The Hollow Crown

Anyone out there got any views?

I made myself watch it - for the drama, not the wildly inaccurate history. I have to say the acting is good and strangely enough our Benedict comes across much better (evil and all) than some other characters. Edward and George have got a particularly bad deal (where is the golden 6ft Edward?) and Warwick (who is Richard Beauchamp and Richard Neville rolled into one) looks more like someone out of EastEnders. Then there's Henry VI's strange hair. If Benedict fans take more interest in Richard and want to find out the truth then it might actually do more good than the White Queen. I live in hope.
Couple of things. I do wish the nice Phil Stone would hire some PR for the Society. Whatever he says we are always portrayed as dotty eccentrics. Secondly, surely the book waiting to be written is debunking Shakespeare's Richard. I had so hoped JAH's mythology book would do that but it was a missed opportunity. And Shakespeare is so easy to debunk compared with the sainted More. H

I think, so far, it's stunningly good. Better than series 1, perhaps because the plays are simpler and easier to compress. The script takes huge liberties, but I can live with most of them. I *do* miss Jack Cade's rebellion and the sense of disorder from a family quarrel spreading outwards and infecting the entire kingdom, but to include that would probably have taken another 10 minutes of unaffordable screentime. Also, although still not perfect, it's much better on armour and costume than the abomination that was 'The White Queen'.
You mention Phil Stone. I was genuinely shocked by the email he sent out to members about the programme a few weeks ago. It was a catastrophically naive response to some journalistic trolling about how the Richard III Society might react to Cumberbatch's portrayal. He should either have ignored it totally or simply said that he welcomed any quality Shakespeare adaptation but the historical reality was, of course, very different. Instead, he said he hoped the BBC would issue disclaimers, criticised the violence (as if that were not in the plays), and - in a public statement, God help us! - lamented that, surely, the Licence Fee could be better spent. What, on more episodes of 'The Voice' or 'Bargain Hunt'?
Of course, this has come back to haunt us in the last few days through being referenced in the press, e.g 'The Daily Telegraph' . All it does is reinforce the impression that the Society is a fan club, and not a home of serious, revisionist study. It's so self-defeating that it actively harms the cause it fights for.
I've just checked the Society website and, interestingly, I think Phil Stone's statement has been taken down (or moved somewhere less prominent) and replaced with a more reasoned response. But horses and stable-doors come to mind. With Richard now arguably more prominent than at any time since his death, the Society needs to professionalise itself fast, or it will have squandered an historic opportunity to re-frame the debate.


From: "hjnatdat@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2016, 10:39
Subject: The Hollow Crown

Anyone out there got any views?
I made myself watch it - for the drama, not the wildly inaccurate history. I have to say the acting is good and strangely enough our Benedict comes across much better (evil and all) than some other characters. Edward and George have got a particularly bad deal (where is the golden 6ft Edward?) and Warwick (who is Richard Beauchamp and Richard Neville rolled into one) looks more like someone out of EastEnders. Then there's Henry VI's strange hair. If Benedict fans take more interest in Richard and want to find out the truth then it might actually do more good than the White Queen. I live in hope.
Couple of things. I do wish the nice Phil Stone would hire some PR for the Society. Whatever he says we are always portrayed as dotty eccentrics. Secondly, surely the book waiting to be written is debunking Shakespeare's Richard. I had so hoped JAH's mythology book would do that but it was a missed opportunity. And Shakespeare is so easy to debunk compared with the sainted More. H

Hilary wrote:  Anyone out there got any views? I made myself watch it - for the drama, not the wildly inaccurate history. I have to say the acting is good and strangely enough our Benedict comes across much better (evil and all) than some other characters. Edward and George have got a particularly bad deal (where is the golden 6ft Edward?) and Warwick (who is Richard Beauchamp and Richard Neville rolled into one) looks more like someone out of EastEnders. Then there's Henry VI's strange hair. If Benedict fans take more interest in Richard and want to find out the truth then it might actually do more good than the White Queen. I live in hope. Doug here: Was that on BBC? If so, then I'll keep an eye out for it possibly appearing over here on BBCAmerica. Hilary concluded: Couple of things. I do wish the nice Phil Stone would hire some PR for the Society. Whatever he says we are always portrayed as dotty eccentrics. Secondly, surely the book waiting to be written is debunking Shakespeare's Richard. I had so hoped JAH's mythology book would do that but it was a missed opportunity. And Shakespeare is so easy to debunk compared with the sainted More. Doug here: FWIW, Isaac Asimov, who used to SF and on just about everything else, did an Annotated Gulliver's Travels, of which I have a copy. Perhaps what's needed is something in the same vein  something on the order of Wm. Shakespear's Richard III' Annotated, with a View to Correct Historical Errors? Heaven knows, there should be enough information, and possibly even writing talent, here! Doug

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Jonathan - yes, yes , yes!!! H

From: "Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2016, 13:55
Subject: Re: The Hollow Crown

I think, so far, it's stunningly good. Better than series 1, perhaps because the plays are simpler and easier to compress. The script takes huge liberties, but I can live with most of them. I *do* miss Jack Cade's rebellion and the sense of disorder from a family quarrel spreading outwards and infecting the entire kingdom, but to include that would probably have taken another 10 minutes of unaffordable screentime. Also, although still not perfect, it's much better on armour and costume than the abomination that was 'The White Queen'.
You mention Phil Stone. I was genuinely shocked by the email he sent out to members about the programme a few weeks ago. It was a catastrophically naive response to some journalistic trolling about how the Richard III Society might react to Cumberbatch's portrayal. He should either have ignored it totally or simply said that he welcomed any quality Shakespeare adaptation but the historical reality was, of course, very different. Instead, he said he hoped the BBC would issue disclaimers, criticised the violence (as if that were not in the plays), and - in a public statement, God help us! - lamented that, surely, the Licence Fee could be better spent. What, on more episodes of 'The Voice' or 'Bargain Hunt'?
Of course, this has come back to haunt us in the last few days through being referenced in the press, e.g 'The Daily Telegraph' . All it does is reinforce the impression that the Society is a fan club, and not a home of serious, revisionist study. It's so self-defeating that it actively harms the cause it fights for.
I've just checked the Society website and, interestingly, I think Phil Stone's statement has been taken down (or moved somewhere less prominent) and replaced with a more reasoned response. But horses and stable-doors come to mind. With Richard now arguably more prominent than at any time since his death, the Society needs to professionalise itself fast, or it will have squandered an historic opportunity to re-frame the debate.


