Comments by "Helen Trope" (@heliotropezzz333) on "Queen Margaret strikes the Duchess of Gloucester - The Hollow Crown: Episode 1 - BBC Two" video.

  1. The Duchess threatened her with revenge at the end but the Queen is very hard and devious. I think the tears weren't real but just part of playing the victim to justify whatever happens to the Duchess afterwards.
    258
  2. Why is Market Black?
    38
  3. Chococo Chen. But all over the world Shakespeare plays are converted into different settings and different cultures and times. That's the nature of Shakespeare and drama. It's universal in scope and nature. That's why it's still relevant today when other plays from his time are forgotten.
    36
  4. Mande Loo You were meant to understand that it was fake. This is a powerful woman one minute, pretending to be the victim the next. This is a public demonstration, so that the downfall of the Gloucesters that follows from this scene is understood and accepted by the Court.
    33
  5. Fred C. It depends on whether the race of the person is crucial to the story. Shakespeare makes points about power in his plays that are relevant beyond his time. His plays are not pure history. They're not totally accurate as history. He changed things for dramatic effect and to please the regime of his time. Modern dramatists do the same with Shakespeare's plays to make them more relevant to a modern audience.
    28
  6. So colour is the most important thing to you?. Never mind that she's a great actress and gives a good performance. Shakespeare used men to play women's parts. Laurence Olivier and Orson Welles played a black character in Shakespeare's play Othello. Drama is not the same as documentary or history. Have you actually watched these plays?
    25
  7. She's a good actress and plays the part well. That's all that matters.
    24
  8. Katherine Koelker. I don't think this particular conflict between the women results in the battle for the throne, because this incident is between Lancastrians, whereas the battle for the throne was between Yorkists and Lancastrians. The Duchess of Gloucester gets accused of witchcraft and is imprisoned or exiled for that. Gloucester is imprisoned and murdered. Sorry for the spoilers.
    22
  9. Shakespeare was never about historical accuracy but about stories and drama which have universal themes, so his plays are often produced in modern times in different eras and settings with different types of cast. Those who criticise this casting are not real fans of Shakespeare I think and don't watch his plays much.
    19
  10. If it's the kind of thing where historical accuracy is important, but Shakespeare always played around with history. It's drama not historical fact. Shakespeare plays have been set in a variety of times with a variety of actors. There have been all male players and all female players and a Macbeth set in Nazi times etc etc
    18
  11. P.S. Julius Caesar has been played by people who were not Italian, Shylock has been played by people who are not Jewish and Othello has been played by people who are not black.
    18
  12. They aren't that accurate. Henry VI was not that handsome. Richard III's hair is wrong (too modern, not long enough). Edward IV looks too short.
    15
  13. There are hundreds of complaining comments here. Are you too lazy to read them?
    15
  14. You're probably pretty well a nazi already then. Didn't you know? This is not site for comments from Shakespeare lovers, but for petty minded racists - judging by the comments anyway. Most wouldn't know Shakespeare if he bit them on the backside.
    14
  15. Queen Margaret was seen as a foreigner in England. Though she was French, Sophie Okonedo's background acts as a metaphor for that sense of difference.
    13
  16. Julia Lawless, Well I do remember seeing a British TV show when I was young, about some Japanese legends, and all the characters were played by English actors in Japanese costume, make up and wigs. I enjoyed it very much for what it was. I didn't think too much about how appropriate the casting was. Even today, black actors get fewer opportunities to play some good roles, when the stories come from white history, so I really don't mind them being involved. I think it helps bring the stories alive for wider audiences. Margaret of Anjou was disliked and distrusted for being a foreigner (French) so although the actress isn't French her casting does help to accentuate that she's from a different background to the others. It's a sort of metaphor, and she acts the part so well. I very much enjoyed a TV show called "Versailles" where the main characters, the French King and his brother, were played by English actors and the show was in English (with French subtitles in France). Other actors came from England, Canada and France.The French TV company decided they needed to show it to the widest possible audiences internationally because the cost of making it was so high and they could sell it to more countries if it was in English.
    12
  17. +Onionbagel She gives a good performance though.
    12
  18. Henry Sims. Since when was the Duchess a "he"?
    11
  19.  @BalkanMode  Oh lighten up and join the 21st century. I'm sure they said that the first time women were allowed on stage. Shakespeare had to use men dressed as women of course.
    11
  20. OctoV70. Don't watch it then, if you don't like it. Your dramatic "suspension of disbelief" isn't working. Juliet in Romeo and Juliet is usually played by someone much older than 13 years but people don't usually complain.
    10
  21. So do they have to go to Anjou and find someone who looks like a typical Anjou woman?
    10
  22. It's great that a Shakespeare play is getting so many views. So many Shakespeare fans!
    10
  23. Centurion. It's certainly not a joke. It's a good performance and you forget about the casting if you watch the whole thing and get involved with it. Also the character she's playing was regarded with suspicion and dislike, being a foreigner (French). Though Sophie isn't French her casting acts as a good metaphor for people perceiving her different background at the time
    7
  24. Many comments about the casting, almost none about the play, from people who've not watched the whole play I suspect. In some castings, like that of Harriet Tubman, the race of the character is important to the drama but it's not crucial in this play for Margaret. She was regarded as a foreigner anyway as she was French but it's not crucial that she be played by a French woman.
    7
  25. When people's comments are only about the casting of Queen Margaret, you know that they know nothing about Shakespeare or his plays and in all likelihood they've not watched the full play.
    7
  26. I would not mind if the performance was good, after all nationality is not necessarily denoted by skin colour these days. Art and Theatre is all about challenging assumptions and prejudices isn't it?
    6
  27. Shakespeare was never an accurate source of history. As a dramatist he was more interested in the drama of his stories.
    6
  28. I think it's about widening the audience for plays like this, not just in Britain but internationally (in the US for instance). It's played more as a drama than a strict history. If it was a history programme I'm sure they wouldn't be so flexible with the casting.
    6
  29.  @BalkanMode  It doesn't matter in drama unless the role specifically requires a certain race because the story is about racism.
    6
  30. Shakespeare never portrayed history as accurately as possible. This is drama not history.
    6
  31. KC Miles.One historical description I read about Margaret was that her skin was quite tanned. She came from the South of France where it's hot. Also Okonedo does not look her age. She looks much younger.
