII)

This is the second and last season of the “Hollow Crown”, with it brings some mixed blessings. The one thing I was looking forward to was the portrayal of the mercurial,  often played with a wink, Richard III, portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch. I used the word play as this is one of those Shakespearean characters that is based on a real person but possibly was written as what we would recognize as an ‘arch’ or archetypal villain – a shame as he was always going to be a villain to Shakespeare as instructed by Queen Elizabeth. As Richard III, Cumberbatch, like many of his best roles can be quiet, as well as loud, so here he is at his finest when we see him go from the battles to intimate conversations – this is a great role from an actor whose reputation only seems to grow as the years roll on.

One of the biggest and most obvious changes from series one to two, was to let one director, Dominic Cooke, let loose on the entire season which lends itself to keeping the tone and look the same throughout, which is not to say that this is a negative but it does mean the flourishes from story to story seen in series one are gone. Cooke who has no real credited television experience is a National Theatre director of some note, which of course means he is no stranger to directing Shakespeare, but his inexperience can be seen throughout this run.

The story of a dictator coming to power seems extremely relevant, maybe more so today than when these plays were conceived and written. It seems that when these television series were conceived to be remade for this new millennium the producers had an inkling of what was to come to pass in late 2016. When we are faced with what we prefaced with in the post-Trump, post-Truth era – has there ever been a monarch who shaped themselves as well as their enemies through a writer like Shakespeare – was he the Fox News of his time? Probably not, as well as being a little harsh from me, that really does more credit to the way Trump came to power than he deserves. But as the next eight years unfold we are going to see narratives form around Trump, his allies as well as the Republican Party that are going to shape politics for the foreseeable future.

Of course where would a Shakespeare play or plays be without the actors, we have Tom Sturridge as King Henry VI, Sophie Okonedo as Queen Margaret, Hugh Bonneville as Gloucester and rounding out the cast are the always magnificent Michael Gambon and Judi Dench. There is no doubt that the casting is excellent, but the most exciting actor to watch, for me, is the electrifying Sophie Okonedo who brings such authenticity to her performances in everything she appears in, this is no truer than her portrayal of Queen Margaret – as well as Cumberbatch as Richard III, it is Okonedo who the audience is unable to take their eyes off.

If you are looking for absolutely great television that is epic in scope in this age of “Game of Thrones”, then this and the first series of the “Hollow Crown” are for you, this is the very origins of epic storytelling as well as the chase for power where people will do anything for it and in this age of Trump, Brexit and the upcoming elections in the UK you could worse than looking to Shakespeare for lessons on morality and the hunger for power at any cost.

Out now on DVD & Blu-ray.

DVD/Blu-ray review: “Hollow Crown Series 2: The War of the Roses” (2016) “The Hollow Crown” (2012) Historical Drama Three years after the BBC filmed the four Elizabethan docudramas known as “The Henriad” - “Richard II,” “Henry IV” (parts 1 and 2) and “Henry V” - as “The Hollow Crown,” it picks up the history with “The Hollow Crown: The Wars of the Roses". 

[londontheatre]

Casting is today announced for Fanny & Alexander at The Old Vic. Legendary filmmaker Ingmar Bergman’s masterpiece Fanny and Alexander is adapted for the stage by BAFTA award-winning writer Stephen Beresford and directed by Old Vic Associate Director Max Webster, opening on 1 March 2018 with previews from 21 February 2018. The cast includes Penelope Wilton, Thomas Arnold, Lolita Chakrabarti, Kevin Doyle, Karina Fernandez, Annie Firbank, Matt Gavan, Tim Lewis, Gary MacKay, Gloria Obianyo, Vivian Oparah, Michael Pennington, Hannah James Scott, Jonathan Slinger, Catherine Walker and Sargon Yelda.

‘There should be no shame in us taking pleasure in our little lives.’ Amongst the gilded romance and glamour of 1900s Sweden, siblings Fanny and Alexander’s world is turned upside down when their widowed mother remarries the iron-willed local bishop. As creative freedom and rigid orthodoxy clash, a war ensues between imagination and austerity in this magical study of childhood, family and love.

