Royal Shakespeare company: Richard II (2013) -
Sadly it was difficult to take David Tennant seriously in the leading role of King Richard II, because I kept expecting him to shout out Allons-y and run off somewhere waving a sonic screwdriver. If he had played the part without the usual exaggeration associated with his time travelling character, he probably would have been superb in the kingly role, but otherwise I actually found myself wondering why 'Doctor Who' (2005-) was pretending to be a Shakespearean actor and which alien threat was he trying to prevent and what were they doing in a theatre?
And a lot of the cast struggled with the concept of the difference between vocal projection and shouting. Simon Thorp as The Earl Of Salisbury, was particularly guilty of that.
I was also slightly distracted by the Duchess Of York's (Marty Cruikshank) runny nose. I'm all for realistic performances, but I've never really been in to watching people expel bodily fluids, except for the obvious one.
I did think that Oliver Ford Davies was far better here than he was in his role in 'Star Wars I: The Phantom Menace' (1999) where he was quite over the top.
Alas, Henry IV (Bolingbroke) played by Nigel Lindsay was not so good. I certainly didn't think that he would be able to pull off the part of Henry IV as a leading man in the full play also by Shakespeare.
As for the journey of the story itself, I felt that the passing of time was hard to keep up with, one minute Gaunt (Michael Pennington) was saying goodbye to his son and the next he was unwell and about to die, which is just one example of the issue.
I don't know my history well enough to just watch this as a story and not be curious about the actual facts of it, so I did spend a lot of time trying to trace the royal family tree on my phone, but that wasn't the only reason I wanted to fiddle on the device. I actually didn't really feel enthralled by the play either.
I did however like the simplistic set, which, having worked in theatre, I know is a compliment that you're only given when people are struggling to find something nice to say about the performances.
As such, I might be inclined to seek out an alternative version of this story and to establish the historical facts before watching it. I wasn't sure that I would blame Wills for his script, although his dialogue has always been heavy, because I just thought that it could have been delivered in a lighter way that didn't have to be comedic, but also didn't have to be so stoic and iron weighted.
625.88/1000.
Sadly it was difficult to take David Tennant seriously in the leading role of King Richard II, because I kept expecting him to shout out Allons-y and run off somewhere waving a sonic screwdriver. If he had played the part without the usual exaggeration associated with his time travelling character, he probably would have been superb in the kingly role, but otherwise I actually found myself wondering why 'Doctor Who' (2005-) was pretending to be a Shakespearean actor and which alien threat was he trying to prevent and what were they doing in a theatre?
And a lot of the cast struggled with the concept of the difference between vocal projection and shouting. Simon Thorp as The Earl Of Salisbury, was particularly guilty of that.
I was also slightly distracted by the Duchess Of York's (Marty Cruikshank) runny nose. I'm all for realistic performances, but I've never really been in to watching people expel bodily fluids, except for the obvious one.
I did think that Oliver Ford Davies was far better here than he was in his role in 'Star Wars I: The Phantom Menace' (1999) where he was quite over the top.
Alas, Henry IV (Bolingbroke) played by Nigel Lindsay was not so good. I certainly didn't think that he would be able to pull off the part of Henry IV as a leading man in the full play also by Shakespeare.
As for the journey of the story itself, I felt that the passing of time was hard to keep up with, one minute Gaunt (Michael Pennington) was saying goodbye to his son and the next he was unwell and about to die, which is just one example of the issue.
I don't know my history well enough to just watch this as a story and not be curious about the actual facts of it, so I did spend a lot of time trying to trace the royal family tree on my phone, but that wasn't the only reason I wanted to fiddle on the device. I actually didn't really feel enthralled by the play either.
I did however like the simplistic set, which, having worked in theatre, I know is a compliment that you're only given when people are struggling to find something nice to say about the performances.
As such, I might be inclined to seek out an alternative version of this story and to establish the historical facts before watching it. I wasn't sure that I would blame Wills for his script, although his dialogue has always been heavy, because I just thought that it could have been delivered in a lighter way that didn't have to be comedic, but also didn't have to be so stoic and iron weighted.
625.88/1000.