    5
  32. HenrySims. Ha! Ha! Pardon me.
    5
  33. Evil etc. You do realise Shakespeare plays have been cast with all women, all men, transposed into modern settings, like Richard III done as a Nazi type dictator, and there has already been an all black Hamlet. Both Laurence Olivier and Orson Welles played Othello, who is a black character. One of the reasons Shakespeare plays remain popular and relevant is that they speak to very human issues and to all times. The answer for those who don't like the casting is not to watch it, but hey, this version's proved popular. Here's are clips from a modern/traditional style TV series about Shakespeare's life shown not long ago on US TV (TNT channel), (the music is not from the show) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MCwIRarv0Q
    5
  34. No it's because she's a good actress and deserves the part. This is a drama not a history.
    5
  35. MuscleAlphaMale. No, it's a Shakespeare play but not a "recreation of history". Shakespeare was not averse to changing the facts of history if it provided better drama. Many of these people look nothing like the historical characters they are playing. Henry VI is too handsome. Richard III does not have the right hairstyle and does not have scoliosis. Edward IV doesn't look tall enough. Elizabeth Woodville's hair should be blond instead of red. They don't talk like medieval people either. The clothes are made using modern materials but it's a great drama nonetheless.
    5
  36. How many people visited this site because they enjoy a good Shakespeare play?
    5
  37.  @fenriz218  It's not a farce. Why do people get so wound up about casting? In Shakespeare's time they watched women characters played by men. This is a drama not an accurate history.
    5
  38. sean locheed. Firstly you need to say who your comment is to. An eye for an eye is about vengeance and retribution. I can't see the relevance of that comment. If you are saying the casting is not o.k. I would say it's such a small thing I can't understand why people are getting worked up about it.
    4
  39. noti tuz Or a Japanese Macbeth (see Throne of Blood) Or an American or English Hamlet or Romeo. Tut tut.
    4
  40. Her Shakespearean language is better than yours anyway.
    4
  41.  @stormbringer2840  I think you'd find, if you watched this particular version, that you would be immersed and forget the casting. They obviously chose her because she's a good actress and didn't want Shakespeare to be racially exclusive, but actually the casting acts as a good metaphor because Queen Margaret was distrusted by the English because she was 'foreign' and moreover from a nation that had been England's enemy for a long time. When Henry married her, as part of the contract he gave away to the French most of the English possessions in France that his ancestors had fought so hard for.
    4
  42. Smash Mouth. You are another one who hasn't read the hundreds of whinging comments here about the casting
    4
  43. Most of the comments in this section are about the casting of the Queen and the colour of her skin. Very few are about the play itself. Don't bother reading them unless you are fixated on the former like the rest of the commenters.
    4
  44. It stands for giving good performers a chance to play Shakespeare.
    4
  45. or perhaps he could be played by an Etonian Gamer.
    4
  46. Glenda Jackson has just been cast to play the lead in King Lear and I'm sure she will be wonderful. I recently heard her on the radio playing a character in stories by Emile Zola and her voice has lost none of it's subtlety and power. These plays have been played endless times and a twist on the character and casting, from time to time, just adds to the depth, power and variety.
    3
  47. This isn't a historical movie. It's a Shakespeare play. Shakespeare played around with historical facts and in modern times people have payed around with Shakespeare plays. I don't think this casting is for PC reasons. She's good and merits the part.
    3
  48. Evil etc It's *more than, not more then. (Learn your own language properly, if you are going to be so culturally precious). I don't care who plays who in a Shakespeare play as long as they are a good actor/actress. It's a drama and real Shakespeare fans know that the settings and casting are often varied or modernised when these plays are enacted. All the race complainers here are not Shakespeare fans I suspect. Queen Margaret was a "foreigner" in England and distrusted as such. Though she was French and Sophie Okonedo is not, the casting still works as a metaphor for her difference.
    3
  49. MRWorldGuy. No the drama is very good. Have you watched it? I doubt that people getting upset at the casting of one person, on the grounds of race, are Shakespeare fans or enjoy watching Shakespeare. They're just here to moan about their favourite bugbear.
    3
  50. MRWorldGuy. It does matter to me whether you are a Shakespeare fan because I'm sick of every video featuring a black person in public life being full of racist comments from idiots and haters, and that's the only reason they visit the site. If you were a Shakespeare fan you would not react this way because you would realise this is a drama not a history. Shakespeare was never completely accurate about history. He sometimes changed things for dramatic purposes or to please his sponsors. His plays are regarded as having universal themes, for instance here the themes are about conflict and power, and they have been played all over the world in different settings. For instance there's a version of Richard III played in modern uniforms with fascist overtones, but hundreds of fans did not post comments that it was all anachronistic because fascism didn't exist then. No, it's only race that seems to get some people hot under the collar. Genuine Shakespeare fans understand that these plays can be interpreted in different ways under different themes. His plays have been done in modern times with all male actors, all female actors and all black actors. They are not things set in stone for all time. I can understand why she was cast because she's a good actress so was cast on merit and also her race is a kind of metaphor for the fact that Margaret was a despised foreigner. Margaret was of course French but these days we don't hate the French so much, but there are plenty of race haters so it works in that sense.
    3
  51. MRWorldGuy I think they are racists because skin colour is all that bothers them. They don't comment that the actor playing Henry is too handsome or that Richard III's hair is wrong or any other historical inaccuracies. It doesn't bother them that Othello has been played by white actors. No, the only inaccuracy that bothers them is skin colour. Also you see this sort of thing all over the internet. Just look at any video featuring a black politician and the comments are not much about their policies but more about their race.
    3
  52. MRWorldGuy. If it's a history or race is an important factor in the story, I'd say it's important to be racially accurate. If it's a drama, of the Shakespearian kind which have been subject to experimentation in modern times e.g from the 1960s onwards, I'd say racial casting is not vital because people should be able to see beyond that to what the actress is representing. To be honest it's hard to get modern audiences interested in Shakespeare unless they can see some relevance to modern times. Baz Luhrman did a modern dress version of Romeo and Juliet for instance to make it more interesting for young people to relate to. I do remember when American indians were usually played by white actors with make up, in all those Westerns I watched as a child, so I think we should be a bit generous here.