Penelope Wilton plays Mrs. Helena Ekdahl. Her extensive theatre credits include Taken at Midnight (Theatre Royal Haymarket/Chichester Festival Theatre) for which she won an Olivier Award for Best Actress in 2015, Delicate Balance, Heartbreak House, The Deep Blue Sea (Almeida), The Family Reunion, The Chalk Garden – winning her the London Evening Standard Award Best Actress in 2008, John Gabriel Borkman, Little Foxes (Donmar Warehouse), The House of Bernarda Alba, Tess, Piano, The Secret Rapture, Major Barbara, Much Ado About Nothing, Man and Superman, Betrayal, The Philanderer, Sisterly Feelings, Landscape (National Theatre), Hamlet, Tishoo (Wyndham’s Theatre) and Women Beware Women (RSC Swan Theatre). Television includes Brief Encounters, Downton Abbey, Miss Marple: They do it with Mirrors, South Riding, Doctor Who, The Passion, Five Days, The Whistle-Blower, Wives and Daughters, Half Broken Things, Celebration, Ever Decreasing Circles. Film work includes Guernsey, Zoo, The BFG, The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, Belle, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, The History Boys, Pride and Prejudice and Shaun of the Dead.

Thomas Arnold plays Carl Ekdahl/Mr. Landhal. His theatre credits include Oslo, Henry IV Parts 1 & 2, Cyrano De Bergerac, Mourning Becomes Electra, Three Sisters and The Stoppard Trilogy (National Theatre), The Kid Stays in the Picture (Royal Court), Dr. Seuss’s The Lorax (2015 – The Old Vic), Hamlet, Orlando (Manchester Royal Exchange), A Door Must be Open or Shut (King’s Head Theatre), Outlying Islands (Bath Theatre Royal), and Poor Mrs Pepys (New Victoria Theatre). Television credits include Broken, The Missing, War and Peace, Call the Midwife, Wolf Hall, Director, Bert & Dickie, Midsomer Murders, This is England, Broadside, Demons, Miss Marple – Towards Zero, The Last Detective and Abolition. His film credits include The Woman in Black: Angel of Death, Far from the Madding Crowd, Posh, The Fifth Estate, Thor 2, Kon Tiki, One Day, Made In Dagenham, Robin Hood, Me and Orson Welles, The Duchess, The Golden Compass and Cromwell and Fairfax.

Lolita Chakrabarti plays Alma Ekdahl/Helena Vergérus. Theatre credits include Gertrude in Hamlet (Kenneth Branagh Theatre Company/RADA), Last Seen (Almeida), which Lolita also wrote, Free Outgoing (Royal Court/Edinburgh Festival), John Gabriel Borkman (Donmar), The Great Game: Afghanistan (Tricycle Theatre), The Waiting Room and A Midsummer Night’s Dream (National Theatre). Television credits include Delicious, Born to Kill, Beowulf, My Mad Fat Diary, Jekyll and Hyde, The Casual Vacancy and The Smoke. Writing credits include Red Velvet (Tricycle Theatre 2012 and 2014, St Ann’s Warehouse New York 2014, The Garrick Theatre 2016). Red Velvet was nominated for nine awards. Lolita won the Charles Wintour Evening Standard Award for Most Promising Playwright 2012, the Critics Circle Most Promising Playwright Award 2012 and the AWA Award for Arts and Culture in 2013.

Kevin Doyle plays Bishop Edvard Vergérus. Theatre includes: NSFW, Spur Of The Moment (Royal Court), One For The Road/Victoria Station (Young Vic), The White Guard, Mutabilitie (National Theatre), For King And Country (Touring Partnership),Three In The Back, Two In Head, The Mob, A Hole In The Top Of The World (Orange Tree Theatre), Comedy Of Errors (Southampton), Henry V, Coriolanus, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Artistes and Admirers, Romeo and Juliet, A Woman Killed With Kindness, Henry IV Parts I & II, Kissing The Pope, Twelfth Night, The Plantagenets, The Plain Dealer (all For The RSC), The Crucible (West Yorkshire Playhouse), Much Ado About Nothing (Queen’s Theatre and tour), Therese Racquin (Chichester Minerva Theatre),Othello (Bristol Old Vic), The Admirable Crichton, Great Expectations and Cymbeline (Royal Exchange).

