#1
Posted: 5/14/17 at 8:33pm
King Charles III May 14 9pm PBS
#3
Posted: 5/15/17 at 9:40am
What about FALSETTOS???
Can't wait to watch this on DVR :)
"See that poster on the wall? Rocky Marciano." - Andy Karl as Rocky in 'ROCKY'
#4
Posted: 5/15/17 at 11:37am
Oh man, I missed it! I'll have to catch it on demand.
#5
Posted: 5/15/17 at 11:38am
Babe_Williams said: "Oh man, I missed it! I'll have to catch it on demand."
AARGH! Me too!
Edited: On Line till May 28. DVD to follow.
Updated On: 5/15/17 at 11:38 AM
#6
Posted: 5/15/17 at 1:04pm
Skimbleshanks2 said: "What about FALSETTOS???
Can't wait to watch this on DVR :)
"
Rumor has it Falsettos will air October 2017.
#7
Posted: 5/15/17 at 1:32pm
You can watch KC3 online on the PBS website!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/shows/king-charles-iii/episodes
I just finished watching it, and I really enjoyed it. I absolutely LOVED the play when I saw it on Broadway. It was among the best new plays I've seen in my life, and certainly my favorite play of last season. I think this adaptation definitely does it justice. I think Tim Pigott-Smith is in top form here, and I actually prefer his performance here over his performance in the stage version. I'm still so sad about his recent and untimely passing. I really enjoyed Tamara Lawrence as Jess. She was excellent as Viola in Twelfth Night at NT, and it was a pleasure to see her in this role. Charlotte Riley, as Kate, is tougher and more overtly commanding than Lydia Wilson, who was a bit more sly, I think.
I think Bartlett did a good job trimming it down to 90 minutes. It worked perfectly fine, but I actually prefer the long running time, mainly because I think it's so damn good that I just want more of it. I also felt like some bits felt slightly underdeveloped with the cuts, such as the leader of the opposition Iago-like role in the King's council. Also, the scene in the Halal restaurant was among my favorites in the play, and I wish it hadn't been shortened.
The slightly truncated ending didn't have quite the same impact on me as when I saw it onstage. When...
Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content
Charles interrupts the coronation, and takes the crown. The tension in the air was palpable, as he stood there for a longer period of time, deciding what to do next. I remember feeling every muscle in my body tighten, and I think I was literally holding my breath. That didn't happen here, but maybe that's just because I knew what would happen. His speech about the crown was cut down to just one line, which worked fine, but I missed the original a bit.
Anyway, I highly recommend this, especially to anyone who didn't see the play. The verse language is a bit jarring at first, but you get used to it, and I think it's totally essential. I caught more of the nods to Shakespeare this time around, which was cool.
#8
Posted: 5/15/17 at 2:03pm
JBroadway - I agree with your comments. I would have liked the longer version though. By accelerating the decline of Charles, it seemed too inevitable. There were times in the stage version when I thought Charles regained the upper hand, albeit temporarily. And I thought the final scene onstage was shattering, so I missed some of the lines.
RIP Tim Pigott-Smith. Glad they dedicated this to him.
#9
Posted: 5/15/17 at 2:34pm
Thanks for the heads up guys, I totally forgot this was happening. :)
Caption: Every so often there was a rare moment of perfect balance when I soared above him.
#10
Posted: 5/15/17 at 11:51pm
Just remembered, and meant to say earlier:
I thought the princess Diana stuff was handled much better in the TV adaptation than onstage - much more subtle and tasteful. That said, I think it could still easily be cut from both versions.
#11
Posted: 5/16/17 at 12:53am
Yes, yes, thank you to the OP for the heads up!
Yes, I could have done without the ghost of Diana, though having just watched two documentaries about her, I thought the actress or sound designer got her voice exactly right.
The running time seemed closer to 2 hours than 90 minutes. It was a 2-hour slot and ended with time for 10 minutes or so of promos. But I agree that some character transitions (William from dutiful schoolboy to usurper; Harry from rebel to conformist) seemed rather rushed.
I was happy to recognize and enjoy the iambic pentameter and Shakespearean asides. Having just seen RICHARD III helped to clue me as to what the text was doing.
All that said, I was surprised that a play so highly prized in these threads turned out to be just a dysfunctional family drama. There wasn't a plot step that I hadn't heard as speculation from one talking head or another during coverage of Diana's funeral or William's wedding. (Despite appearances, no, I am actually not much of a royals watcher.)
ETA I'd suggest people read Shakespeare's RICHARD II or Marlowe's EDWARD II to see the impact of abdication fully dramatized.
Updated On: 5/16/17 at 12:53 AM
#12
Posted: 5/16/17 at 1:48am
I thought the ghost of Diana was important because she motivated Charles and William to make the crucial decisions that drive the plot and its climax when she tells each that he will be the greatest king of all.
#13
Posted: 5/16/17 at 1:53am
^^^ Dramaturgically you are right, of course, and something else would have been necessary to sub in her place. I just thought two brief appearances by a ghost weren't enough to establish her as of the world of the play.
I actually thought "Diana" was more interesting when Charles and William and/or Harry TALKED about her.
#14
Posted: 5/16/17 at 2:16am
I agree that Diana's limited appearances in the shorter televised version did lessen her impact. The fact that she has more stage time in the play makes her more prominent, although she doesn't really say much more in that context. One thing I liked about the play and the television production was that Diana, Camilla, and Kate were characterized somewhat differently than the ways most of the public views them. It made me think about our tendency to believe we know public figures who are actually strangers to us. I agree that the play connects nicely with the histories mentioned. The blank verse, which I was more aware of on television than on stage for some reason, made the play something other than the drama of a dysfunctional family. I loved the mix of blank verse and generally contemporary language.
#15
Posted: 5/16/17 at 3:08am
^^^ Well said. I've stated my objections above, but you make a good case.
#16
Posted: 5/16/17 at 8:35am
SPOILER:
I agree that it is a dysfunctional family story, but so is LEAR and OTHELLO and many of the history plays. It is a dysfunctional family writ large, if you will. As someone who majored in English history, the constitutional events meant somewhat more to me as a driver of the plot. If Charles had not decided, as a matter of principle, that he could not sign a bill that limited the freedom of the press, and had not dissolved Parliament (in an extraordinary scene for Tim Pigott-Smith), there would not have been the opportunity to force him into abdication. Although we can suppose that Diana's ghost and Kate M. would have created other opportunities.
#17
Posted: 5/16/17 at 9:30am
wonkit, I've taught enough English plays of all periods that I was well aware of the constitutional issues dramatized in CHARLES III. I even got Camilla's joke, "We don't have a constitution." (IIRC, it was Queen Anne who last refused assent, over 400 years ago. The recent miniseries, VICTORIA, showed how a monarch might exercise political power without making an officially political move.)
You are correct that most of the history plays and tragedies deal with dysfunctional families, but I think the War of the Roses plays, and HAMLET, LEAR, et al., bring enough substance that I feel I am watching more than the squabbles of the family next door. The issues of C3--whether true or not--are all ones I have heard before in the tabloids or cable news. I felt like I was watching DATELINE, which wasn't a bad thing, but I expected more.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95