    3
  53.  @stormbringer2840  I think you should read some of the other many comments. Shakespeare was never about accuracy. It's about stories and drama and people set his stories in all sorts of eras and settings with all sorts of casts. I think that people who criticise this casting are not really fans of Shakespeare and don't watch his plays. That's all I'm saying.
    3
  54. It's not a history programme. It's a drama and Shakespeare himself played fast and loose with historical facts in his dramas. It's a good performance too.
    3
  55.  @tlotpwist3417  Do you mean Richard III?
    3
  56. She got the role because she is an excellent actress.
    3
  57. This isn't a history. It's a drama. It doesn't have to be totally historically accurate.
    2
  58. Gustav Adolph. This isn't necessarily politically motivated just because you say it is. I know tanned skin doesn't necessarily mean African ancestry. Don't you know what a metaphor is? Look it up.
    2
  59. Gustav Adolph. Well it's clear in your mind. If people didn't like it they would not watch it but it drew a higher audience than the Alien Prequel and it was on BBC2. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/may/09/bbc-hollow-crown-war-of-the-roses-tom-sturridge-hugh-bonneville
    2
  60. KC Miles. It seems you long for an all white Britain or England. Change is a constant. Time can't be frozen to address the hang-ups you can't cope with. By the way did you know that George III's Queen, Charlotte, had some black ancestry and DNA tests have shown that Prince William and Prince Harry have an Indian woman as an ancestor? Britain perhaps wasn't quite as white as you thought.
    2
  61. Davazno1 Yeah but these days people play around with Shakespeare plays, as these are dramas with wider relevance in the stories. For instance there has been an all female Hamlet and an all black Roman play (I think it was Julius Caesar). There has been a version of Macbeth set in a Nazi type regime. It's all fluid. People shouldn't get their knickers in a twist about it. Shylock is not always played by a Jewish person is he or Romans by Italians? If you don't like it don't watch it, but I watched this one and thought it was really good. Margaret was distrusted as a "foreigner" because she was French. Not quite the same I know, but you can see it as a metaphor for the "difference" people reacted to.
    2
  62. davazno1. No. I think you are making that up but there has been an all black Hamlet http://blacktheatrelive.co.uk/tours/hamlet. If you don't like things, don't watch them but allow people freedom and don't spoil the enjoyment of others. The world is big enough to hold many things.
    2
  63. davazno1. No problem, but I think you'd enjoy it if you watched it. It's one that makes the meaning of Shakespeare's words clearer than many other versions. The acting's good and there's lots of exciting action, particularly in part II (my favourite part) but you really need to watch it all to follow the plot.
    2
  64. We shouldn't object when we had all those years when Hollywood movies set in the Middle East or Egypt or about Native Americans were full of white western actors playing non white parts. Alec Guinness as Prince Faisal, Lawrence Olivier and Orson Wells as Othello, Yul Brynner as King of Siam, and Taras Bulba, and Chief Black Eagle etc etc. They were good in those parts and Sophie Okonedo is good in this.
    2
  65. Evil etc. What do you mean "offing" and who are you to tell me what to do?
    2
  66. Evil etc. I've just looked up "offing" in the urban dictionary. It refers to suicide. I've now reported you for cyber bullying. Have a nice day.
    2
  67. Well she seems to have pushed up the viewing figures for Shakespeare.
    2
  68. Why don't you read all the other similar questions in the comments and the replies?
    2
  69. Don't watch it then
    2
  70. Losing viewers? Well, this video has many more viewers than the clips without this actress. Have a look. Young people are more educated these days, many more of them having been to University, and they well know there were no black Queens at this time but they are sophisticated enough to enjoy the drama for what it is.
    2
  71. LexRex. Most of them came to complain it seems. Still no publicity is bad publicity. It all draws attention to the play. I've not found another Shakespeare play with over 325,000 views.
    2
  72. Yes but it's a manipulative pretence, in order to put the Duchess and Duke of Gloucester in a bad light to make it more plausible to get rid of them later.
    2
  73.  @Vladpryde  Well not quite (I think) because The Colour Purple is about a particular author's experiences in a particular time and setting and about racism. Shakespeare, though he set his plays in certain times and settings, writes more about universal truths that anyone can relate to in different times and settings which is why people sometimes play around with the settings and times of his plays, sometimes transferring their settings to modern times for instance. This is a play about power and power struggles which could happen with different characters in different settings. You could dress all these characters as gang members or mafia mob members and it would work I think (as an example).
    2
  74. The Queen was threatened with revenge. However she is putting on an act, because underneath she is manipulative, and is working to get rid of the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, who, at present, have control over the King.
    2
  75. In what way is she not entertaining?
    2
  76. What all of them?
    2
  77. She's not Caribbean
    2
  78. The Background: King Henry Vi is a weak King. Queen Margaret is a strong Queen though manipulative. The Duke of Gloucester is Lord Protector which is a role normally in place when a King is underage. Queen Margaret is scheming to get rid of Gloucester and his wife. In this scene Gloucester tells the Queen to keep her nose out of political affairs which are not for women to be involved in. She questions why a Protector is needed. He says he'll resign if the King asks him to. The nobles use this as a cue to ask him to resign and start accusing him of extortion, corruption and incompetence. The Queen joins in. Then she attempts to publicly humiliate the Duchess of Gloucester by getting her to pick up her fan. The Duchess refuses and gets a slap. She threatens the Queen. The Queen pretends to be distressed and runs off. She's setting Gloucester and his wife up for a fall.
    2
  79. Maybe because she was a good actress and they wanted to reach wider audiences.
    2
  80. Where a story is about racism of people who fought it then racial casting is important but that's not the case here. Margaret was disliked as a foreigner but the drama is not about race and racial matters. If you don't like it you don't have to watch it.
    2
  81. Charles Cortez Lol. I doubt any of the people complaining about the casting here have actually watched the play, or intend to, but if they at least watched this clip they would hear her referred to as a "Frenchwoman" by the Duchess of Gloucester. I'm sure if they got interested enough they might also find out more about the history.
    2
  82. I don't think it's a big problem. If they start asserting that Queen Margaret was black someone will correct them. In any case they probably think the Wars of the Roses is a 1990 film with Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner.
