![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Saw this version - http://www.shakespearesglobe.com/education/discovery-space/previous-productions/henry-v at the cinema yesterday.
Not impressed.
Now for some reason, when I saw Dominic Dromgoole's name as director my subconscious went "well, that explains it" but since my conscious cannot recall anything else directed by him that I've seen, that has to remain an inexplicable reaction. If anyone can think of any reason for it, I'd be grateful.
As for what was wrong with it, I am aware that everything is not a useful answer, and is also deeply unfair to what were a decent Henry, a good Exeter and some really good work by the guy playing Captain Jamie/Orleans/the soldier that Henry gets into a fight with/the Earl of Cambridge and by Captain Gower.
The major problems are fourfold:
1 - I, personally, hadn't ever really considered Henry V to be a broad, farcical comedy. We're talking bad Carry On levels of broad. But not as funny (mostly, Gower and Fluellen, and Gower and Jamie and Fluellen, and all the other scenes where Gower was the only sensible head anywhere in France were all funny). It just lead to some whiplash problems of "wailing over the boys in the luggage right back to comedy" or "wailing over English dead right back to comedy" without a break.
2 - Which brings me to point 2. The pacing was off, there were three or four scenes were someone was supposed to be emoting, but while they were setting up the next scene and just getting in the way. Seriously, let those scenes run for an extra 20-30 seconds, let the actor leave the stage in some manner more natural than being bundled off and suddenly, for an extra one or two minutes run time, it works better.
3 - also allied to point 1 - it fell on the wrong side of the risqué/vulgar line far too often. And I'm fine with deliberate vulgarity. It just felt so leaden. I'm not sure you can have boring vulgarity but this came very close.
4 - All of the Eastcheap characters and Fluellen could have done with turning it down about 6 notches. Particularly Pistol. Pistol caused a full-on "oh no, there's going to be another Pistol scene, isn't there. Do we have to?" reaction. He seemed to be speaking along the text, and just hoping he'd get to the end of this bit without getting anything wrong, and rhyme and meter and meaning could go hang.
It wasn't all bad, I mean, I loved that the three traitors played the French nobles and as I said, Gower, Exeter and Henry were good, particularly Henry. He was so very believable in the Kiss me, Kate bit at the end. Although, this may be the only Henry V where the Kiss me, Kate bit is the best part of the play (they were so very adorable).
~~~~
I also saw the trailer for the new Romeo and Juliet, which is about as much Shakespeare's as Verdi's Otello is Billy Shakestaff's. Really, there ought to be a trades description rule about it. It's not just because I'm bitter and think I could write better faux-Shakespeare than Julian Fellows, although that plays a huge part in it.
Not impressed.
Now for some reason, when I saw Dominic Dromgoole's name as director my subconscious went "well, that explains it" but since my conscious cannot recall anything else directed by him that I've seen, that has to remain an inexplicable reaction. If anyone can think of any reason for it, I'd be grateful.
As for what was wrong with it, I am aware that everything is not a useful answer, and is also deeply unfair to what were a decent Henry, a good Exeter and some really good work by the guy playing Captain Jamie/Orleans/the soldier that Henry gets into a fight with/the Earl of Cambridge and by Captain Gower.
The major problems are fourfold:
1 - I, personally, hadn't ever really considered Henry V to be a broad, farcical comedy. We're talking bad Carry On levels of broad. But not as funny (mostly, Gower and Fluellen, and Gower and Jamie and Fluellen, and all the other scenes where Gower was the only sensible head anywhere in France were all funny). It just lead to some whiplash problems of "wailing over the boys in the luggage right back to comedy" or "wailing over English dead right back to comedy" without a break.
2 - Which brings me to point 2. The pacing was off, there were three or four scenes were someone was supposed to be emoting, but while they were setting up the next scene and just getting in the way. Seriously, let those scenes run for an extra 20-30 seconds, let the actor leave the stage in some manner more natural than being bundled off and suddenly, for an extra one or two minutes run time, it works better.
3 - also allied to point 1 - it fell on the wrong side of the risqué/vulgar line far too often. And I'm fine with deliberate vulgarity. It just felt so leaden. I'm not sure you can have boring vulgarity but this came very close.
4 - All of the Eastcheap characters and Fluellen could have done with turning it down about 6 notches. Particularly Pistol. Pistol caused a full-on "oh no, there's going to be another Pistol scene, isn't there. Do we have to?" reaction. He seemed to be speaking along the text, and just hoping he'd get to the end of this bit without getting anything wrong, and rhyme and meter and meaning could go hang.
It wasn't all bad, I mean, I loved that the three traitors played the French nobles and as I said, Gower, Exeter and Henry were good, particularly Henry. He was so very believable in the Kiss me, Kate bit at the end. Although, this may be the only Henry V where the Kiss me, Kate bit is the best part of the play (they were so very adorable).
~~~~
I also saw the trailer for the new Romeo and Juliet, which is about as much Shakespeare's as Verdi's Otello is Billy Shakestaff's. Really, there ought to be a trades description rule about it. It's not just because I'm bitter and think I could write better faux-Shakespeare than Julian Fellows, although that plays a huge part in it.