Television includes Happy Valley, Reg, Downton Abbey, A.D – Beyond the Bible, The Crimson Field, Snodgrass, Open Doors, The Accused, New Tricks, Room at the Top, Scott & Bailey, Law and Order, Vexed, Survivors, Five Days, Paradox, Silent Witness, The Tudors, Till We Die, George Gently, Sleep With Me, Heartbeat, Belle De Jour, Drop Dead Gorgeous, Dalziel and Pascoe, Casualty, The Royal, New Street Law, The Brief, Brief Encounters, Afterlife, Big Dippers, The Rotters Club, Blackpool, Midsomer Murders, Family Business, Murphy’s Law, Silent Witness, The Lakes, Holby City, At Home With The Braithwaites and Badger. Film includes A Midsummer Night’s Dream, A Social Call, Good and The Libertine.

Karina Fernandez plays Lydia Ekdahl/Justina. Her theatre credits include Mare Rider (Arcola Theatre), There is a War, Edgar and Annabel (National Theatre), Bites (The Bush Theatre), Blue Hart (Royal Court), Cahoot’s Macbeth (King’s Head Theatre), Crocodile Seeking Refuge (Lyric Hammersmith), Dealing with Claire (Union Theatre), Macbeth (Bristol Old Vic), Trips (Birmingham Rep) and Wedding Day at the Cro-Magnons (Soho Theatre). Television credits include Holby City, Quick Cuts, A Touch of Cloth II, A Young Doctor’s Notebook, The Blind Man of Seville, My So Called Life Sentence, Twenty Twelve, My Family, Happy Birthday Shakespeare, Married. Single Other and The Forsythe Saga. Her film credits include Sense of an Ending, Pride, Untitled 13, Now is Good, Another Year, Happy Go Lucky, Gabriel and The Return and Daphne.

Annie Firbank plays Vega/Blenda Vergérus. Her theatre credits include Richard III (Arcola/Madrid), Oresteia, Macbeth (Almeida Theatre), Who Do We Think We Are?, Roundelay (Southwark Playhouse/Visible Ensemble), The Crucible (The Old Vic), To Kill a Mockingbird, Three Sisters, An Ideal Husband, Separate Tables, Habitat (Royal Exchange, Manchester), The Golden Dragon, Orpheus, The Belle Vue, Ion, Celestina (ATC), Billy Liar, A Working Woman, Macbeth (West Yorkshire Playhouse), An Argument About Sex (Tramway/Traverse Theatre), Only the Lonely, Death of a Salesman (Birmingham Rep), Becket (Theatre Royal Haymarket), Maps of Desire (Wonderful Beast), The Hollow Crown, Henry V, The Comedy of Errors (RSC), Much Ado About Nothing (Cheek By Jowl), Hedda Gabler (ETT/Donmar Warehouse), The Invisible Woman (Gate Theatre), The Winter’s Tale, Romeo and Juliet (Acter-USA), Mary Stuart (BAC), A Handful of Dust (Shared Experience), High Society (Victoria Palace), The Passion, Julius Caesar (National Theatre), Twelfth Night, Richard III, and Anthony and Cleopatra (Stratford, Ontario). Television includes New Tricks, Midsomer Murders, East Enders, Elizabeth I, Doctors, Kavanagh QC, Heartbeat, Heart of the Country, Growing Rich, Poirot, Mother Love, Hotel du Lac, Flesh and Blood, Lillie, The Nearly Man, Crown Court and Persuasion. Film credits include Anna and the King, Strapless, A Passage to India, The Scarlet Pimpernel, Sunday Bloody Sunday, A Severed Head, Accident, The Servant and Carry on Nurse.

Matt Gavan plays Michael Bergman/Aron Retzinsky. His recent theatre credits include King Lear (The Old Vic). His film credits include Murder on the Orient Express and Goodbye Christopher Robin.

Tim Lewis is in the Ensemble. Theatre includes The Elephantom, War Horse (National Theatre/West End), The Man of Mode (National Theatre) The Edge (UK tour), The Hudsucker Proxy (Nuffield Theatre/Liverpool Playhouse), At The End Of Everything Else, Something Very Far Away (Unicorn Theatre) The Guinea Pig Club, (York Theatre Royal), The Railway Children (Waterloo Station Theatre), and Romeo and Juliet (Birmingham Rep/UK tour). TV credits include Mr Selfridge, Five Daughters, and Coming Up: The King. Film includes A Night in Hatton Garden, A Congregation of Ghosts and In the Dark Half.