    2
  83. Decanus etc. Of course this isn't accurate. It's not all to do with the BBC. Shakespeare liked to mess about with history for dramatic purposes. His great abdication scene in Richard II never happened. Richard abdicated by just signing the papers apparently, but it doesn't make for such good drama. Also there's no evidence that Richard III had his wife killed or his brother but it's a more gripping drama if he's portrayed as an out and out villain who did all this. If people want to know about history they need to watch a history programme or read a history book.
    2
  84. It's a drama not a history so 100% accurate casting isn't so important. Plenty of white westerners have played roles from other countries. Remember Yul Brynner as King of Siam in The King and I or Lawrence Olivier and Orson Welles as Othello? Al Pacino as Shylock? Plenty of white Americans playing native Americans? The people who cast this would be the casting directors and it's a very well performed version of the play.
    2
  85. I don't really care about agendas. It's an enjoyable well performed play. You are concerned about the 'young and uneducated' seeing this. I'm pretty sure the young and uneducated won't be watching this, but if they are they will need to learn that you should read a history book if you want to find out about history rather than relying on dramas. Shakespeare plays are not totally accurate on history.
    2
  86. Here's something to cheer you up MRWorldGuy. There are loads of productions all the time up and down the country and it's not hard to find something to suit you. Here's a production from Worcester College of a different play https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB_5F4050-s
    2
  87. MRWorld. In Baz Luhrman's Romeo and Juliet Mercutio was played by a black actor if you remember. As you said that was good and raised no objection, why pick on this play which is better? (As a matter of fact I think that Zefifirelli's Romeo and Juliet is better than Baz Luhrman's,). In predominantly white countries, black actors don't get as much opportunity to play good roles when stories come from white history (which is where stories come from predominantly) and I don't really mind if they get opportunities in such dramas because it brings people like Shakespeare alive to wider audiences and enables them to enjoy him more. Deviations from historical accuracy don't spoil enjoyment or popularity for most people it seems. The French TV station, Canal Plus, recently cast English actors as French King Louis XIV and his brother, in the TV show "Versailles" and produced the show in English in order to bring it to wider audiences. This enabled them to sell it to more countries worldwide so they could cover the expensive costs of producing it. It was the second most watched series in France ever, although they only saw it dubbed into French, with English, Canadian and some French actors.
    2
  88. MRWorldGuy. Here are some Aztecs being portrayed by white actors by The Royal Shakespeare Company/ National Theatre of Mexico co-production. http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-a-soldier-in-every-son-the-rise-of-the-aztecs-by-luis-mario-moncada-49237279.html
    2
  89. Yeah yeah, but what did you think of the play? Didn't watch it I guess.
    2
  90. You can't really say that if you didn't see it.
    2
  91. tysswe1. This isn't history. It's a play. Shakespeare was never 100% accurate with history. He would have wanted you to enjoy and judge it as a play. As a rendering of his play it's great I think.
    2
  92. You want English subtitles for English? It's not difficult to understand if you listen carefully. At least you can get the gist. It starts in the middle of a scene. The Duke of Gloucester (The Lord Protector) says the King is old enough to give a reproof himself, (we don't know to whom) and the Queen should not interfere. The Queen says, if the King's old enough why does he need a protector? Gloucester says he will resign as Protector if the King wants him to. Suffolk or Sussex (can't remember which) intervenes and tells Gloucester to resign. He starts to accuse him of acting as King, and being responsible for the everything that's going wrong in the country. The country is going to the dogs. The heir to the French throne (called the Dauphin) is winning in France where England and France are at war, and Gloucester lords it over the nobles. The Archbishop then accuses Gloucester of over overtaxing the country (via the House of Commons) and overtaxing the clergy. Someone else (we hear but don't see) accuses him of spending too much on buildings and his wife's clothes. The Queen accuses him of corruptly selling official jobs and control of towns in France, and says it's a capital offence. She says the King knows everything. She then goes down and deliberately drops her fan to humiliate the Duchess of Gloucester by getting her to pick it up. The Duchess ignores her request and gets a slap. The Duchess says she would scratch the Queen's face with her nails if she could. The King says the Queen didn't mean any harm (The King is a bit of a weak booby, if you'd not picked up on that). The Duchess threatens the Queen with revenge for the insult. The manipulative Queen pretends to be very distressed and runs off.
    2
  93. jerina shooting star. There's no evidence that Margaret was black. There are no images of her during her lifetime except her tomb image and a few medieval images that show her as blonde or brown. Images of her parents show them as blond or brown. I see no reason why a black British actress shouldn't be cast as her in a drama though. She's a good actress. I can't see what the fuss is about. Why can't people see beyond skin colour. If they were true Shakespeare fans I don't think they'd be complaining.
    2
  94. I found it quite easy to see that she played the part really well. Queen Margaret was regarded as a foreigner in England so the metaphor works well. I think we're past the days of painting faces different colours as when Laurence Olivier blacked up as Othello.
    2
  95. I don't think Sophie Okonedo looks to be in her forties. All drama is about a "suspension of disbelief". I think if you watched the whole play, you would forget the unusual casting and become swept away by the story, the drama and the performances.
    2
  96. Comments are mostly about the actress's skin colour. Boring and small minded. Yawn! Not much about the play itself.
    2
  97. Since Henry VI was handsome
    2
  98. You need to watch the whole thing. The Duke of Gloucester is Lord Protector which is like a Regent for an underage King but Henry is no longer underage. He's just weak minded and a bit mentally unstable (he actually suffers from mental breakdowns in his reign). The Queen is a strong character but a foreigner. She plots with the Duke of Suffolk or Sussex (can't remember which) to get rid of Gloucester and his wife. When Gloucester tries to shut the Queen up at the beginning, she raises the question of his need to be Protector. Suffolk or Sussex asks him to resign and then everyone starts accusing Gloucester of all manner of corruption. The Queen then provokes the Duchess of Gloucester into an open act of rebellion by trying to humiliate her. She's setting up the Gloucesters for their fall from power which follows later.
