The Hollow Crown (TV Series) Richard II (2012) User Reviews

Living, vital Shakespeare

[Deana-morris-home · 9/10 · 30 June 2012]

A thousand years ago I studied Richard II for O-level English with my fellow classmates in Olwyn Lemar's English lessons at the dreadful, dreary comprehensive, Drayton School. It is a tribute to Mrs Lemar's talents that we could put together essays on is play, for although it is packed with soldiers, swords and kings it deals with great ideas - loyalty, betrayal, greed, fear, cowardice, love.

This film of Henry Bolingbroke's betrayal, banishment and return, a King's wickedness, weakness and vanity, is beautifully shot, marvellously acted, perfectly cast.

Shakespeare's glory is its Truth, it's exploration of the core of all that we are - greedy, ambitious, wicked, good, loyal, proud and ridiculous.Our lives are mirrored in the past and the struggles for power are forever.

A powerful story, a powerful production, a stellar cast. Well worth your time. Enjoy.

I can see this Shakespeare chap going places

[jpm-387-613125 · 9/10 · 17 July 2012]

I just finished watching this and I thought it was a fantastic production. There is so much to rave about from the cast, to the direction, the sets and even the score.

A particularly wonderful touch was the way Richard 2 was played like an unearthly Micheal Jackson character, he even had a monkey, a perfect nuance to the divine and lofty king Richard 2.

The cutting dialog was beautiful and wonderfully ambiguous, each line gives you a sense of wonder and sometimes a wow. I looked up the author and I can see this Shakespeare chap going places, he may even win a Bafta award someday.

Well-done the BeeB for commissioning this and I am now looking forward to the rest of the hollow crown series.

Powerful acting, a lot going on, a beautiful experience

[NoEarthlyReason · 8/10 · 1 May 2013]

The film opens with Richard hearing accusations of treason from Henry, Duke of Purford, against Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk as they stand side by side before the King in his palace. They throw down their gauntlets and refuse to pick them up when Richard orders them to. At the resulting joust where they are to fight to the death, Richard stops the action before a blow is landed, and banishes both men from Britain, Henry for ten years (twice five summers) and Mowbray for life. On seeing the sadness of John of Gaunt, Henry's elderly uncle, he reduces Henry's sentence by four years. Thus, by this high handed mismanagement of men, the scene is set for Richard's eventual imprisonment by Henry, who forces him to abdicate so he can be crowned king.

Richard is petulant, childish, vindictive and manically duplicitous, and surrounded by sycophants, while Henry is good hearted, strong, fair, straightforward, intelligent and (to start with) unswervingly loyal. The other characters are all realistically drawn and along with the action, which varies from soul-baring soliloquies to brutal but never gratuitous violence, and the grand sets and locations, including cathedrals, churches, castles and dungeons and beautiful coastal and forested places as well as truly stunning landscaped gardens, make this beautifully filmed adaptation a highly engrossing watch.

For those not familiar with Shakespeare (like me) and the period of history, things can get a little bit confusing with all the many different characters, the iambic pentameter and medieval language, and the intricacies of the drama. However, the film was very enjoyable and will make any reading of the history behind it extremely interesting. The language and the way it is delivered is very beguiling although I sometimes found it hard to follow, due to its complexity and unfamiliarity and its poetic nature. This is probably a good thing, though, as it means Shakespeare can be watched repeatedly without feeling stale.

I'm looking forward to watching the whole series.

Stunning - just stunning

[glasslens · 10/10 · 3 July 2012]

Richard II is not on the list of Shakespeare plays that I would normally watch - certainly not at the theatre. But, as a bit of a Shakespeare buff, I thought I'd give this a go. From start to finish, this was just an amazing production. All of the key members of the cast were at the top of their already fine form. Ben Wishaw, as Richard, was outstanding and brought out just how dull many of the previous Richards such as Olivier had been in comparison. Rupert Goolde's direction brought out so much from his cast and his timing - so vital in Shakespeare, was spot on. But I have to say that Danny Cohen's cinematography was the absolute star of the show. Every shot - and I mean every shot - was beautiful. Beautiful in composition, in movement, in lighting and in grading. The TV just glowed in fantastic shot after shot. I think it was shot on video rather than film but this is the very best "film look" I've yet to see. And let's not forget the sound - always perfectly clear, beautifully recorded and mixed. For those of us who often despair at the production values of TV drama, this was a delight to see. Let us hope that other TV drama execs will see and learn. A huge congratulations to everyone involved.