Gary Mackay is in the Ensemble. His theatre credits include Farm Boy (Mercury Theatre), ‘Art’ (The Old Vic), Run for Your Wife (Vienna English Theatre), Let The Right One In (NTS/West End/New York), The 39 Steps (UK tour), The Madness of George III (West End/UK tour), The Signal Man (Theatre Royal Bury St Edmunds), Little Otik (NTS/UK tour), When Five Years Pass, The Highway Crossing (Arcola Theatre), Lark Rise to Candleford (Finborough Theatre) and Julius Caesar (Barbican Theatre). His television credits include Derren Brown’s – Twisted Tales, EastEnders, Emmerdale, Lip Service, Hollyoaks, The Inspector Lynley Mysteries, Half Moon Investigations and Francis. His film credits include E=Motion, He Who Dares 2, The Magic Flute, The Devil’s Chair and Broken.

Gloria Obianyo plays Petra Ekdahl/Pauline/Ismael Retzinsky. Her theatre credits include The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui (Donmar Warehouse), The Wild Party (St James’s Theatre), The Grinning Man (Bristol Old Vic), Jesus Christ Superstar (Regent’s Park Open Air Theatre) and The Happy Warrior (Bromley Churchill Theatre). Her television and film credits include Good Omens and High Life.

Vivian Oparah plays Maj. Her theatre credits include An Octoroon (Orange Tree Theatre). Her television credits include Class, and she is set to appear in The Rebel and film Teen Spirit.

Michael Pennington plays Isak Jacobi/Death. His theatre credits include The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui, The Cosmonaut’s Last Message to the Woman he Once Loved (Donmar Warehouse), King Lear (UK tour), She Stoops to Conquer (Theatre Royal Bath), A Winter’s Tale (Garrick Theatre), Richard II (RSC), Dance of Death (Gate Theatre), Judgement Day (The Print Room), Anthony and Cleopatra, The Syndicate, The Master Builder, Collaboration and Taking Sides (Chichester Festival Theatre). Michael’s television credits include Endeavour, Father Brown, Silent Witness, Holby City, The Tudors, Lewis, Waking the Dead and The Bill. His film credits include The Iron Lady and Return of the Jedi.

Hannah James-Scott is in the Ensemble. Her theatre credits include Powerplay (Hampton Court), Translations (Sheffield Crucible/Rose Theatre) and LoveBites (Southwark Playhouse). Her film credits include Crumble and Empty.

Jonathan Slinger plays Gustav Adolf Ekdahl. His theatre credits include Trouble in Mind (Print Room), Plastic (Theatre Royal, Bath), Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (Theatre Royal Drury Lane), Urinetown (St. James Theatre/Apollo Shaftesbury), Hamlet, The Tempest, The Comedy of Errors, Twelfth Night, Henry VI parts 1, 2 & 3, Henry V, Richard II, Richard III, The Homecoming, Macbeth (RSC), The Gods Weep (RSC/Hampstead Theatre), Power, The Duchess of Malfi, and The Coast of Utopia (National Theatre). Recent television credits include Kiri, Nelson in his Own Words, Foyle’s War, To The Ends of the Earth, Vexed and Paradox. His film credits include The Taking, Harmony, A Knight’s Tale, Forgive and Forget and The Last September.

Catherine Walker plays Emilie Ekdahl. Her theatre credits include Hedda Gabler (Abbey Theatre), A Streetcar Named Desire, Les Liaisons Dangereuses, Uncle Vanya (Gate Theatre), Play (Barbican/Gate Theatre), The House (Abbey Theatre), Terminus (Abbey Theatre/Young Vic), Blackwater Angel (Finborough Theatre), What Happened Bridgie Cleary (Peacock Theatre), John Bull’s Other Island (Tricycle Theatre), Wild Orchids (Chichester Festival Theatre), Stairs to the Roof (Minerva Theatre), Richard II, Henry V, A Month in the Country, Troilus & Cressida (RSC) and Sive (Palace Theatre). Her television credits include Versailles II/III, Acceptable Risk, Rebellion, Critical, Strike Back, The Clinic, Life of Crime, The Silence, Lewis, Bittersweet, Northanger Abbey, Waking the Dead, Animals, Holby City, Passengers On Board and Sweeney Todd. Her film credits include Delinquent Season, Cellar Door, We Ourselves, Dark Song, Patrick’s Day, Debris, Dark Touch, Easier Ways to Make A Living, Leap Year, Cromwell, Losing Her, Perfect Day: The Funeral, Conspiracy of Silence and The Favourite.