    2
  99. It would not have destroyed it for Shakespeare.
    2
  100. Shakespeare is not pleased with you.
    2
  101. Shakespeare was never about historical accuracy, if there was better drama to be had by deviating from it.
    2
  102.  @H3nry488  Well Shakespeare 'messed up' history when it suited him, for dramatic purposes, and in his time men played the parts of women. If you want accurate history, watch a documentary or read a history book. Shakespeare is not the best source. Did people protest as much when Laurence Olivier blacked up to play Othello? Do people insist that Shylock should always be played by a Jew or that Romeo and Juliet should always be played by Italians? By the way, the actor who plays King Henry VI in this video is too handsome for the part but I'm not complaining.
    2
  103.  @H3nry488  Margaret of Anjou was French and the English very much distrusted her as a foreigner with her foreign ways. The way she saw and handled the politics at the time was very much the way it would have been done in France i.e.remove any perceived rivalries or threats whether genuine or imagined. Being played by a black actress is a metaphor for that sense of difference and not belonging that was felt at the time. Her mocking of the Gloucesters is part of her plan to remove them as a power base in the court. She succeeds in this in later scenes.
    2
  104.  @H3nry488  No. It wasn't about racism exactly. As I said, that was perhaps a metaphor. Remember the English monarchy at that time was of French descent, but the France and England were enemies at that time as they had been warring over territory in France. Henry V had been very successful in his wars against France (remember his victory at Agincourt?) but when his son Henry VI got betrothed to Margaret of Anjou, Henry VI gave all the land the English had conquered in France back to France (except for Calais I think) as part of the betrothal agreement. He got nothing in return for his 'gift' except Margaret of Anjou herself. The English really resented that and resented her for it, having spilt so much English blood in gaining those lands.
    2
  105. missmysterymagic.This scene shows some power play between the Queen and the Gloucesters. The Queen is stronger than the King (Henry VI was a notably pious but weak king who suffered from periodic mental illness). The Duke of Gloucester is the Lord Protector. Basically he was regent from the time Henry was a baby because Henry was a baby when his father died and he inherited the throne. Certain factions including the Queen want to be rid of the Gloucesters because Henry is now an adult, but the Duke of Gloucester is still exerting power over him. This scene shows the beginning of the movement to oust the Gloucesters from power (which happens afterwards).
    2
  106. The story of Kunta Kinte was the story of a black man's experience of slavery which was particular to black men though the Irish also suffered slavery so there could have been a story about them. Shakespeare's stories are drama which often has universal application, so you get Japanese and Russian versions of his plays for instance. In this play, Margaret is a "foreigner" and this is just one interpretation. Historical accuracy was less important to Shakespeare than good drama so he often changed historical facts to make better drama. I don't think he would have objected to this.
    2
  107. *didn't understand. I did understand your point, I just disagreed with it. All drama is about a "suspension of disbelief" . I think you'd enjoy the play if you watched it through and the unusual casting would bother you less. Shakespeare wanted people to enjoy his plays.
    2
  108. I should worry more about the English language declining among the indigenous population if I were you. It should be "these two words". I also think you mean "look up" the two words since merely writing them would not mean anything. I did look them up and I think it's not right to foist such concerns onto a fictional play, or the casting of such. We were once all one race as our origins can all be traced back to Africa. Distinct races developed as a result of migration to different parts of the world with different conditions and climates, so race itself is just a matter of accident and it's not worth getting worked up about. Change has always happened and always will.
    2
  109. PsyduckWaterflower. There were certainly white slaves - the Irish for instance so you could make slavery stories about that. I think where race or racial discrimination is the main part of the story then the race of the person is important in the casting, but if the story is not about the race of the person or racial discrimination then there's more options for casting in a drama.
    2
  110.  @jacktrevino1108  Any relation to Lee?
    2
  111. That's the point. Henry VI was mentally weak and naive at best and sometimes mentally unstable. The Wars of the Roses might not have taken place if he had been a more capable King. He relied on incompetent and corrupt officials who caused discontent at court and in the nation. The Queen was determined to make an enemy of the Duke of York, whom she saw as a threat. She got what she wished for.
    2
  112.  @unclepiccolo4832  When you see the whole play - all three of them in fact (4 if you count Richard III) it's not the ethnic background of the actors you notice but the good acting, the great story and plot, and the beautiful poetic language. Don't forget that in Shakespeare's time the audience had to suspend its disbelief over women characters played by men, as women weren't allowed to act in the theatres.
    2
  113.  @unclepiccolo4832  They still wouldn't look like real women. Would you have her try and look like a white woman. That would hardly be convincing either. No one looks exactly like the characters they are playing anyway. Look up images of Henry VI. The actor playing him looks too normal, healthy and handsome to convincingly look like Henry VI. The point is they use their acting skills to play the character, not their ability to physically imitate the character.
    2
  114. It does not have to be factual. It's a drama. Shakespeare often played fast and loose with facts. His histories do not stick strictly to the facts. Queen Margaret was a foreigner in England and was regarded as such by many so the choice of actress actually helps to emphasise that aspect.
    2
  115. Decanus Gaius Publius. I did note your original comment. The reason I mentioned these things is that I presume that if there were some black people in Europe in Roman times their descendants might still be in the population by medieval times. It's only a small point - not a big deal. Feel free to ignore it.
    2
  116. Decanus Gaius Publius. I can't think of anything else to say about this.
    2
  117. Time you grew up.
    2
  118. boshankers12. You didn't get that the overacting here is deliberate. She is being deliberately manipulative to bring down the Gloucesters (which happens later) and she acts so that the audience can see that's what she's doing. They did try to make it as understandable as possible to the widest audiences. Here is the beginning of the downfall of the Gloucesters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jjr5wjIiJ7E
    2
  119. Here's an exciting PBS trailer for the whole show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqp9F7qSbWQ
    2
  120. Shakespeare's dramas are never totally historically accurate because the drama of a story was more important to him than the accuracy of the history, and in his time all the women's parts were played by men anyway, so a little poetic licence can be allowed.
    2
  121. Yes, all over the world people interpret Shakespeare in their own way. That's the beauty of Shakespeare and why his plays have stayed popular worldwide for so long.
    2
  122. You realise she's acting out putting on an act, to let us know she is not sincere but is trying to entrap the Duchess of Gloucester?
    2
  123. Don't be daft
    1
  124.  @gostavoadolfos2023  Because we are good hearted? Traditionally black actors have not had so many acting opportunities in predominantly white societies, so it's about addressing that I suppose and ignoring skin colour where it's not essential to the story. In a story featuring racism, skin colour would be important otherwise the story would not make sense.