From: "hjnatdat@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2016, 10:39
Subject: The Hollow Crown

Anyone out there got any views?
I made myself watch it - for the drama, not the wildly inaccurate history. I have to say the acting is good and strangely enough our Benedict comes across much better (evil and all) than some other characters. Edward and George have got a particularly bad deal (where is the golden 6ft Edward?) and Warwick (who is Richard Beauchamp and Richard Neville rolled into one) looks more like someone out of EastEnders. Then there's Henry VI's strange hair. If Benedict fans take more interest in Richard and want to find out the truth then it might actually do more good than the White Queen. I live in hope.
Couple of things. I do wish the nice Phil Stone would hire some PR for the Society. Whatever he says we are always portrayed as dotty eccentrics. Secondly, surely the book waiting to be written is debunking Shakespeare's Richard. I had so hoped JAH's mythology book would do that but it was a missed opportunity. And Shakespeare is so easy to debunk compared with the sainted More. H

Doug, Yes it's the second part of the BBC's 'Hollow Crown' series and will I'm sure win a few BAFTAs. The acting is of very high quality. And you know, (this is to Jonathon as well) people do get converted. I can remember falling in love with medieval history because I fell in love with Robert Hardy's Prince Hal - now that does show my age, but I was very, very young :)
I love your idea of the annotated version. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2016, 16:25
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} The Hollow Crown

Hilary wrote:  Anyone out there got any views? I made myself watch it - for the drama, not the wildly inaccurate history. I have to say the acting is good and strangely enough our Benedict comes across much better (evil and all) than some other characters. Edward and George have got a particularly bad deal (where is the golden 6ft Edward?) and Warwick (who is Richard Beauchamp and Richard Neville rolled into one) looks more like someone out of EastEnders. Then there's Henry VI's strange hair. If Benedict fans take more interest in Richard and want to find out the truth then it might actually do more good than the White Queen. I live in hope. Doug here: Was that on BBC? If so, then I'll keep an eye out for it possibly appearing over here on BBCAmerica. Hilary concluded: Couple of things. I do wish the nice Phil Stone would hire some PR for the Society. Whatever he says we are always portrayed as dotty eccentrics. Secondly, surely the book waiting to be written is debunking Shakespeare's Richard. I had so hoped JAH's mythology book would do that but it was a missed opportunity. And Shakespeare is so easy to debunk compared with the sainted More. Doug here: FWIW, Isaac Asimov, who used to SF and on just about everything else, did an Annotated Gulliver's Travels, of which I have a copy. Perhaps what's needed is something in the same vein  something on the order of Wm. Shakespear's Richard III' Annotated, with a View to Correct Historical Errors? Heaven knows, there should be enough information, and possibly even writing talent, here! Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I don't often get that reaction... But it's very welcome!

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Tue, 17 May, 2016 at 16:45, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []<> wrote:

Jonathan - yes, yes , yes!!! H

From: "Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2016, 13:55
Subject: Re: The Hollow Crown

I think, so far, it's stunningly good. Better than series 1, perhaps because the plays are simpler and easier to compress. The script takes huge liberties, but I can live with most of them. I *do* miss Jack Cade's rebellion and the sense of disorder from a family quarrel spreading outwards and infecting the entire kingdom, but to include that would probably have taken another 10 minutes of unaffordable screentime. Also, although still not perfect, it's much better on armour and costume than the abomination that was 'The White Queen'.
You mention Phil Stone. I was genuinely shocked by the email he sent out to members about the programme a few weeks ago. It was a catastrophically naive response to some journalistic trolling about how the Richard III Society might react to Cumberbatch's portrayal. He should either have ignored it totally or simply said that he welcomed any quality Shakespeare adaptation but the historical reality was, of course, very different. Instead, he said he hoped the BBC would issue disclaimers, criticised the violence (as if that were not in the plays), and - in a public statement, God help us! - lamented that, surely, the Licence Fee could be better spent. What, on more episodes of 'The Voice' or 'Bargain Hunt'?
Of course, this has come back to haunt us in the last few days through being referenced in the press, e.g 'The Daily Telegraph' . All it does is reinforce the impression that the Society is a fan club, and not a home of serious, revisionist study. It's so self-defeating that it actively harms the cause it fights for.
I've just checked the Society website and, interestingly, I think Phil Stone's statement has been taken down (or moved somewhere less prominent) and replaced with a more reasoned response. But horses and stable-doors come to mind. With Richard now arguably more prominent than at any time since his death, the Society needs to professionalise itself fast, or it will have squandered an historic opportunity to re-frame the debate.


From: "hjnatdat@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2016, 10:39
Subject: The Hollow Crown

Anyone out there got any views?
I made myself watch it - for the drama, not the wildly inaccurate history. I have to say the acting is good and strangely enough our Benedict comes across much better (evil and all) than some other characters. Edward and George have got a particularly bad deal (where is the golden 6ft Edward?) and Warwick (who is Richard Beauchamp and Richard Neville rolled into one) looks more like someone out of EastEnders. Then there's Henry VI's strange hair. If Benedict fans take more interest in Richard and want to find out the truth then it might actually do more good than the White Queen. I live in hope.
Couple of things. I do wish the nice Phil Stone would hire some PR for the Society. Whatever he says we are always portrayed as dotty eccentrics. Secondly, surely the book waiting to be written is debunking Shakespeare's Richard. I had so hoped JAH's mythology book would do that but it was a missed opportunity. And Shakespeare is so easy to debunk compared with the sainted More. H

Doug This might help!

Benedict Cumberbatch is thrillingly seductive. The Hollow Crown: Henry VI Part II, review

H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2016, 16:25
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} The Hollow Crown

Hilary wrote:  Anyone out there got any views? I made myself watch it - for the drama, not the wildly inaccurate history. I have to say the acting is good and strangely enough our Benedict comes across much better (evil and all) than some other characters. Edward and George have got a particularly bad deal (where is the golden 6ft Edward?) and Warwick (who is Richard Beauchamp and Richard Neville rolled into one) looks more like someone out of EastEnders. Then there's Henry VI's strange hair. If Benedict fans take more interest in Richard and want to find out the truth then it might actually do more good than the White Queen. I live in hope. Doug here: Was that on BBC? If so, then I'll keep an eye out for it possibly appearing over here on BBCAmerica. Hilary concluded: Couple of things. I do wish the nice Phil Stone would hire some PR for the Society. Whatever he says we are always portrayed as dotty eccentrics. Secondly, surely the book waiting to be written is debunking Shakespeare's Richard. I had so hoped JAH's mythology book would do that but it was a missed opportunity. And Shakespeare is so easy to debunk compared with the sainted More. Doug here: FWIW, Isaac Asimov, who used to SF and on just about everything else, did an Annotated Gulliver's Travels, of which I have a copy. Perhaps what's needed is something in the same vein  something on the order of Wm. Shakespear's Richard III' Annotated, with a View to Correct Historical Errors? Heaven knows, there should be enough information, and possibly even writing talent, here! Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Well we did see Ben Miles as Cromwell!:) And I did think Dundas as York was particularly good. As for Lesser, always marvellous.
We need a charismatic Richard to wipe out Olivier. I actually think they were quite clever in letting Richard see the murder of Edmund. All historical tosh of course but in the plays it explained so much.
Cheers! H
From: "Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2016, 17:16
Subject: Re: The Hollow Crown

I don't often get that reaction... But it's very welcome!

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
Jonathan - yes, yes , yes!!! H

From: "Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2016, 13:55
Subject: Re: The Hollow Crown

I think, so far, it's stunningly good. Better than series 1, perhaps because the plays are simpler and easier to compress. The script takes huge liberties, but I can live with most of them. I *do* miss Jack Cade's rebellion and the sense of disorder from a family quarrel spreading outwards and infecting the entire kingdom, but to include that would probably have taken another 10 minutes of unaffordable screentime. Also, although still not perfect, it's much better on armour and costume than the abomination that was 'The White Queen'.
You mention Phil Stone. I was genuinely shocked by the email he sent out to members about the programme a few weeks ago. It was a catastrophically naive response to some journalistic trolling about how the Richard III Society might react to Cumberbatch's portrayal. He should either have ignored it totally or simply said that he welcomed any quality Shakespeare adaptation but the historical reality was, of course, very different. Instead, he said he hoped the BBC would issue disclaimers, criticised the violence (as if that were not in the plays), and - in a public statement, God help us! - lamented that, surely, the Licence Fee could be better spent. What, on more episodes of 'The Voice' or 'Bargain Hunt'?
Of course, this has come back to haunt us in the last few days through being referenced in the press, e.g 'The Daily Telegraph' . All it does is reinforce the impression that the Society is a fan club, and not a home of serious, revisionist study. It's so self-defeating that it actively harms the cause it fights for.
I've just checked the Society website and, interestingly, I think Phil Stone's statement has been taken down (or moved somewhere less prominent) and replaced with a more reasoned response. But horses and stable-doors come to mind. With Richard now arguably more prominent than at any time since his death, the Society needs to professionalise itself fast, or it will have squandered an historic opportunity to re-frame the debate.