Sargon Yelda plays Oscar Ekdahl. His theatre credits include King Lear (The Old Vic), Forget Me Not (Bush Theatre), Light Shining in Buckinghamshire, Dara, Emperor and Galilean, Mother Courage and her Children, Stovepipe (National Theatre), The Internet is Serious Business (Royal Court), Incognito (Bush Theatre), Moby Dick, The Cabinet of Dr Caligari (Arcola Theatre), Comedy of Errors, Twelfth Night, The Tempest (RSC) and When the Rain Stops Falling (Almeida Theatre). His television credits include The Strike Series: The Silkwork and Cuckoo’s Calling, Innocent, Zen, Compulsion, Midnight Man and Saddam’s Tribe. His film credits include Spectre, Dead Cat and Close.

The role of Fanny will be played by Zaris Angel Hator, Amy Jayne Leigh, Molly Shenker and Katie Simons, and the role of Alexander will be played by Guillermo Bedward, Kit Connor, Jack Falk and Misha Handley, who will alternate performances.

Adaptation Stephen Beresford Director Max Webster Set Designer Tom Pye Costume Designer Laura Hopkins Composer Alex Baranowski Lighting Designer Mark Henderson Sound Designer Tom Gibbons Casting Jessica Ronane CDG Director of Movement Toby Sedgwick Illusion Ben Hart Baylis Assistant Director Tatty Hennessey

FANNY & ALEXANDER Based on ‘Fanny and Alexander’ written and directed by Ingmar Bergman Adapted by Stephen Beresford Directed by Max Webster Wed 21 Feb���Sat 14 Apr 2018

BUY FROM AMAZON.CO.UK Fanny And Alexander [DVD] Kristina Adolphson (Actor),‎ Börje Ahlstedt (Actor),‎ Ingmar Bergman (Director, Writer)

http://ift.tt/2iiTKXu London Theatre 1

[skeleton-richard]

@kafkastan you've read Crown In Candlelight? Oh you poor thing. @nuingiliath can attest I didn't get very far before it broke me.

Can I add some suggestions?

Crispin: The Cross of Lead by Avi - Avi is one of my favorite authors, he writes for children and does a lot of historical fiction so he's probably done something on your favorite era. Crispin is about a boy on the run in 1377 who gets caught up in the climate that leads to the Peasants' Revolt a few years later, I actually loved this so much I used a quote from it as the epigraph to my BA thesis. Bonus points for found family, surprise John Ball, and since it's a kids' book it isn't overly violent or gross in the way a lot of adult books about this period can be.

Two Planks and a Passion by Anthony Minghella - Not fiction per say since it's actually a play, but definitely worth listening to (a BBC radio version is available for free on archive.org) and you can buy the script online. It centers around the York Mystery Play Cycle and Richard II, with Richard portrayed sympathetically (and in a loving ot3 with Anne of Bohemia and Robert de Vere) and it's by turns really funny and bittersweet. The supporting cast of the locals are great and there are a lot of things that directly reference medieval culture and it's also a serious meditation on compassion, faith, and the nature of theater.

Who's For the North? by Freda Hyman - Another children's book, this one about a page serving Hotspur before the rebellions against Richard II and Henry IV, focusing on his conflict with the Scots. The page uncovers a plot to kill Hotspur and it's actually really interesting, though it takes I think too much time to progress. It's still a fun read, Hotspur is a good guy in this and like with Crispin since it's for children it doesn't have any disturbing content. Bonus reference to Lady, if you're familiar with Shakespeare's Henry IV pt. 1! (Lady being Hotspur's beloved dog)

In a Dark Wood Wandering by Hella Haasse - Flawed but still worth the read I think, a novel focusing on the French duke Charles d'Orléans. It admittedly falls prey to outdated depictions of Isabeau of Bavaria but it's due to having been written in the 1940s, and there are some issues with the one-note depiction of Jean the Fearless (could be worse though). I still count it as one of my favorite books, in part for the influence it had on me. I'd recommend it if you want an overview of Charles's life, it's still the best novel with him I can think of.