    1
  125. Just to change the subject from people's apparent obsession with the colour of an actresses skin......If he were alive today I imagine Shakespeare would be writing about the chaos of Brexit and the recent UK election results. It's a bit like the wars of the roses played on a micro scale in Parliament with most of the "bloodshed" happening behind the scenes.
    1
  126. Katheryne Koelker. What you say is true. I know that happens. I've seen these plays several times. I was just commenting on the specific point you made about this particular incident between Margaret and the Duchess and the significance of it in the scheme of things.
    1
  127. Ron Weasley does not exist you know. He is a fictional character.
    1
  128. Logan Cox. And Yul Brynner played the King of Siam. Marlon Brando played a Mexican (Emiliano Zapata) and Laurence Olivier blacked up to play Othello as did Orson Welles. Mark Rylance played Olivia in Twelfth Knight, Kevin Costner played Robin Hood with an American accent. Drama is about the "suspension of disbelief". Margaret of Anjou was a "foreigner" being French and the English resented her taking control of the Lancastrian side in the War of the Roses. The actress can be seen as a metaphor for that "foreignness" as well as being an excellent actress in the part.
    1
  129. Jakub Tyl. But that would look ridiculous these days. It's such an old fashioned and out of date approach. It's a drama not a history and Shakespeare never troubled to be particularly accurate with history. He changed some things for dramatic effect or to please his sponsors. It's a very good production and people are missing the enjoyment of it by allowing themselves to be prejudiced against it before even watching it.
    1
  130. Jakub Tyl. Ah well! You will miss a good production for the sake of your annoyance - so be it. Your loss.
    1
  131. Your comment?
    1
  132. Your question is ungrammatical.
    1
  133. Well it didn't do Tony Curtis (born Bernard Schwartz) any harm. He played a variety of parts including an English medieval Knight, a Viking an Anglo Saxon, and a Roman - all with his New York accent intact but I enjoyed his performances.
    1
  134.  @niccoarcadia4179  I'd like to think they would be given a chance today, since parts have opened up more to 'non-conventional' casting, as witnessed here. It should be talent that wins out in getting parts, as well as suitability. However I think they'd probably have to learn to do different accents. In this case, because Margaret was regarded with suspicion for being a foreigner (French) her casting is like a metaphor for that sense of standing out as different from the rest of the court.
    1
  135. No it's a great play.
    1
  136. * Elizabeth * Beaufort
    1
  137. It's the beginning of a coup attempt by the Queen to assert the King's authority to get rid of the Gloucesters. The Duke of Gloucester was Regent when the King was young. Now the King is an adult Gloucester should not still be ruling him but the King is a weak character and does not assert himself. The Queen is a stronger character and stages this bit of power play with them as a prelude to taking them down the with the help of some courtiers who support her. You don't see their downfall here in this scene. It's just the beginning of it. Basically the Queen and courtiers say the Duke of Gloucester should resign his position. They blame him for all the bad things going on in the country and accuse him of being incompetent and corrupt. The Queen tries to assert her authority over the Duchess of Gloucester by getting her to pick up her fan, the action of a servant. The reaction of the Duchess seals her fate (later).
    1
  138. The cringe is meant to be there. This is power play between the Queen and the Duchess of Gloucester. The Queen meant to embarrass and humiliate her. The Duke of Gloucester has been the ruler in effect as the King was too young at one time but now he is grown up but is still a weak character. The Queen is a stronger character than the King and she and her allies are determined to get rid of the Gloucesters. Even the Queen's crying at the end is an act to show up the Gloucesters. It's the start of their fall from power.
    1
  139. It's not Isabella of France. It's Margaret of Anjou.
    1
  140. He isn't. He's playing the Duke of Gloucester who is also the Lord Protector. The King is sitting on the throne next to the Queen and is played by Tom Sturridge.
    1
  141. I think it's more because she's a good actress and they want to attract wider audiences.
    1
  142. It might blow your mind but it's drama not history so a bit of imaginative casting is o.k.
    1
  143. The blame for the Wars of the Roses is not easy to assign. Margaret did tend to treat the Duke of York as an enemy and so turned him into one, but that was the way of politics where she came from in France. You can also blame the fact that Henry VI was a very weak King and that he had very incompetent and corrupt men around him. Another person you could blame is Edward III for having so many sons, and whatever disease took away his eldest son, The Black Prince. She was from France but she was Margaret of Anjou, not Margaret of France.
    1
  144. It is in English. It starts in the middle of a scene. The Duke of Gloucester (The Lord Protector) says the King is old enough to give a reproof himself, (we don't know to whom) and the Queen should not interfere. The Queen says, if the King's old enough why does he need a protector? Gloucester says he will resign as Protector if the King wants him to. Suffolk or Sussex (can't remember which) intervenes and tells Gloucester to resign. He starts to accuse him of acting as King, and being responsible for the everything that's going wrong in the country. The country is going to the dogs. The heir to the French throne (called the Dauphin) is winning in France where England and France are at war, and Gloucester lords it over the nobles. The Archbishop then accuses Gloucester of over overtaxing the country (via the House of Commons) and overtaxing the clergy. Someone else (we hear but don't see) accuses him of spending too much on buildings and his wife's clothes. The Queen accuses him of corruptly selling official jobs and control of towns in France, and says it's a capital offence. She says the King knows everything. She then goes down and deliberately drops her fan to humiliate the Duchess of Gloucester by getting her to pick it up. The Duchess ignores her request and gets a slap. The Duchess says she would scratch the Queen's face with her nails if she could. The King says the Queen didn't mean any harm (The King is a bit of a weak booby, if you'd not picked up on that). The Duchess threatens the Queen with revenge for the insult. The manipulative Queen pretends to be very distressed and runs off.
    1
  145. TheDissmaster. It's excellent acting. She is deliberately hammy towards the end to let the audience know that she is being deliberately manipulative in setting up the Duchess of Gloucester for a fall (which comes later). Also the whole cast had the aim of trying to make the play as understandable as possible to audiences not used to watching Shakespeare in order to reach wider audiences.