From: "hjnatdat@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2016, 10:39
Subject: The Hollow Crown

Anyone out there got any views?
I made myself watch it - for the drama, not the wildly inaccurate history. I have to say the acting is good and strangely enough our Benedict comes across much better (evil and all) than some other characters. Edward and George have got a particularly bad deal (where is the golden 6ft Edward?) and Warwick (who is Richard Beauchamp and Richard Neville rolled into one) looks more like someone out of EastEnders. Then there's Henry VI's strange hair. If Benedict fans take more interest in Richard and want to find out the truth then it might actually do more good than the White Queen. I live in hope.
Couple of things. I do wish the nice Phil Stone would hire some PR for the Society. Whatever he says we are always portrayed as dotty eccentrics. Secondly, surely the book waiting to be written is debunking Shakespeare's Richard. I had so hoped JAH's mythology book would do that but it was a missed opportunity. And Shakespeare is so easy to debunk compared with the sainted More. H

Totally agree with comments about Phil Stone's, to say the least, ill judged, and not thought out comments. When in 1984 I wrote a fan letter to the RSC Richard Anthony Sher I said, which he lated quoted in The Observer, that while Shakespeare took huge liberties with history, he was writing drama, not a documentary, and without the play people might not have taken a closer look at the real history, and the Society might never have come into being to ensure the fight for the historical Richard's name continued.In the context of the terrible attacks on the BBC by this barbaric and uncultured government, to say the BBC would be better spending their money on other things is dangerous and unhelpful. What should the British television company be producing if not among many other things, works by our greatest ever dramatist?The productions are heavily cut, even the two best speeches, Henry's wonderful six dials, and Richard's Edward will use women honourably, parts of which Olivier included in the Winter of our Discontent opening for his film version. But the story does crack along, making sure newcomers don't get bored, and the look of the films is terrific, costumes and settings pretty authentic. And one result of every over the top Richard production, people are finding themselves asking if that can be really true, and finding their way to Richard's true story.I have recently been spoiled by the simply brilliant, I will say it again, utterly brilliant, Richard of Robert Sheehan in the 1960s RSC WOTR cycle which was revived at the theatre in Kingston earlier this year. He was simply the best I have ever seen, in a terrific production. The day I saw the trilogy Vanessa Redgrave was sitting behind me, in to see her daughter Joely playing Queen Margaret, and maybe getting some hints for her own upcoming playing of the part with Ralph Fiennes as Richard.as Jonathan put it "With Richard now arguably more prominent than at any time since his death, the Society needs to professionalise itself fast, or it will have squandered an historic opportunity to re-frame the debate. I mean Richard even got mentioned when Leicester football team won the league!Paul

Richard Liveth Yet


On 17 May 2016, at 13:55, Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@... [] <> wrote:

I think, so far, it's stunningly good. Better than series 1, perhaps because the plays are simpler and easier to compress. The script takes huge liberties, but I can live with most of them. I *do* miss Jack Cade's rebellion and the sense of disorder from a family quarrel spreading outwards and infecting the entire kingdom, but to include that would probably have taken another 10 minutes of unaffordable screentime. Also, although still not perfect, it's much better on armour and costume than the abomination that was 'The White Queen'.
You mention Phil Stone. I was genuinely shocked by the email he sent out to members about the programme a few weeks ago. It was a catastrophically naive response to some journalistic trolling about how the Richard III Society might react to Cumberbatch's portrayal. He should either have ignored it totally or simply said that he welcomed any quality Shakespeare adaptation but the historical reality was, of course, very different. Instead, he said he hoped the BBC would issue disclaimers, criticised the violence (as if that were not in the plays), and - in a public statement, God help us! - lamented that, surely, the Licence Fee could be better spent. What, on more episodes of 'The Voice' or 'Bargain Hun t'?
Of course, this has come back to haunt us in the last few days through being referenced in the press, e.g 'The Daily Telegraph' . All it does is reinforce the impression that the Society is a fan club, and not a home of serious, revisionist study. It's so self-defeating that it actively harms the cause it fights for.
I've just checked the Society website and, interestingly, I think Phil Stone's statement has been taken down (or moved somewhere less prominent) and replaced with a more reasoned response. But horses and stable-doors come to mind. With Richard now arguably more prominent than at any time since his death, the Society needs to professionalise itself fast, or it will have squandered an historic opportunity to re-fram e the debate.


From: "hjnatdat@... []" <richardiiisocietyforu [email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2016, 10:39
Subject: The Hollow Crown

Anyone out there got any views?
I made myself watch it - for the drama, not the wildly inaccurate history. I have to say the acting is good and strangely enough our Benedict comes across much better (evil and all) than some other characters. Edward and George have got a particularly bad deal (where is the golden 6ft Edward?) and Warwick (who is Richard Beauchamp and Richard Neville rolled into one) looks more like someone out of EastEnders. Then there's Henry VI's strange hair. If Benedict fans take more interest in Richard and want to find out the truth then it might actually do more good than the White Queen. I live in hope.
Couple of things. I do wish the nice Phil Stone would hire some PR for the Society. Whatever he says we are always portrayed as dotty eccentrics. Secondly, surely the book waiting to be written is debunking Shakespeare's Richard. I had so hoped JAH's mythology book would do that but it was a missed opportunity. And Shakespeare is so easy to debunk compared with the sainted More. H

Doug a friend of mine in the US has been messaging me about it, having already seen, so it must have been shown in the States already.Paul
Richard Liveth Yet


On 17 May 2016, at 16:25, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:Anyone out there got any views?I made myself watch it - for the drama, not the wildly inaccurate history. I have to say the acting is good and strangely enough our Benedict comes across much better (evil and all) than some other characters. Edward and George have got a particularly bad deal (where is the golden 6ft Edward?) and Warwick (who is Richard Beauchamp and Richard Neville rolled into one) looks more like someone out of EastEnders. Then there's Henry VI's strange hair. If Benedict fans take more interest in Richard and want to find out the truth then it might actually do more good than the White Queen. I live in hope. Doug here:Was that on BBC? If so, then I'll keep an eye out for it possibly appearing over here on BBCAmerica. Hilary concluded:Couple of things. I do wish the nice Phil Stone would hire some PR for the Society. Whatever he says we are always portrayed as dotty eccentrics. Secondly, surely the book waiting to be written is debunking Shakespeare's Richard. I had so hoped JAH's mythology book would do that but it was a missed opportunity. And Shakespeare is so easy to debunk compared with the sainted More. Doug here:FWIW, Isaac Asimov, who used to SF and on just about everything else, did an Annotated Gulliver's Travels, of which I have a copy. Perhaps what's needed is something in the same vein  something on the order of Wm. Shakespear's Richard III' Annotated, with a View to Correct Historical Errors?Heaven knows, there should be enough information, and possibly even writing talent, here!Doug