Almost perfect

[alfa-16 · 10 July 2012]

The best Shakespeare on film since McKellen's Richard III.

Unfairly unloved, perhaps because of the unfamiliar politics in it opening scenes, Richard II is Shakespeare's watershed. It has much in it which would have been familiar to the Elizabethan theatre goer-but also contains mountains of innovation, such as Richard's soliloquy after his confinement, which look forward to Hamlet and beyond. This is the play where iambic pentameter really broke free of its rhyming chains and although not everyone can place it correctly, Richard II contains some of Shakespeare's finest poetry.

And what a fantastic Richard we have in Ben Whishaw, delivering the personal tragedy and the political betrayal with the combination of power and finesse that the role demands but rarely receives. Even Ian McKellen, in his landmark production for the BBC in the 80's, didn't catch the sheer majesty of Richard's defiant surrender at Flint castle.

The entire cast is outstanding and the producers did well to enlist two great female actresses for the parts of Isabella and the Duchess of York, retaining the bulk of parts that are often cut to shreds. More of Isabella's lines would have helped Clemence Poesy make her Queen memorable but no one will forget Lindsay Duncan's rescue of her son.

However, Rory Kinnear takes second honours, providing an utterly mesmerising foil for Whishaw's Richard and the electricity crackles between them as the fantastic deposition scenes hit the summits of dramatic power. You won't see better. There isn't better.

Beautifully shot and engineered, there isn't a scene that doesn't look stunning, a word that cannot be clearly understood or a plot line that cannot be easily followed. The sheer mastery of the play's intensely psychological portrait of kingship and power is made easily accessible to newcomers to Shakespearean drama and language.

Utterly brilliant. Well done everyone involved.

Exceptionally made Shakespeare adaptation

[Leofwine_draca · 8/10 · 28 November 2014]

THE HOLLOW CROWN was a BBC miniseries of Shakespeare historical plays first broadcast in 2012. I recorded them all that time ago, but have only just got around to watching the first; of course, Shakespeare can be very dry and there are always more fun things to watch in the mean time.

Anyway, I needn't have worried because RICHARD II turns out to be a fabulous adaptation of the play. It features pitch-perfect acting, a wonderful realisation of a historical world, and plenty of excellent moments which excel in bringing Shakespeare to life. It's also a mature and sometimes graphic tale that serves in bringing to life one of the intriguing of English kings.

The production isn't entirely perfect, as it's a little overlong and drawn out, but then again this isn't one of Shakespeare's best plays. It's very simplistic stuff, detailing an initial series of events and then playing out the consequences of them. But what a cast! Ben Whishaw is equally as good here as he was in THE HOUR, and the supporting players include David Morrissey, James Purefoy, Patrick Stewart, David Suchet, and Rory Kinnear, none of whom put a foot wrong. Sterling work indeed, then, and here's to HENRY IV PART I...

Powerful and not hollow

[TheLittleSongbird · 10/10 · 20 July 2019]

'Richard II' (or 'The Life and Death of King Richard II') deserves to be performed and known much more than it is, neglect is something it really does not deserve. Personally do not find it lacking in depth and think it would be interesting for anybody interested in Shakespeare to study, its titular character and that it's told entirely in verse are reasons enough to give it a chance at least. It's not my favourite Shakespeare, but it is a long way from a waste of time.

This production kicks off the 'The Hollow Crown' series, which is a fascinating one made up of two seasons/cycles and seven Shakespeare adaptations (two though having two parts to them) with high production values and great casts. With this 'Richard II', what a way to start the series off. It is also a wonderful production of 'Richard II', that is a must for Shakespeare buffs and those wanting to see productions of lesser plays done justice. Also highly recommend the BBC Television Shakespeare, another fascinating though less even in quality series, production from 1978 with Derek Jacobi, one of the best productions from that series.

Others have already said what is so great about 'Richard II' and how all the components fare, and there is not much more to add. The sets and costumes are the very meaning of lavish, have not seen costumes for any Shakespeare production this lavish in a long time, and also love the authenticity of the sets and how it always looks as though there is a time and place. Even more impressive on the visual front is the photography, actually cannot believe that this is a film. With photography this varied, clever and beautiful, it could easily pass for one. The sense of time and place is also reflected in the music, which is placed well and isn't intrusive.