Some honorable mentions:

The Lords of Lancaster by Pamela Bennetts - While occasionally straying too much into exposition, a surprisingly decent novel about Richard II, worth the read. The part about the deposition is especially harrowing.

The Unravished Bride by Terry Tucker - Richard II, eally rare and kind of weird in some places about Richard's relationship with Anne, it's still interesting and packs a lot into a short book in a good way. Bonus good depictions of the relationships between Edward III and Philippa of Hanault; Joan of Kent and the Black Prince; Richard and Anne (for the most part); and Charles d'Orléans and Isabelle de Valois.

The King's Knight Trilogy by J. A. Ironside (specifically the first two books) - honestly some of the best fiction I've read in a while, about a grouchy knight who turns out to be a big softie who ends up serving Richard II. The first two books are great, the third is a letdown with both the MC and Richard so maybe only read the first two.

In the Presence of Evil by Tania Bayard - Another book that has a few hiccups but is nonetheless fun, Christine di Pizan becomes a detective. With a welcome sympathetic depiction of Isabeau of Bavaria!

god your posts on bad histfic restore my sanity, do you have any recs for books that do it (mostly) right?? i’ve read sunne in splendour, crown in candlelight, the kingmaker’s daughter, and a couple plaidys, and i’ve had all the same issues w them as you

Aww, thanks! 

I’m not sure what time period/reigns you’re particularly interested in but my top three recs would be

1. Edith Pargeter’s A Bloody Field By Shrewsbury. 

This is centred around Henry IV, Hal (the future Henry V) and Harry ‘Hotspur’ Percy, and cumulates in the Battle of Shrewsbury. It’s not perfect - there’s an original female character that I found largely useless, Henry IV isn’t characterised as well as I would’ve liked - but it does good work with Hal’s character and exploring his complexities. Pargeter also wrote the Brother Cadfael series (under the name Ellis Peters) so if you like them, it’s probably worth giving this a shot.

2. Susan Howatch’s The Wheel of Fortune

Howatch uses the lives the kings Edward III through to Henry V as inspiration for a family saga set in the 20th century. This isn’t perfect - there’s a lot of, well, 1980s attitudes to mental health and sexuality here and Howatch does use interpretations that I don’t agree with or are outdated. But it’s a great story and unlike a lot of authors, when Howatch repeats tropes, she does it with a lot of thought so I found myself a lot more forgiving of them. 

3. Livi Michael’s trilogy about Margaret Beaufort and Margaret of Anjou (Succession, Rebellion and Accession).

This is more literary fiction than the typical historical fiction and consists of short, introspective chapters from various points-of-view interspersed with short extracts from chronicles to provide context and structure. For me, it’s one of the very few novels about the Wars of the Roses that isn’t overtly Lancastrian, Yorkist, Tudor or Ricardian in storytelling - everyone is flawed and complex, no one is wholly evil. But having said that, it’s not a typical histfic novel and I understand if you bounce off it. 

Some runners-up:

Isabella: Braveheart of France, Colin Falconer. About Isabella of France and Edward II. Another one more literary/introspective in style but it does just tell the story of Edward II and Isabella of France without getting misogynist or homophobic.

The Imp of Eye, Kristin Gleeson and Moonyeen Blakey. This is the first in a paranormal series that focuses mainly on the original characters introduced here but this is probably the most sympathetic and well-written rendering of Eleanor Cobham I’ve ever come across. 

I Serve: A Novel of the Black Prince, Rosanne E. Lortz. This one was just a fun adventure read.

The Bastard’s Tale, Margaret Frazer. This is part of the Sister Frevisse series which I really love as a cosy comfort read and this volume focuses around the death of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, partly narrated by his illegitimate son, Arthur.

My Lord John, Georgette Heyer. An unfinished novel focusing around on Henry V’s brother, John, Duke of Bedford. 

The Sunne in Splendour, Sharon Penman. I know, I know. It’s the Ricardian bible. But for all that, I do think it is really strongly written. I just wish it was less Ricardian.

I’ve heard good things about A. M. Maughan’s Harry of Monmouth but I’ve not read it yet.