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I think I've said before that my interest in Richard came from seeing Olivier on a loop at the Bosworth Battlefield centre and being unable to reconcile Olivier's performance with the portrait of Richard - especially when seen alongside the far more sinister portrait of Henry Tudor!
We can't erase popular culture and 500 years of myth-making. We, instead, need to find ways of making it work for us. And, in a way, 'Richard III' is a gift. It presents us with arguably the most glitteringly charismatic character created by one of history's greatest dramatists (what's his competition? - Hamlet, in a different way? - Rosalind?). Rather that than Henry IV, who doesn't even star in his own play. It's a hell of an entre to a conversation and we should use it.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Tue, 17 May, 2016 at 16:51, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []<> wrote:

Doug, Yes it's the second part of the BBC's 'Hollow Crown' series and will I'm sure win a few BAFTAs. The acting is of very high quality. And you know, (this is to Jonathon as well) people do get converted. I can remember falling in love with medieval history because I fell in love with Robert Hardy's Prince Hal - now that does show my age, but I was very, very young :)
I love your idea of the annotated version. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2016, 16:25
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} The Hollow Crown

Hilary wrote:  Anyone out there got any views? I made myself watch it - for the drama, not the wildly inaccurate history. I have to say the acting is good and strangely enough our Benedict comes across much better (evil and all) than some other characters. Edward and George have got a particularly bad deal (where is the golden 6ft Edward?) and Warwick (who is Richard Beauchamp and Richard Neville rolled into one) looks more like someone out of EastEnders. Then there's Henry VI's strange hair. If Benedict fans take more interest in Richard and want to find out the truth then it might actually do more good than the White Queen. I live in hope. Doug here: Was that on BBC? If so, then I'll keep an eye out for it possibly appearing over here on BBCAmerica. Hilary concluded: Couple of things. I do wish the nice Phil Stone would hire some PR for the Society. Whatever he says we are always portrayed as dotty eccentrics. Secondly, surely the book waiting to be written is debunking Shakespeare's Richard. I had so hoped JAH's mythology book would do that but it was a missed opportunity. And Shakespeare is so easy to debunk compared with the sainted More. Doug here: FWIW, Isaac Asimov, who used to SF and on just about everything else, did an Annotated Gulliver's Travels, of which I have a copy. Perhaps what's needed is something in the same vein  something on the order of Wm. Shakespear's Richard III' Annotated, with a View to Correct Historical Errors? Heaven knows, there should be enough information, and possibly even writing talent, here! Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Paul, so glad you enjoyed Rob Sheehan. I thought he was stunning and brought something genuinely new to the role.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Tue, 17 May, 2016 at 17:31, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []<> wrote:

Totally agree with comments about Phil Stone's, to say the least, ill judged, and not thought out comments. When in 1984 I wrote a fan letter to the RSC Richard Anthony Sher I said, which he lated quoted in The Observer, that while Shakespeare took huge liberties with history, he was writing drama, not a documentary, and without the play people might not have taken a closer look at the real history, and the Society might never have come into being to ensure the fight for the historical Richard's name continued.

In the context of the terrible attacks on the BBC by this barbaric and uncultured government, to say the BBC would be better spending their money on other things is dangerous and unhelpful. What should the British television company be producing if not among many other things, works by our greatest ever dramatist?The productions are heavily cut, even the two best speeches, Henry's wonderful six dials, and Richard's Edward will use women honourably, parts of which Olivier included in the Winter of our Discontent opening for his film version. But the story does crack along, making sure newcomers don't get bored, and the look of the films is terrific, costumes and settings pretty authentic. And one result of every over the top Richard production, people are finding themselves asking if that can be really true, and finding their way to Richard's true story.I have recently been spoiled by the simply brilliant, I will say it again, utterly brilliant, Richard of Robert Sheehan in the 1960s RSC WOTR cycle which was revived at the theatre in Kingston earlier this year. He was simply the best I have ever seen, in a terrific production. The day I saw the trilogy Vanessa Redgrave was sitting behind me, in to see her daughter Joely playing Queen Margaret, and maybe getting some hints for her own upcoming playing of the part with Ralph Fiennes as Richard.as Jonathan put it "With Richard now arguably more prominent than at any time since his death, the Society needs to professionalise itself fast, or it will have squandered an historic opportunity to re-frame the debate. I mean Richard even got mentioned when Leicester football team won the league!Paul

Richard Liveth Yet


On 17 May 2016, at 13:55, Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@... [] <> wrote:

I think, so far, it's stunningly good. Better than series 1, perhaps because the plays are simpler and easier to compress. The script takes huge liberties, but I can live with most of them. I *do* miss Jack Cade's rebellion and the sense of disorder from a family quarrel spreading outwards and infecting the entire kingdom, but to include that would probably have taken another 10 minutes of unaffordable screentime. Also, although still not perfect, it's much better on armour and costume than the abomination that was 'The White Queen'.
You mention Phil Stone. I was genuinely shocked by the email he sent out to members about the programme a few weeks ago. It was a catastrophically naive response to some journalistic trolling about how the Richard III Society might react to Cumberbatch's portrayal. He should either have ignored it totally or simply said that he welcomed any quality Shakespeare adaptation but the historical reality was, of course, very different. Instead, he said he hoped the BBC would issue disclaimers, criticised the violence (as if that were not in the plays), and - in a public statement, God help us! - lamented that, surely, the Licence Fee could be better spent. What, on more episodes of 'The Voice' or 'Bargain Hun t'?
Of course, this has come back to haunt us in the last few days through being referenced in the press, e.g 'The Daily Telegraph' . All it does is reinforce the impression that the Society is a fan club, and not a home of serious, revisionist study. It's so self-defeating that it actively harms the cause it fights for.
I've just checked the Society website and, interestingly, I think Phil Stone's statement has been taken down (or moved somewhere less prominent) and replaced with a more reasoned response. But horses and stable-doors come to mind. With Richard now arguably more prominent than at any time since his death, the Society needs to professionalise itself fast, or it will have squandered an historic opportunity to re-fram e the debate.


From: "hjnatdat@... []" <richardiiisocietyforu [email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2016, 10:39
Subject: The Hollow Crown

Anyone out there got any views?
I made myself watch it - for the drama, not the wildly inaccurate history. I have to say the acting is good and strangely enough our Benedict comes across much better (evil and all) than some other characters. Edward and George have got a particularly bad deal (where is the golden 6ft Edward?) and Warwick (who is Richard Beauchamp and Richard Neville rolled into one) looks more like someone out of EastEnders. Then there's Henry VI's strange hair. If Benedict fans take more interest in Richard and want to find out the truth then it might actually do more good than the White Queen. I live in hope.
Couple of things. I do wish the nice Phil Stone would hire some PR for the Society. Whatever he says we are always portrayed as dotty eccentrics. Secondly, surely the book waiting to be written is debunking Shakespeare's Richard. I had so hoped JAH's mythology book would do that but it was a missed opportunity. And Shakespeare is so easy to debunk compared with the sainted More. H

That is a very lovely and quite wonderful way of putting it! However we were introduced and when makes no difference, as we have arrived to this time and place. I have not seen the series yet, but look forward to it.