Shakespeare's text/verse is so poetic and full of emotional power. The staging never felt cluttered or static and there was some great attention to detail throughout, big and small. It even made me feel for the somewhat underwritten character of Isabella (played touchingly by Clemence Posey). Thanks to Rupert Goold, the story doesn't have a dull spot, spot on in timing and didn't have trouble following, which is a danger if one is not familiar with 'Richard II' because it has a lot to it.

Ben Whishaw is not taxed at all by this complex title role, it demands a lot of things and Whishaw brings out all of them in a way that's commanding and affecting. He is very well matched by especially Patrick Stewart's sincere and poignant John of Gaunt, David Suchet's authoritative York and particularly Rory Kinnear's understated Henry (remarkably nuanced when not saying a lot, do agree about his electrifying chemistry with Whishaw). Lindsay Duncan is powerful too, especially in the rescue of her son which will stay with one forever. Posey does what she can with Isabella. Oh, and who couldn't help love that monkey?

All in all, fantastic. 'Richard II' does not get much better. 10/10

Richard II-Human weakness

[Prismark10 · 7/10 · 29 April 2016]

Richard II is one of the plays that tends not to be made too often hence the unfamiliarity although some of the lines are familiar.

This adaptation by Rupert Goold for the BBC's Hollow Crown series is not staged bound as it has been opened out with location scenes and even some grisly scenes of be headings.

The opening is the key although in order to get a gist of the story I did take a look at Wikipedia before I watched this in case the Shakespearean text confused me.

Richard II hears accusations of treason from Henry, Duke of Purford against Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk. Richard II orders them to make peace which they refuse to do. A joust is arranged but Richard II stops them at the last moment and then exiles both men from England.

Henry for ten years and Thomas Mowbray for life. Irrationally Henry's sentence is reduced to four years maybe because not to upset John of Gaunt, Henry's uncle who is also the King's relative.

The way the king has dealt with the matter in a scenario where he has been under suspicion himself from John of Gaunt at least for the way he wrested the crown himself shows up his deficiencies.

Richard waited until the last moment to stop the joust. His differing terms of banishment for both men looks odd especially as he reduced Henry's term even further. He appears high handed, conceited, weak and indecisive.

Ben Whishaw's King Richard II is younger here and rather fey but he also is petulant, vain and duplicitous but also fond of sad soliloquies such as telling sad tales of kings. It is like he realises he too may be violently deposed one day.

Rory Kinner's Henry is strong, loyal and straightforward but his treatment at the beginning by Richard II sets him on a course to take the crown of him.

The setting here includes castles, churches and the coast with costumes that seem to have a North African influence.

The film has enjoyable action and verve as Goold knew he had to make it less stage bound as possible although it does look like a lesser budget television movie than a feature film.

Of course the text is not easy to follow, the words are over 500 years old so you looking to get the gist of the story followed by the action, mood as well as the language delivered by the actors in a style that looks it comes across as natural to them. It helps that there are veterans such as Patrick Stewart, David Suchet, David Bradley and Lindsay Duncan mixing it with the younger actors.

well.....

[keshby3636 · 7/10 · 15 November 2013]

I would have found this an excellent film except for the fact that I could not get behind Whishaw portrayal of Richard II as effeminate(if not gay, with all the men he eyes and surrounds himself with)shallow king who seems to view himself as a contemporary Christlike figure. I cringe as I watched the veteran actors strong characterizations against what I found a weak and disappointing interpretation of Shakespeare by Whishaw who is a good actor. I confess I didn't like him in Bright Star either. Horrible take on Keats but that's for another review! I must also say I was let down by Patrick Stewart's "other eden" monologue. I felt very little emotion when he spoke the famous lines. A nod to Rory Kinnear who quietly gave a great performance. A very underrated actor that I hope to see in more Shakespeare brought to screen. I also enjoyed watching David Suchet, who did an excellent job. Still, it's worth seeing in my opinion, which is just that, my opinion!

