Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Aristus

(66,529 posts)
Sat Sep 9, 2017, 12:35 AM Sep 2017

I finally got around to watching the BBC's "King Charles III". AMAZING!

For those who haven't seen it, it's like modern Shakespeare, right down to the structure of the dialogue. It's written in blank verse. But in the scenes set at the English court, the royal characters speak in a rhythm similar to iambic pentameter, whereas in scenes set elsewhere, and with non-royal characters, they speak in prose. This was the case with Shakespeare's Henry IV plays, parts I and II.

I was slack-jawed with amazement the whole time I was watching it.

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I finally got around to watching the BBC's "King Charles III". AMAZING! (Original Post) Aristus Sep 2017 OP
Ooh, sounds good. I will look for it. thx MLAA Sep 2017 #1
I am intrigued indeed. defacto7 Sep 2017 #2
I watched about the first fifteen minutes, and was slack-jawed with amazement PoindexterOglethorpe Sep 2017 #3
It was even further removed than that. Aristus Sep 2017 #4
Perhaps were I some 400 years removed PoindexterOglethorpe Sep 2017 #5
Oh well, Richard III didn't fare too well at the hands of historical drama, either. Aristus Sep 2017 #6
That's true. PoindexterOglethorpe Sep 2017 #7

PoindexterOglethorpe

(25,929 posts)
3. I watched about the first fifteen minutes, and was slack-jawed with amazement
Sat Sep 9, 2017, 02:20 AM
Sep 2017

at the Duchess of Cambridge character displaying a fundamental ignorance that Charles was king immediately upon the death of Elizabeth. She says that he won't be king until the coronation. Sigh. I had to stop watching, because what I was seeing was so far removed from reality.

Aristus

(66,529 posts)
4. It was even further removed than that.
Sat Sep 9, 2017, 11:00 AM
Sep 2017

The Duchess of Cambridge is portrayed as an ambitious, Machiavellian schemer. I'm sure the real Kate wasn't flattered. But since it was fiction, and the rest of the play was so astounding, I let it go...

PoindexterOglethorpe

(25,929 posts)
5. Perhaps were I some 400 years removed
Sat Sep 9, 2017, 11:13 AM
Sep 2017

from this era I'd have found it fascinating. But there's always a huge problem with fiction about current living people, and as far as I'm concerned it's rarely done well. For me it would have worked better had it been as an entirely fictional group of people, sort of an alternate universe kind of thing.

Oh well. To each his own.

Aristus

(66,529 posts)
6. Oh well, Richard III didn't fare too well at the hands of historical drama, either.
Sat Sep 9, 2017, 11:17 AM
Sep 2017

Shakespeare portrayed him as an ugly, hunchbacked monster, and that's how most people think of the real Richard.

The real Richard was a brave soldier, a talented general, a gifted administrator, and he looked like this:

PoindexterOglethorpe

(25,929 posts)
7. That's true.
Sat Sep 9, 2017, 11:31 AM
Sep 2017

But at least Shakespeare was writing more than a century after Richard died, so the sense of getting it wrong wouldn't have been quite so strong as it is with "Charles III".

Latest Discussions»The DU Lounge»I finally got around to w...