Sent from my iPhone
On May 17, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@... [] <> wrote:

I think I've said before that my interest in Richard came from seeing Olivier on a loop at the Bosworth Battlefield centre and being unable to reconcile Olivier's performance with the portrait of Richard - especially when seen alongside the far more sinister portrait of Henry Tudor!

We can't erase popular culture and 500 years of myth-making. We, instead, need to find ways of making it work for us. And, in a way, 'Richard III' is a gift. It presents us with arguably the most glitteringly charismatic character created by one of history's greatest dramatists (what's his competition? - Hamlet, in a different way? - Rosalind?). Rather that than Henry IV, who doesn't even star in his own play. It's a hell of an entre to a conversation and we should use it.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Doug, Yes it's the second part of the BBC's 'Hollow Crown' series and will I'm sure win a few BAFTAs. The acting is of very high quality. And you know, (this is to Jonathon as well) people do get converted. I can remember falling in love with medieval history because I fell in love with Robert Hardy's Prince Hal - now that does show my age, but I was very, very young :)
I love your idea of the annotated version. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2016, 16:25
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} The Hollow Crown

Hilary wrote:  Anyone out there got any views? I made myself watch it - for the drama, not the wildly inaccurate history. I have to say the acting is good and strangely enough our Benedict comes across much better (evil and all) than some other characters. Edward and George have got a particularly bad deal (where is the golden 6ft Edward?) and Warwick (who is Richard Beauchamp and Richard Neville rolled into one) looks more like someone out of EastEnders. Then there's Henry VI's strange hair. If Benedict fans take more interest in Richard and want to find out the truth then it might actually do more good than the White Queen. I live in hope. Doug here: Was that on BBC? If so, then I'll keep an eye out for it possibly appearing over here on BBCAmerica. Hilary concluded: Couple of things. I do wish the nice Phil Stone would hire some PR for the Society. Whatever he says we are always portrayed as dotty eccentrics. Secondly, surely the book waiting to be written is debunking Shakespeare's Richard. I had so hoped JAH's mythology book would do that but it was a missed opportunity. And Shakespeare is so easy to debunk compared with the sainted More. Doug here: FWIW, Isaac Asimov, who used to SF and on just about everything else, did an Annotated Gulliver's Travels, of which I have a copy. Perhaps what's needed is something in the same vein  something on the order of Wm. Shakespear's Richard III' Annotated, with a View to Correct Historical Errors? Heaven knows, there should be enough information, and possibly even writing talent, here! Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

The anger bubbling under his skin all the time, was remarkable. And he was funny and sexy too, which is what Richard has to be.Awesome, as they say these days! Totally awesome. Just wish I'd seen it earlier in the run so I could have gone back and seen it again and again.Paul
Richard Liveth Yet


On 17 May 2016, at 17:39, Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@... [] <> wrote:

Paul, so glad you enjoyed Rob Sheehan. I thought he was stunning and brought something genuinely new to the role.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Totally agree with comments about Phil Stone's, to say the least, ill judged, and not thought out comments. When in 1984 I wrote a fan letter to the RSC Richard Anthony Sher I said, which he lated quoted in The Observer, that while Shakespeare took huge liberties with history, he was writing drama, not a documentary, and without the play people might not have taken a closer look at the real history, and the Society might never have come into being to ensure the fight for the historical Richard's name continued.

In the context of the terrible attacks on the BBC by this barbaric and uncultured government, to say the BBC would be better spending their money on other things is dangerous and unhelpful. What should the British television company be producing if not among many other things, works by our greatest ever dramatist?The productions are heavily cut, even the two best speeches, Henry's wonderful six dials, and Richard's Edward will use women honourably, parts of which Olivier included in the Winter of our Discontent opening for his film version. But the story does crack along, making sure newcomers don't get bored, and the look of the films is terrific, costumes and settings pretty authentic. And one result of every over the top Richard production, people are finding themselves asking if that can be really true, and finding their way to Richard's true story.I have recently been spoiled by the simply brilliant, I will say it again, utterly brilliant, Richard of Robert Sheehan in the 1960s RSC WOTR cycle which was revived at the theatre in Kingston earlier this year. He was simply the best I have ever seen, in a terrific production. The day I saw the trilogy Vanessa Redgrave was sitting behind me, in to see her daughter Joely playing Queen Margaret, and maybe getting some hints for her own upcoming playing of the part with Ralph Fiennes as Richard.as Jonathan put it "With Richard now arguably more prominent than at any time since his death, the Society needs to professionalise itself fast, or it will have squandered an historic opportunity to re-frame the debate. I mean Richard even got mentioned when Leicester football team won the league!Paul

Richard Liveth Yet


On 17 May 2016, at 13:55, Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@... [] <> wrote:

I think, so far, it's stunningly good. Better than series 1, perhaps because the plays are simpler and easier to compress. The script takes huge liberties, but I can live with most of them. I *do* miss Jack Cade's rebellion and the sense of disorder from a family quarrel spreading outwards and infecting the entire kingdom, but to include that would probably have taken another 10 minutes of unaffordable screentime. Also, although still not perfect, it's much better on armour and costume than the abomination that was 'The White Queen'.
You mention Phil Stone. I was genuinely shocked by the email he sent out to members about the programme a few weeks ago. It was a catastrophically naive response to some journalistic trolling about how the Richard III Society might react to Cumberbatch's portrayal. He should either have ignored it totally or simply said that he welcomed any quality Shakespeare adaptation but the historical reality was, of course, very different. Instead, he said he hoped the BBC would issue disclaimers, criticised the violence (as if that were not in the plays), and - in a public statement, God help us! - lamented that, surely, the Licence Fee could be better spent. What, on more episodes of 'The Voice' or 'Bargain Hun t'?
Of course, this has come back to haunt us in the last few days through being referenced in the press, e.g 'The Daily Telegraph' . All it does is reinforce the impression that the Society is a fan club, and not a home of serious, revisionist study. It's so self-defeating that it actively harms the cause it fights for.
I've just checked the Society website and, interestingly, I think Phil Stone's statement has been taken down (or moved somewhere less prominent) and replaced with a more reasoned response. But horses and stable-doors come to mind. With Richard now arguably more prominent than at any time since his death, the Society needs to professionalise itself fast, or it will have squandered an historic opportunity to re-fram e the debate.


From: "hjnatdat@... []" <richardiiisocietyforu [email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2016, 10:39
Subject: The Hollow Crown

Anyone out there got any views?
I made myself watch it - for the drama, not the wildly inaccurate history. I have to say the acting is good and strangely enough our Benedict comes across much better (evil and all) than some other characters. Edward and George have got a particularly bad deal (where is the golden 6ft Edward?) and Warwick (who is Richard Beauchamp and Richard Neville rolled into one) looks more like someone out of EastEnders. Then there's Henry VI's strange hair. If Benedict fans take more interest in Richard and want to find out the truth then it might actually do more good than the White Queen. I live in hope.
Couple of things. I do wish the nice Phil Stone would hire some PR for the Society. Whatever he says we are always portrayed as dotty eccentrics. Secondly, surely the book waiting to be written is debunking Shakespeare's Richard. I had so hoped JAH's mythology book would do that but it was a missed opportunity. And Shakespeare is so easy to debunk compared with the sainted More. H

Saw it about two thirds of the way into the run, and was so impressed I kept on checking online until I was able to get a single seat for the marathon in the last week.
Sheehan also captured a kind a vulnerability and had a strong - and reciprocated - bond with Alex Hanson's York. Wonderful stuff.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Tue, 17 May, 2016 at 17:51, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []<> wrote:

The anger bubbling under his skin all the time, was remarkable. And he was funny and sexy too, which is what Richard has to be.