Poor Richards

[proteus6847 · 1/10 · 4 November 2014]

Watching Rupert Goold's film of Richard II (2012), featuring Ben Whishaw in the title role, I was initially intrigued and then swiftly dismayed by Whishaw's cinematic inwardness. Richard is frankly despicable in his early scenes, but he can ultimately win over the audience through the extremity of his suffering, the flight of his poetry and the prophetic intensity of his insights. Unfortunately, Whishaw conveys nothing but increasing introversion and remoteness, and so remains loathsome throughout. His closest relationship is with his pet monkey; when he claims that he "needs friends," one imagines that a troop of baboons would suffice. At Wales, he climbs a sand dune to deliver his speeches,hoping that physical elevation will lift him to the heights that his passion cannot reach. He remains abstracted and withdrawn at Flint Castle, where his Richard is so intent on producing an effect that he seems to feel nothing but stage-jitters. His colloquies with Aumerle are like whispered conversations in the wings on the order of "How am I doing?" This may be an interpretive choice; it is also an evasion of the central challenge. If Whishaws were horses, Ben would be a hack.

David Tennant's Richard for the RSC (2013) is equally inadequate in a different mode. During an interview shown before the play, director Gregory Doran declares that "Whatever David does, he is absolutely contemporary!" If by that he means "incapable of dealing with heightened language and profound emotion," he is correct. Unlike Whishaw with his ever-receding solipsism, Tennant tries to supply these deficiencies with his trademark cheeky humor. As a result, he is the funniest Richard I have ever seen (even funnier than Fiona Shaw), but I think that the play is meant to be a tragedy.

Why should an audience care about a Richard as aloof, callow, trifling and ordinary as Tennant's or Whishaw's? In possible awareness of this problem, Doran and Goold resort to the exact same device to generate a measure of belated sympathy. Flouting Shakespeare and Holinshed, they have Richard assassinated by Aumerle instead of Exton, and they further present Aumerle as Richard's actual or would-be lover. In order to wipe out the taint of his abortive treason, Aumerle (we are to understand) destroys the thing he loves at the real or imagined behest of the incorrigibly heterosexual Bolingbroke.

In short, both directors portray Richard as a martyr to homophobia, something that Marlowe's Edward so obviously is, but that Shakespeare's Richard so obviously is not. Goold drives home the point with sledgehammer subtlety by depicting Richard as the most famous of all gay icons: Stripped to a loincloth, he is shot to death with arrows. Doran does nothing quite so blatant, but he does have Richard and Aumerle share a lingering kiss, and he directs Tennant to be distant and unloving towards his Queen. His farewell kiss to her in their final scene is perfunctory, and when she responds with a more ardent kiss, he does not reciprocate.

Thus, Richard meets his doom in both productions implicitly proclaiming "I am Edward II, know ye not that?" The audience is meant to think of gay-bashing and wipe away a tear. But there may be some who feel that the countertextual triggering of irrelevant responses does not make up for actors who are "absolutely contemporary" and therefore unable to cope with classical magnitude and pathos. And there may be some who are more moved by the plight of Richard's Queen than by the factitious vagaries of his liaison with Aumerle, a relationship with no more tragic grandeur than Oscar and Bosie's.

Richard II: A bit overdrawn in the delivery, which stilts the flow

[bob the moo · 8 September 2012]

I recorded all of the recent BBC presentations of these four plays and, as is the way, they sat on the harddrive while "easier" fare was watched in preference. I decided to start the films though because I had heard nothing but good things and, while I had seen some of them on stage or in other films, I don't think I had ever seen Richard II before. The plot here sees the fall of a rather aloof and effeminate Richard almost at his own hands, as his ill treatment of two men comes back on him in the form of a rebellion – a rebellion that his fey ways are unable to command sufficient loyalty to prevent. It leads to the crowning of a new King and leads into the next film Henry IV part 1.

As a story the film is pretty easy to follow, which for me is always a massive plus – that even those such as myself who struggle with Shakespeare's language when written, are aided in understanding and appreciation by the delivery. That was the case here and although I did not fully appreciate the significance of all scenes, I was more than able to follow the story. In terms of the language I was also able to keep up but there seemed to be something missing here from what I am used to finding from Shakespeare – the language. I'm not sure if this is part of the play or more down to this version of it, but for me the language did not quite have the energy and beauty that I have come to expect. Again I'm not sure if this is the play or the performance but everything did feel subdued and rather restrained – like it was trying so hard to tell a proper story that it seemed unwilling to do so with grand flourishes that contrast against the rather gritty and graceless fall of Richard II. As a result my ear didn't take to it as much as I expected and it didn't grip me in the way his language often does.