    1
  146. TheDissmaster10. Well I suppose you have to live up to your name but you'd be in a tiny minority of critics who have seen this. I've seen loads of Shakespeare plays. I'm a big fan of his and I really enjoyed this production. I don't know how many productions of his plays you have seen. Plays are not like TV shows or films. There are big variations in productions depending on the director's interpretation. P.S. You are supposed to cringe at her behaviour in this one.
    1
  147. TheDissmaster10. No big expert. Just a lover of Shakespeare's plays. You have your opinion and I have mine that's all, but I would encourage you to watch the whole play, if you haven't seen it, and its companion plays in The Hollow Crown before coming to final judgement. Cheerio
    1
  148. She was white in history, from the south of France but in a drama it's not necessary to be so precise with casting.
    1
  149.  @Vladpryde  They are known as Shakespeare's 'history' plays as they are based on history but they don't follow the history accurately. He gives the priority to drama.
    1
  150. And here's the next stage in the Gloucesters' downfall https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jjr5wjIiJ7E
    1
  151. Othello was often played by white actors blacked up. Lawrence Oliver played him and so did Orson Welles.
    1
  152.  @BloodOfYeshuaMessiah  Queen Margaret was regarded with suspicion as a foreigner. She was French but since we're friendlier with the French now perhaps her casting is a metaphor to show that 's she's different from the rest of the Court. It doesn't bother me anyway. In Shakespeare's time all the women were played by men.
    1
  153. It's very good acting. They are trying to make Shakespeare understandable to the widest possible audience. Also, this is acting within acting, as the Queen is pretending to be offended at the end, but she is a manipulative person who is setting the Duchess up for a fall.
    1
  154. Well this is not shit.
    1
  155. David Sanchez. Where is it incompetent? You realise that the hammy part is meant to convey to the audience that the Queen is being deliberately manipulative in order to set up the Duchess?
    1
  156. I'm willing to bet you've never been a real centurion. It's all about play acting isn't it? Nothing to get worked up about. It is a great watch and you'll forget about the casting once you get absorbed in the story, I'm sure.
    1
  157. Not really academic. Just explaining the plot since you asked.
    1
  158. Plenty of white people have played ethnic roles in the past. Did you complain about those?
    1
  159. No, but I'm not hung up about the ethnicity of actors playing parts.
    1
  160. Leighton Young. In drama, there is a suspension of disbelief which can happen if the acting and the production is good. For instance there is loads of historical inaccuracy in Shakespeare's history plays but he can be excused because he does it for the sake of making the drama better. I don't really require a Southern French woman to play Queen Margaret in order to believe her motivations,, and in Shakespeare's time there weren't even any women actors playing the female parts. No one troubled about that. There's no point in getting worked up about such things. It's a drama, not a history or a documentary.
    1
  161. The bit at the end was meant to be hammy so the audience knows she is being deliberately manipulative to set up the Duchess of Gloucester.
    1
  162. No. They are generous in allowing casting according to best actress regardless of background. remember Romans in Western films never seem to be played by Italians. It's a drama so a bit of poetic licence is allowed.
    1
  163. Nyctohylophiliac. Keep your hair on. It's only a play.
    1
  164. water baby. I think you mean "concerned to increase equality of opportunity". Both programmes were great by the way.
    1
  165. Luca Blavatsky's comment is silly and patently untrue. Your comment is equally silly and patently untrue. However culture is a constantly evolving thing and cross cultural influences have happened all throughout history. It's not like it's something you lock in a box to stop people from "stealing" it.
    1
  166. water baby. I meant what I said "equality of opportunity". I suppose "equality of outcome" would be a possible result of "equality of opportunity" but not necessarily. Anyway Shakespeare doesn't have great claims to historical accuracy either and it is a drama not a history programme. I think the BBC just wants wider audiences to enjoy and get engaged with Shakespeare including abroad in places like the USA which they can sell to. The French recently did a series about their own King Louis XIV called "Versailles", and they cast English actors in the lead parts and did it in English so that they could sell it to more countries abroad. In drama you have to suspend disbelief anyway. You imagine people as the characters they are playing.
    1
  167. It's not against white people you silly person
    1
  168. Untypical actually.
    1
  169. MRWorldGuy. Don't keep banging on. It's not racist either way.
    1
  170. Decanus Gaius Publius. I'm chilled now.
    1
  171. To be fair Margaret probably wouldn't have got so involved in the political situation if the King had been stronger but Henry was a weak King and sometimes suffered from mental illness. She did cause problems because she automatically assumed York was an enemy and always treated him as such. This turned him into an enemy. Her assessment of the political situation was based on how things worked in France and she may have been conscious that Henry's line had seized the throne by force rather than inheritance back in Henry IV's time (Henry VI's grandfather). England had had Magna Carta by this time which boosted the strength of the nobles. There's no evidence that the real Margaret was prone to "fake outbursts of emotion". That's just Shakespeare writing some dramatic scenes into the play.
    1
  172. Don't look to Shakespeare for historical accuracy. He changed things for dramatic purposes, and in his time Queen Margaret would have been played by a man. For history, read a history book or watch a documentary.
    1
  173. @Aisling What excuse? I'm not disagreeing with you.
    1
  174. Veles7. Actually it seems to be getting most views from English (and perhaps other) people objecting to the casting than from people rushing to see the play, so I'm not sure they banked on getting a greater audience through this casting, but undoubtedly felt they should cast her on merit.
    1
  175. This video is an eyesight test. Congratulations your eyesight is good.
    1
  176. Qu'importe.
    1
  177. Shakespeare a ecrit des drames. Ses histoires n'etaient pas precises. C'est pourquoi j'ai dit "Qu'importe", ou plutot n'importe.
    1
  178. Je connais Shakespeare tres bien aussi l'histoire. Mais en voyant le drame il faut suspend toujours l'incredulite.
    1
  179. J'aime beaucoup l'histoire et je la connais bien, mais je ne me trompe pas que l'histoire et la meme chose que le drame. Bonne journee a vous aussi mon petit lapin effraye.