Awesome, as they say these days! Totally awesome. Just wish I'd seen it earlier in the run so I could have gone back and seen it again and again.Paul
Richard Liveth Yet


On 17 May 2016, at 17:39, Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@... [] <> wrote:

Paul, so glad you enjoyed Rob Sheehan. I thought he was stunning and brought something genuinely new to the role.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Totally agree with comments about Phil Stone's, to say the least, ill judged, and not thought out comments. When in 1984 I wrote a fan letter to the RSC Richard Anthony Sher I said, which he lated quoted in The Observer, that while Shakespeare took huge liberties with history, he was writing drama, not a documentary, and without the play people might not have taken a closer look at the real history, and the Society might never have come into being to ensure the fight for the historical Richard's name continued.

In the context of the terrible attacks on the BBC by this barbaric and uncultured government, to say the BBC would be better spending their money on other things is dangerous and unhelpful. What should the British television company be producing if not among many other things, works by our greatest ever dramatist?The productions are heavily cut, even the two best speeches, Henry's wonderful six dials, and Richard's Edward will use women honourably, parts of which Olivier included in the Winter of our Discontent opening for his film version. But the story does crack along, making sure newcomers don't get bored, and the look of the films is terrific, costumes and settings pretty authentic. And one result of every over the top Richard production, people are finding themselves asking if that can be really true, and finding their way to Richard's true story.I have recently been spoiled by the simply brilliant, I will say it again, utterly brilliant, Richard of Robert Sheehan in the 1960s RSC WOTR cycle which was revived at the theatre in Kingston earlier this year. He was simply the best I have ever seen, in a terrific production. The day I saw the trilogy Vanessa Redgrave was sitting behind me, in to see her daughter Joely playing Queen Margaret, and maybe getting some hints for her own upcoming playing of the part with Ralph Fiennes as Richard.as Jonathan put it "With Richard now arguably more prominent than at any time since his death, the Society needs to professionalise itself fast, or it will have squandered an historic opportunity to re-frame the debate. I mean Richard even got mentioned when Leicester football team won the league!Paul

Richard Liveth Yet


On 17 May 2016, at 13:55, Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@... [] <> wrote:

I think, so far, it's stunningly good. Better than series 1, perhaps because the plays are simpler and easier to compress. The script takes huge liberties, but I can live with most of them. I *do* miss Jack Cade's rebellion and the sense of disorder from a family quarrel spreading outwards and infecting the entire kingdom, but to include that would probably have taken another 10 minutes of unaffordable screentime. Also, although still not perfect, it's much better on armour and costume than the abomination that was 'The White Queen'.
You mention Phil Stone. I was genuinely shocked by the email he sent out to members about the programme a few weeks ago. It was a catastrophically naive response to some journalistic trolling about how the Richard III Society might react to Cumberbatch's portrayal. He should either have ignored it totally or simply said that he welcomed any quality Shakespeare adaptation but the historical reality was, of course, very different. Instead, he said he hoped the BBC would issue disclaimers, criticised the violence (as if that were not in the plays), and - in a public statement, God help us! - lamented that, surely, the Licence Fee could be better spent. What, on more episodes of 'The Voice' or 'Bargain Hun t'?
Of course, this has come back to haunt us in the last few days through being referenced in the press, e.g 'The Daily Telegraph' . All it does is reinforce the impression that the Society is a fan club, and not a home of serious, revisionist study. It's so self-defeating that it actively harms the cause it fights for.
I've just checked the Society website and, interestingly, I think Phil Stone's statement has been taken down (or moved somewhere less prominent) and replaced with a more reasoned response. But horses and stable-doors come to mind. With Richard now arguably more prominent than at any time since his death, the Society needs to professionalise itself fast, or it will have squandered an historic opportunity to re-fram e the debate.


From: "hjnatdat@... []" <richardiiisocietyforu [email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2016, 10:39
Subject: The Hollow Crown

Anyone out there got any views?
I made myself watch it - for the drama, not the wildly inaccurate history. I have to say the acting is good and strangely enough our Benedict comes across much better (evil and all) than some other characters. Edward and George have got a particularly bad deal (where is the golden 6ft Edward?) and Warwick (who is Richard Beauchamp and Richard Neville rolled into one) looks more like someone out of EastEnders. Then there's Henry VI's strange hair. If Benedict fans take more interest in Richard and want to find out the truth then it might actually do more good than the White Queen. I live in hope.
Couple of things. I do wish the nice Phil Stone would hire some PR for the Society. Whatever he says we are always portrayed as dotty eccentrics. Secondly, surely the book waiting to be written is debunking Shakespeare's Richard. I had so hoped JAH's mythology book would do that but it was a missed opportunity. And Shakespeare is so easy to debunk compared with the sainted More. H

Antony Sher blew Olivier out of my head, and now Robert Sheehan has outdone them both with charisma in bucket loads, and an extraordinary understanding of the verse, considering he has never done Shakespeare before even more remarkable. Paul
Richard Liveth Yet


On 17 May 2016, at 17:25, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:


Well we did see Ben Miles as Cromwell!:) And I did think Dundas as York was particularly good. As for Lesser, always marvellous.
We need a charismatic Richard to wipe out Olivier. I actually think they were quite clever in letting Richard see the murder of Edmund. All historical tosh of course but in the plays it explained so much.
Cheers! H
From: "Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2016, 17:1 6
Subject: Re: The Hollow Crown

I don't often get that reaction... But it's very welcome!

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
Jonathan - yes, yes , yes!!! H

From: "Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2016, 13:55
Subject: Re: The Hollow Crown

I think, so far, it's stunningly good. Better than series 1, perhaps because the plays are simpler and easier to compress. The script takes huge liberties, but I can live with most of them. I *do* miss Jack Cade's rebellion and the sense of disorder from a family quarrel spreading outwards and infecting the entire kingdom, but to include that would probably have taken another 10 minutes of unaffordable screentime. Also, although still not perfect, it's much better on armour and costume than the abomination that was 'The White Queen'.
You mention Phil Stone. I was genuinely shocked by the email he sent out to members about the programme a few weeks ago. It was a catastrophically naive response to some journalistic trolling about how the Richard III Society might react to Cumberbatch's portrayal. He should either have ignored it totally or simply said that he welcomed any quality Shakespeare adaptation but the historical reality was, of course, very different. Instead, he said he hoped the BBC would issue disclaimers, criticised the violence (as if that were not in the plays), and - in a public statement, God help us! - lamented that, surely, the Licence Fee could be better spent. What, on more episodes of 'The Voice' or 'Bargain Hunt'?
Of course, this has come back to haunt us in the last few days through being referenced in the press, e.g 'The Daily Telegraph' . All it does is reinforce the impression that the Society is a fan club, and not a home of serious, revisionist study. It's so self-defeating that it actively harms the cause it fights for.
I've just checked the Society website and, interestingly, I think Phil Stone's statement has been taken down (or moved somewhere less prominent) and replaced with a more reasoned response. But horses and stable-doors come to mind. With Richard now arguably more prominent than at any time since his d eath, the Society needs to professionalise itself fast, or it will have squandered an historic opportunity to re-frame the debate.