The cast's delivery is part of this but they do as directed and are good whether it is for the best or not. So, for example, I thought Whishaw was a good Richard because he was weak, conceited, disconnected and fey; problem was that he does these things so well that he is hard to be interested in as a person because he is little more than these characteristics. Kinnear is too sturdy to capture anger and passion and the supporting players may all do well but nobody adds fire to the play (although it is good to see Suchet, Purefoy, Morrissey and others).

So, again I stress that this play was new to me and as a result i may be picking on the film for doing what all version have done, but for me this was a bit too long and lacking in the sharp edge and quick colour that I expect from Shakespeare. The performances seem folded in a little bit, playing very much to the seriousness of the piece and this does make it feel a bit heavy and leaden at times. It was an engaging story though and the production values were high, but I did wish it had more passion and energy in there.

Richard II as Christ figure

[Red-125 · 7/10 · 8 September 2020]

Richard II (2012) was cowritten and directed by Rupert Goold. It's was the first episode of The Hollow Crown TV Series done by the BBC. Earlier, the BBC had filmed all of Shakespeare's plays in very basic fashion. Few props, and few extras.

This time around, the BBC produced all of Shakespeare's histories (except Henry VIII) in lush, "BBC quality," productions. Richard II opens the series.

This play rises or falls on the skills of the actor who portrays Richard II. Here it's Ben Whishaw, who is, indeed a brilliant actor. The DVD contains a special feature, "The Making of Richard II." This special feature really is a piece of fluff for the production. We're told that Ben Whishaw is the Richard II of today, just as Sir Laurence Olivier and Sir John Gielgud were for their day.

Whishaw is a fine actor, but I think that it's premature to declare him the standard of excellence for Shakespeare actors in the 21st Century.

Director Goold has chosen to depict Richard as a Christ figure. It's not subtle in the movie, and it's stated in "The Making of Richard II." Yes, Richard considered himself to be God's anointed sovereign, but that doesn't make him a Christ figure. However, there he is, barefoot, wearing a loincloth, ready to be sacrificed. Give Richard's earlier behavior, it just didn't work for me.

I'll defend a director's right to interpret Shakespeare, but I don't have to agree with his decision.

For better or for worse, the BBC has "opened up" this production so that we can see the horses, the hills, the castles, the oyster women, the beheadings, etc. You'll have to decide whether you'd prefer to use your imagination, as Shakespeare suggested, or you'd rather watch a Branagh-style production.

This movie was made for TV, so it works well on the small screen. It has a very high IMDb rating of 8.3. I didn't think it was that good, and rated it 7.

what a pity this Shakespeare's performance is not the most convincing.

[cranwberrydoris · 30 May 2017]

I do not appreciate Richard II in this form, too dark, too boring. Inadequate and flat actor, for the role. On the other hand, I was able to appreciate in his just value, Richard II. played by David Tennant for the RSC ( 2013 ). Excellent, fills with emotion, truthful. This actor knows how to reproduce the historic authenticity of the character. Pleasant and easy to follow for Shakespeare. I found no point of humor, nor joke in this interpretation, very seriously and perfectly played by David T. I never saw Richard II be more perfectly interpreted. I have a profound respect and a great admiration for this excellent and extraordinary actor, particularly gifted. Thank you infinitely Mr. Tennant... No other actor is more suited than David Tennant to play Shakespeare... That's why (among others thing): Before making his debuts in 1996 in Royal Shakespeare Company in "As You Like It". He becomes a member and one of the main comedians, playing among others Hamlet and Roméo. In September, 2012, David Tennant is named to the board of directors of Royal Shakespeare Company. In 2011, he plays "Much ado about nothing" at Wyndhams Theatre. In April, 2016, it is him who presents the performance, live of Royal theater Shakespeare to Stratford-Upon-Avon, for the 400th anniversary of the death of the playwright. In July, 2016, David Tennant, was rewarded by Royal Academy of Scotland, and received "doctor of Drama's" title, with the honors. warm congratulations for the best Shakespearean interpreter ...