    1
  180. Who is Mary? The Queen is called Margaret. Margaret is a manipulative Queen who wants to bring down the Gloucesters who have power over the King because the Duke of Gloucester is the Lord Protector (like a Regent). She sets up this scene then pretends to be upset at the consequences (the Duchess of Gloucester's threat of revenge) in order to justify the bringing down of the Gloucesters (which happens later on). Here is the first part of the bringing down of the Gloucesters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jjr5wjIiJ7E
    1
  181. That's o.k. I hope you understand what's really going on in the scene a bit better now.
    1
  182. For all the complainers. Here's a snippet of recent findings on the news. Early British man (Cheddar man) had dark skin and blue eyes it seems. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-42970067/cheddar-man-dna-shows-early-brit-had-dark-skin
    1
  183. h1 etc Why don't you stitch your mouth up and give us all a rest?
    1
  184. h1 etc Typical.
    1
  185. She's a very good actress. Here she is deliberately "play acting" to entrap the Duchess of Gloucester as a prelude to bringing down the Gloucesters.
    1
  186. A nation can't be cucked, only a person can.
    1
  187. No, she is manipulative and is putting on an act here. She is working to get rid of the Duchess and Duke of Gloucester as the Duke has control over the King. Here she is setting them up for a fall later on, by exposing them as a threat to the crown.
    1
  188. *wouldn't have or wouldn't've not wouldn't of
    1
  189. You do now because I've just said it. Of is a preposition and not part of a verb. It's "wouldn't have" or shortened to "wouldn't've". It sounds like "wouldn't of" when you say it, but it's "not wouldn't of", and not spelt that way. So many people seem not to know about constructing verb tenses these days. I don't know what schools are teaching.
    1
  190. Wow. Her English is better than yours.
    1
  191. Playing Shakespeare is not about DNA and profile matching. The French King in this play is not played by a Frenchman. Richard III is not played by a disabled actor with scoliosis. How many gentiles have played Shylock in The Merchant of Venice? No one complained when Orson Welles and Laurence Oliver played Othello, and in Shakespeare's time women were played by men.
    1
  192.  @zeusgiron784  You saved my faith in humanity.
    1
  193.  @zeusgiron784  Exactly
    1
  194. MRWorldGuy. Alessandro De Medici, Duke of Florence will be coming to have a word with you about whether black people existed in medieval Europe. Here are some images . There are more if you look for them too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alessandro_de%27_Medici,_Duke_of_Florence http://medievalpoc.tumblr.com/search/1400s https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/179581103870072466/?lp=true https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauresse_de_Moret http://afroeurope.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/history-of-black-people-in-europe.html https://za.pinterest.com/pin/456482112206780114/?lp=true https://art.blognook.com/2017/08/06/medievalpoc-workshop-of-girolamo-miseroni-cameo-with-black/
    1
  195. Though she may have been cast as she was the best actress at the audition.
    1
  196. What do you mean? This is fine acting.
    1
  197.  @unclepiccolo4832  It's not a trainwreck. It's brilliant. Have you actually watched the whole thing? I have.
    1
  198.  @unclepiccolo4832  You missed my point entirely. Whoosh! Anyway I don't know how you can judge something unwatchable without watching it. I wouldn't like to find myself in court with you in the jury.
    1
  199. It's your comment
    1
  200. It's a great performance.
    1
  201. Great performance
    1
  202. It's a piece of drama by Shakespeare. The incident probably never happened but is there for dramatic purposes. Eleanor was set up by Margaret here. Her downfall came later. Here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jjr5wjIiJ7E&t=15s
    1
  203. Shakespeare was a dramatist not a historian
    1
  204. I doubt it. The acting is good. You realise don't you that she is a manipulative character and her acting is meant to convey this to the audience. In this particular series of plays (The Hollow Crown) the actors have tried hard to make Shakespeare as understandable as they can for audiences who are perhaps unfamiliar with him and the language of his plays.
    1
  205. Don't judge on appearances alone. This is Shakespeare - much better than Philippa Gregory.
    1
  206. Decanus. There were actually some black people in Europe. The Romans had certainly brought black people into Italy. It was fashionable to have black servants. The Moors had also invaded southern Spain though as rulers they were later forced out. There must have been some others judging by the artwork. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=black+people+in+medieval+times&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqmKLCxYLZAhUGD8AKHUeRBrEQ_AUICigB&biw=1924&bih=954#imgrc=D0HwB96Yvn-eoM: and Shakespeare wrote about Othello (subtitled The Moor of Venice).
    1
  207. Decanus Gaius Publius. Sorry I couldn't be bothered writing it all out in full.
    1
  208. Decanus Gaius Publius. Romans had black people in the army and also as gladiators. There have been skeletons in England from Roman times (as the Romans invaded England) that have been DNA analysed and found to have origins from Africa. This is all a bit of a distraction. I'm not saying that Margaret was black but why can't some black actors have a bit of fun with Shakespeare? Are we so precious that we can't cope with that?
    1
  209. Here's a find. Google images of Alessandro De Medici, Duke of Florence. Here is his wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alessandro_de%27_Medici,_Duke_of_Florence
    1
  210.  @nl396  I care.
    1
  211. Why? Do you understand it?
    1
  212. No. Take your sunglasses off.
    1
  213. Read the very many similar questions and replies in the comments, if you can be bothered. I can't be bothered repeating myself.
    1
  214. Well it's not about replicating people's actual looks. It's a drama. Henry VI in reality looked much worse than the actor here.
    1
  215. No. Shakespeare.
    1
  216. Why?
    1
  217. I disagree. It doesn 't necessarily mean the casting excluded any group. She was probably the best actress they auditioned and that's why she got the part. This isn't a film. It's a TV series of Shakespeare plays. Why is race the most important characteristic to be accurate about? Shakespeare plays can never be 100% because the original characters are dead and no single person will be exactly the same as the original no matter what their race. With Shakespeare plays, you have to use your imagination.
    1
  218.  @nativevirginian8344  I never said she wasn't, but that doesn't mean she can't be played by any actress in a play. That's what acting is - being someone else during the play.
    1
  219. No. Skin colour in this drama is not significant except perhaps as a symbol that Margaret was a foreigner.
    1
  220.  @jokkergar  They didn't perhaps 'decide to change her race' so much as hire the best actress in the auditions, but her race does act as a metaphor for the fact that Margaret, as a Frenchwoman, was perceived as a foreigner and mistrusted by people on that account.
    1
  221. You noticed.
    1
  222. She was born that way
    1