From: "hjnatdat@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2016, 10:39
Subject: The Hollow Crown

Anyone out there got any views?
I made myself watch it - for the drama, not the wildly inaccurate history. I have to say the acting is good and strangely enough our Benedict comes across much better (evil and all) than some other characters. Edward and George have got a particularly bad deal (where is the golden 6ft Edward?) and Warwick (who is Richard Beauchamp and Richard Neville rolled into one) looks more like someone out of EastEnders. Then there's Henry VI's strange hair. If Benedict fans take more interest in Richard and want to find out the truth then it might actually do more good than the White Queen. I live in hope.
Couple of things. I do wish the nice Phil Stone would hire some PR for the Society. Whatever he says we are always portrayed as dotty eccentrics. Secondly, surely the book waiting to be written is debunking Shakespeare's Richard. I had so hoped JAH's mythology book would do that but it was a missed opportunity. And Shakespeare is so easy to debunk compared with the sainted More. H

Wish I'd seen that Paul! I know it sounds daft but the really good Shakespearean actors understand the verse and speak it like they do, so it sounds 'normal'. Too many just learn the lines and rant them off without really knowing what they're saying. Saw Sher and most of the others going back to Paul Daneman (in my remote youth), who wasn't bad. The one who really failed for me was Russell-Beale. He was marvellous in Troilus but just couldn't do Richard. Just my taste of course. H

From: "Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 18 May 2016, 11:24
Subject: Re: The Hollow Crown

Antony Sher blew Olivier out of my head, and now Robert Sheehan has outdone them both with charisma in bucket loads, and an extraordinary understanding of the verse, considering he has never done Shakespeare before even more remarkable. Paul
Richard Liveth Yet


On 17 May 2016, at 17:25, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:


Well we did see Ben Miles as Cromwell!:) And I did think Dundas as York was particularly good. As for Lesser, always marvellous.
We need a charismatic Richard to wipe out Olivier. I actually think they were quite clever in letting Richard see the murder of Edmund. All historical tosh of course but in the plays it explained so much.
Cheers! H
From: "Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2016, 17:1 6
Subject: Re: The Hollow Crown

I don't often get that reaction... But it's very welcome!

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
Jonathan - yes, yes , yes!!! H

From: "Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2016, 13:55
Subject: Re: The Hollow Crown

I think, so far, it's stunningly good. Better than series 1, perhaps because the plays are simpler and easier to compress. The script takes huge liberties, but I can live with most of them. I *do* miss Jack Cade's rebellion and the sense of disorder from a family quarrel spreading outwards and infecting the entire kingdom, but to include that would probably have taken another 10 minutes of unaffordable screentime. Also, although still not perfect, it's much better on armour and costume than the abomination that was 'The White Queen'.
You mention Phil Stone. I was genuinely shocked by the email he sent out to members about the programme a few weeks ago. It was a catastrophically naive response to some journalistic trolling about how the Richard III Society might react to Cumberbatch's portrayal. He should either have ignored it totally or simply said that he welcomed any quality Shakespeare adaptation but the historical reality was, of course, very different. Instead, he said he hoped the BBC would issue disclaimers, criticised the violence (as if that were not in the plays), and - in a public statement, God help us! - lamented that, surely, the Licence Fee could be better spent. What, on more episodes of 'The Voice' or 'Bargain Hunt'?
Of course, this has come back to haunt us in the last few days through being referenced in the press, e.g 'The Daily Telegraph' . All it does is reinforce the impression that the Society is a fan club, and not a home of serious, revisionist study. It's so self-defeating that it actively harms the cause it fights for.
I've just checked the Society website and, interestingly, I think Phil Stone's statement has been taken down (or moved somewhere less prominent) and replaced with a more reasoned response. But horses and stable-doors come to mind. With Richard now arguably more prominent than at any time since his d eath, the Society needs to professionalise itself fast, or it will have squandered an historic opportunity to re-frame the debate.


From: "hjnatdat@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2016, 10:39
Subject: The Hollow Crown

Anyone out there got any views?
I made myself watch it - for the drama, not the wildly inaccurate history. I have to say the acting is good and strangely enough our Benedict comes across much better (evil and all) than some other characters. Edward and George have got a particularly bad deal (where is the golden 6ft Edward?) and Warwick (who is Richard Beauchamp and Richard Neville rolled into one) looks more like someone out of EastEnders. Then there's Henry VI's strange hair. If Benedict fans take more interest in Richard and want to find out the truth then it might actually do more good than the White Queen. I live in hope.
Couple of things. I do wish the nice Phil Stone would hire some PR for the Society. Whatever he says we are always portrayed as dotty eccentrics. Secondly, surely the book waiting to be written is debunking Shakespeare's Richard. I had so hoped JAH's mythology book would do that but it was a missed opportunity. And Shakespeare is so easy to debunk compared with the sainted More. H

I didn't like SRB, either, although he got rave reviews and I've loved him in most things. I was seeing him too soon after McKellen (one of my all-time favourite stage performances, although I know Paul didn't like it), which didn't help. And Sam Mendes was a bit too "tricksy" and self-regarding as a director. Did anyone see Kevin Spacey? That was Mendes, again, and the production was almost a re-tread of the SRB one, so that failed for me, too.
Actually, apart from McKellen, I've seen very few Richards that I liked. Jacobi was fun, but he played it as out-and-out black comedy. Robert Lindsay was okay... But Rylance's didn't work (too willfully eccentric); Martin Freeman was stuck in a "concept" production... So, especially when compared with some huge names, Sheehan was an absolute revelation.

Jonathan

From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 19 May 2016, 10:02
Subject: Re: The Hollow Crown

Wish I'd seen that Paul! I know it sounds daft but the really good Shakespearean actors understand the verse and speak it like they do, so it sounds 'normal'. Too many just learn the lines and rant them off without really knowing what they're saying. Saw Sher and most of the others going back to Paul Daneman (in my remote youth), who wasn't bad. The one who really failed for me was Russell-Beale. He was marvellous in Troilus but just couldn't do Richard. Just my taste of course. H

From: "Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 18 May 2016, 11:24
Subject: Re: The Hollow Crown

Antony Sher blew Olivier out of my head, and now Robert Sheehan has outdone them both with charisma in bucket loads, and an extraordinary understanding of the verse, considering he has never done Shakespeare before even more remarkable. Paul
Richard Liveth Yet


On 17 May 2016, at 17:25, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:


Well we did see Ben Miles as Cromwell!:) And I did think Dundas as York was particularly good. As for Lesser, always marvellous.
We need a charismatic Richard to wipe out Olivier. I actually think they were quite clever in letting Richard see the murder of Edmund. All historical tosh of course but in the plays it explained so much.
Cheers! H
From: "Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2016, 17:1 6
Subject: Re: The Hollow Crown

I don't often get that reaction... But it's very welcome!

