Podcast

Saturday, June 14, 2025

37 Days of Shakespeare, Day 33: King John (I’ve made it to the final five!)

The Life and Death of King John, first broadcast November 24th, 1984
  • When was it written? Who knows? Somewhere between 1587 (when Holinshed was published) and 1598 (when someone mentioned this play in print.) It’s possibly his thirteenth play.
  • What’s it about? After the death of his father Henry II and his brother Richard the Lionheart, weak King John is beset by enemies, including the French, who want their lands back, and the Pope, who wants more control over archbishops. His mom Eleanor of Aquitaine adopts Phillip, the bastard son of Richard, who becomes a loyal retainer of the king, even after Eleanor dies. John orders Arthur, a boy who is one of his rivals for the throne, killed, but then changes his mind, but then Arthur falls and dies while trying to escape, causing everyone to turn against John. John is poisoned by a monk and his son Henry becomes king. At no point is the Magna Carta signed!
  • Most famous dialogue: None
  • Sources: Holinshed, of course, but there was also a play around the same time published anonymously called The Troublesome Reign of King John. Either that one was based on this one or this one was based on that one.
  • Best insult: a beardless boy, a cock’red silken wanton
  • Best word: None stood out.
  • Best production of this play I’ve seen: I had never read it or seen it.
  • Notable Names in the BBC Adaptation: Claire Bloom is back, as Constance, and Phillida Law shows up as Lady Faulconbride.
How’s the cast?
  • They’re fine. Leonard Rossiter (who died before the show aired) is an appropriately arrogant Richard. George Costigan stands out as Phillip the Bastard.
How’s the direction by David Giles?
  • Tacky (see picture.) In interviews, Giles referred to his stylized sets as “emblematic” and “heraldic,” but they just look cheap. And there’s never any real sense that there’s a war going on. We get distant reports of battles, but with no immediacy.
Notes on Shakespeare’s most forgotten play:

The oddest thing about this play, is that it plays like a sequel to James Goldman’s 1966 play The Lion in Winter, but that’s a much better play. John and especially Eleanor are much more compelling there. It’s so odd to have Shakespeare playing second fiddle to another playwright.

This may be Shakespeare’s most forgotten play. To the degree that people on the street recognize the titles of Shakespeare plays, King John is the one they’re least likely to recognize. Does it deserve that fate? I would say no. The play is worth watching and not the weakest one I’ve seen as part of this series. The weakest thing about it is that so much of it (including all the fighting and John’s mysterious poisoning) happens off-stage.

The other big problem with this play is that, even though it’s a relatively early work, it’s already revisiting earlier, better plays. John is an odd combination of Henry VI (weakness in the face of the French) and Richard III (killing a kid to claim the throne) but not as compelling as either one. He doesn’t get a lot of soliloquies and generally lacks interiority. He ends up being somewhat unknowable.

Another oddity: John is primarily remembered for two things today, signing the Magna Carta and being one of the bad guys in the Robin Hood stories, but neither is mentioned in this play (though Robin Hood was name checked in the last play we looked at, The Two Gentlemen of Verona).

Storyteller’s Rulebook: Always Have an Exception to Your Rules

We’ve had lots of bad bastards in our 33 plays and no good ones, so I confidently declared earlier that there would be no exception to prove the rule, but not so fast! Shakespeare never wrote a play about Richard the Lionheart, but he does get to write about his bastard son here, and right away, he’s different from Shakespeare’s other bastards.

He’s witty, self-deprecating, and canny, quickly dropping his claim to legitimacy when he gets a better offer, then skillfully navigating choppy waters as things turn chaotic. He’s by far the most likable character in this play and our default hero.  He gets the concluding lines.  

Shakespeare was very supportive of primogeniture and traditional lines of succession, but here he shows us a way that even a bastard can make good, given some very unique circumstances. It’s always good for a writer to find ways to challenge their own prejudices.

2 comments:

Nathaniel said...

Re: the Robin Hood connection, setting Robin in the time of Richard the Lionheart and Prince John was an invention of the 16th century; the earliest extant ballads, printed around 1450, name Robin’s king as Edward (meaning Edward I, II, or III, we don’t know for sure which). The Elizabethans brought their own ideas to the Robin Hood legend. For example, it was Shakespeare’s contemporary Anthony Munday who invented the idea of Robin as the dispossessed Earl of Huntingdon, presumably because times had changed and an aristocratic hero was more appealing than Robin’s original status as a yeoman, sort of a respectable proto-middle class.

Matt Bird said...

Thanks for the info! I saw TTGOV's Robin Hood reference and assumed that the legend existed then in a similar form to how it exists now. It has always struck me that the version we have now is both a left wing fable (rob from the rich, give to the poor), and a right wing fable (nobleman fighting against unfair taxation)