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
Jonathan - yes, yes , yes!!! H

From: "Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2016, 13:55
Subject: Re: The Hollow Crown

I think, so far, it's stunningly good. Better than series 1, perhaps because the plays are simpler and easier to compress. The script takes huge liberties, but I can live with most of them. I *do* miss Jack Cade's rebellion and the sense of disorder from a family quarrel spreading outwards and infecting the entire kingdom, but to include that would probably have taken another 10 minutes of unaffordable screentime. Also, although still not perfect, it's much better on armour and costume than the abomination that was 'The White Queen'.
You mention Phil Stone. I was genuinely shocked by the email he sent out to members about the programme a few weeks ago. It was a catastrophically naive response to some journalistic trolling about how the Richard III Society might react to Cumberbatch's portrayal. He should either have ignored it totally or simply said that he welcomed any quality Shakespeare adaptation but the historical reality was, of course, very different. Instead, he said he hoped the BBC would issue disclaimers, criticised the violence (as if that were not in the plays), and - in a public statement, God help us! - lamented that, surely, the Licence Fee could be better spent. What, on more episodes of 'The Voice' or 'Bargain Hunt'?
Of course, this has come back to haunt us in the last few days through being referenced in the press, e.g 'The Daily Telegraph' . All it does is reinforce the impression that the Society is a fan club, and not a home of serious, revisionist study. It's so self-defeating that it actively harms the cause it fights for.
I've just checked the Society website and, interestingly, I think Phil Stone's statement has been taken down (or moved somewhere less prominent) and replaced with a more reasoned response. But horses and stable-doors come to mind. With Richard now arguably more prominent than at any time since his d eath, the Society needs to professionalise itself fast, or it will have squandered an historic opportunity to re-frame the debate.


From: "hjnatdat@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2016, 10:39
Subject: The Hollow Crown

Anyone out there got any views?
I made myself watch it - for the drama, not the wildly inaccurate history. I have to say the acting is good and strangely enough our Benedict comes across much better (evil and all) than some other characters. Edward and George have got a particularly bad deal (where is the golden 6ft Edward?) and Warwick (who is Richard Beauchamp and Richard Neville rolled into one) looks more like someone out of EastEnders. Then there's Henry VI's strange hair. If Benedict fans take more interest in Richard and want to find out the truth then it might actually do more good than the White Queen. I live in hope.
Couple of things. I do wish the nice Phil Stone would hire some PR for the Society. Whatever he says we are always portrayed as dotty eccentrics. Secondly, surely the book waiting to be written is debunking Shakespeare's Richard. I had so hoped JAH's mythology book would do that but it was a missed opportunity. And Shakespeare is so easy to debunk compared with the sainted More. H

Didn't see Spacey - didn't fancy it. Do remember that Ian Holm, in the mists of time, was actually quite good. But it's really hard to think of a charismatic performance (having not seen Sheehan). There are plenty for the other 'kings' - David Warner, Terry Scully as Henry VI, all the good Richard IIs - Jacobi, Jennings, Lesser as Bolingbroke, even dare I say it, some good Henry VIIs (I know not truly Shakespeare but James Maxwell takes some beating). It's like Henry V, do you think they're all frightened by the ghost of Olivier - they have to ape him or go totally the other way so the charisma dies? H

From: "Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 19 May 2016, 16:17
Subject: Re: The Hollow Crown

I didn't like SRB, either, although he got rave reviews and I've loved him in most things. I was seeing him too soon after McKellen (one of my all-time favourite stage performances, although I know Paul didn't like it), which didn't help. And Sam Mendes was a bit too "tricksy" and self-regarding as a director. Did anyone see Kevin Spacey? That was Mendes, again, and the production was almost a re-tread of the SRB one, so that failed for me, too.
Actually, apart from McKellen, I've seen very few Richards that I liked. Jacobi was fun, but he played it as out-and-out black comedy. Robert Lindsay was okay... But Rylance's didn't work (too willfully eccentric); Martin Freeman was stuck in a "concept" production... So, especially when compared with some huge names, Sheehan was an absolute revelation.

Jonathan

From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 19 May 2016, 10:02
Subject: Re: The Hollow Crown

Wish I'd seen that Paul! I know it sounds daft but the really good Shakespearean actors understand the verse and speak it like they do, so it sounds 'normal'. Too many just learn the lines and rant them off without really knowing what they're saying. Saw Sher and most of the others going back to Paul Daneman (in my remote youth), who wasn't bad. The one who really failed for me was Russell-Beale. He was marvellous in Troilus but just couldn't do Richard. Just my taste of course. H

From: "Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 18 May 2016, 11:24
Subject: Re: The Hollow Crown

Antony Sher blew Olivier out of my head, and now Robert Sheehan has outdone them both with charisma in bucket loads, and an extraordinary understanding of the verse, considering he has never done Shakespeare before even more remarkable. Paul
Richard Liveth Yet


On 17 May 2016, at 17:25, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:


Well we did see Ben Miles as Cromwell!:) And I did think Dundas as York was particularly good. As for Lesser, always marvellous.
We need a charismatic Richard to wipe out Olivier. I actually think they were quite clever in letting Richard see the murder of Edmund. All historical tosh of course but in the plays it explained so much.
Cheers! H
From: "Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2016, 17:1 6
Subject: Re: The Hollow Crown

I don't often get that reaction... But it's very welcome!

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
Jonathan - yes, yes , yes!!! H

From: "Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2016, 13:55
Subject: Re: The Hollow Crown

I think, so far, it's stunningly good. Better than series 1, perhaps because the plays are simpler and easier to compress. The script takes huge liberties, but I can live with most of them. I *do* miss Jack Cade's rebellion and the sense of disorder from a family quarrel spreading outwards and infecting the entire kingdom, but to include that would probably have taken another 10 minutes of unaffordable screentime. Also, although still not perfect, it's much better on armour and costume than the abomination that was 'The White Queen'.
You mention Phil Stone. I was genuinely shocked by the email he sent out to members about the programme a few weeks ago. It was a catastrophically naive response to some journalistic trolling about how the Richard III Society might react to Cumberbatch's portrayal. He should either have ignored it totally or simply said that he welcomed any quality Shakespeare adaptation but the historical reality was, of course, very different. Instead, he said he hoped the BBC would issue disclaimers, criticised the violence (as if that were not in the plays), and - in a public statement, God help us! - lamented that, surely, the Licence Fee could be better spent. What, on more episodes of 'The Voice' or 'Bargain Hunt'?
Of course, this has come back to haunt us in the last few days through being referenced in the press, e.g 'The Daily Telegraph' . All it does is reinforce the impression that the Society is a fan club, and not a home of serious, revisionist study. It's so self-defeating that it actively harms the cause it fights for.
I've just checked the Society website and, interestingly, I think Phil Stone's statement has been taken down (or moved somewhere less prominent) and replaced with a more reasoned response. But horses and stable-doors come to mind. With Richard now arguably more prominent than at any time since his d eath, the Society needs to professionalise itself fast, or it will have squandered an historic opportunity to re-frame the debate.


From: "hjnatdat@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2016, 10:39
Subject: The Hollow Crown

Anyone out there got any views?
I made myself watch it - for the drama, not the wildly inaccurate history. I have to say the acting is good and strangely enough our Benedict comes across much better (evil and all) than some other characters. Edward and George have got a particularly bad deal (where is the golden 6ft Edward?) and Warwick (who is Richard Beauchamp and Richard Neville rolled into one) looks more like someone out of EastEnders. Then there's Henry VI's strange hair. If Benedict fans take more interest in Richard and want to find out the truth then it might actually do more good than the White Queen. I live in hope.
Couple of things. I do wish the nice Phil Stone would hire some PR for the Society. Whatever he says we are always portrayed as dotty eccentrics. Secondly, surely the book waiting to be written is debunking Shakespeare's Richard. I had so hoped JAH's mythology book would do that but it was a missed opportunity. And Shakespeare is so easy to debunk compared with the sainted More. H