Shakespeare's Henry IV parts 1 and 2
Apr. 2nd, 2005 01:07 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
redfiona99Wherein I get my geek on.
I've just finished watching a version of Henry IV (I+II) with Ronald Pickup (Aslan if you've ever watch the Chronicles of Narnia) as Henry IV, Jonathan Firth as Prince Hal, Rufus Sewell as Hotspur and David Calder as Falstaff.
- Now there were a few technical problems in that Rufus Sewell seemed to think he was in a theatre so he was projecting at way too loud for the television, while everyone else was at normal volume while Prince Hal seemed to be whispering his every line so when he actually whispered you can imagine how quite that got. I lay all of this at the feet of the director.
- I also lay the way that everyone looked horribly similar at his feet.
- It was one of those productions were everyone (except Lancaster oddly enough) is made to look as unpleasant as possible so Henry IV was a weak ruler, Hal is a manipulative, cold, hard piece of work, Falstaff is an unpleasant, gross old man, Worcester is a Machiavellian monster and Hotspur has all the brains of mollusc. This makes it somewhat hard to root for either side. It also made it hard to feel anything - I am supposed to be saddened, nay horrified, when Hal sends Falstaff away but all I could think was why didn't he get rid of the old sot sooner.
- Hotspur's death was the most stupid death scene I have ever seen. Mainly because I refuse to believe that you can have dying, agonised words and then suddenly have a lights out death scene.
- Mum wants complain about whoever restructuring scenes and leaving whole bits out - said bit included John of Lancaster being even more sneaky and manipulative than everyone else, and a scene with Owen Glendwyr. And moving Hotspur's death from the end of part 1 to the middle of part 2 and then his father and wife over his corpse to the end of part 2.
- For all that I have complained about the directing he did come up with a one moment of brilliance. Right at the start, lifting text from Richard II, he has Richard II come down from a shining light that obscures everything but the crown, and then right at the end Henry V ascends up into said shiny light. They are the only times we get bright light in the whole play and it just works, especially if you consider that the whole of Richard II, Henry IV and half of Henry V are all about who deserves to be king and the qualities a king should have.
- Cutting the scene where John of Lancaster is sneaky worked in this because, from an added in scene at the start to the end, he was supposed to be the younger, kinder, less brilliant brother. It worked to make him a suitable foil for this quick, if cruel, witted Hal. It makes the way Hal says how much he's risen in his estimation at the battle seem a lot truer and the scene in the crypt works better.
Luckily, the thing with Shakespeare is, as long as you can say the words and the director doesn't cut everything out, you're okay.
Now on to the acting:
Rufus Sewell as Hotspur was good. For all that he blustered and shouted, this was a good man, who wanted, originally, only what was his by right. And he was manly, honourable and heroic where Hal was not. Plus he got a really good death speech before the stupid bit. That was one of the bits I liked.
Plus, and this amuses me, for all this is about 12, 13 years old, it was in the Radio Times preview for this that I first saw Rufus Sewell so Hotspur is the image of him I always conjure. So it's nice to finally see it.
Jonathan Firth as Prince Hal - I put him second, mainly because Jonathan Firth is one of my favourite actors so I know I'm not going to be unbiased in this.
His Hal wasn't the traditional rebellious son, they went with the text and he was cold and clever and ever so dangerous. Part 1 is one my Mum's favourite plays and she said this is the only time she's ever been scared of Hal. It works in one way because those few moments where he is sincere, with his brother, with Hotspur, with Poins and with his father, it shines through. His scenes with his father were especially good.
Now onto David Calder as Falstaff. In many ways, he was the one most hurt by the director's choice to make everyone a shade of grey. My introduction to Falstaff was Robbie Coltrane in Branagh's Henry V (insert obligatory 'watch this' rec) where yes, he was a drunk, yes he was mean-spirited on occasion but there was the wreck of a grand man there. He wasn't allowed to be that here, he was a base letch and a drunken sot with almost no redeeming features. The question wasn't why did Hal banish him, more why did Hal put up with him? (Okay this production answered it thus - Hal looked out the most unsuitable rogues to consort with so his eventual redemption would look all the better.)
But still despite this, he managed to be affecting, especially in the scene with Justice Shallow where he realises it's been 55 years since he was a boy at the inns of court. The actor managed to convey astonishment, dread at time passing, fear of suddenly more imminent seeming death and sadness at the wasted time, without a word.
Everyone else was as they should be, Henry IV jittery, John, backupish, Poins sneaky etc. Plus it had Corin Redgrave and Paul Eddington in, so if nothing else I would have watched it for them - and they were good BTW.
Two more notes:
Having not seen it before, and having the gravest doubts about the director, am I supposed to spend part 1 and the very beginning of part 2 thinking that Hal and Poins are doing it?
Henry IV, like the Merchant of Venice, is one of those plays where the title character isn't the main character and seems to be there only to react rather than act.
I've just finished watching a version of Henry IV (I+II) with Ronald Pickup (Aslan if you've ever watch the Chronicles of Narnia) as Henry IV, Jonathan Firth as Prince Hal, Rufus Sewell as Hotspur and David Calder as Falstaff.
- Now there were a few technical problems in that Rufus Sewell seemed to think he was in a theatre so he was projecting at way too loud for the television, while everyone else was at normal volume while Prince Hal seemed to be whispering his every line so when he actually whispered you can imagine how quite that got. I lay all of this at the feet of the director.
- I also lay the way that everyone looked horribly similar at his feet.
- It was one of those productions were everyone (except Lancaster oddly enough) is made to look as unpleasant as possible so Henry IV was a weak ruler, Hal is a manipulative, cold, hard piece of work, Falstaff is an unpleasant, gross old man, Worcester is a Machiavellian monster and Hotspur has all the brains of mollusc. This makes it somewhat hard to root for either side. It also made it hard to feel anything - I am supposed to be saddened, nay horrified, when Hal sends Falstaff away but all I could think was why didn't he get rid of the old sot sooner.
- Hotspur's death was the most stupid death scene I have ever seen. Mainly because I refuse to believe that you can have dying, agonised words and then suddenly have a lights out death scene.
- Mum wants complain about whoever restructuring scenes and leaving whole bits out - said bit included John of Lancaster being even more sneaky and manipulative than everyone else, and a scene with Owen Glendwyr. And moving Hotspur's death from the end of part 1 to the middle of part 2 and then his father and wife over his corpse to the end of part 2.
- For all that I have complained about the directing he did come up with a one moment of brilliance. Right at the start, lifting text from Richard II, he has Richard II come down from a shining light that obscures everything but the crown, and then right at the end Henry V ascends up into said shiny light. They are the only times we get bright light in the whole play and it just works, especially if you consider that the whole of Richard II, Henry IV and half of Henry V are all about who deserves to be king and the qualities a king should have.
- Cutting the scene where John of Lancaster is sneaky worked in this because, from an added in scene at the start to the end, he was supposed to be the younger, kinder, less brilliant brother. It worked to make him a suitable foil for this quick, if cruel, witted Hal. It makes the way Hal says how much he's risen in his estimation at the battle seem a lot truer and the scene in the crypt works better.
Luckily, the thing with Shakespeare is, as long as you can say the words and the director doesn't cut everything out, you're okay.
Now on to the acting:
Rufus Sewell as Hotspur was good. For all that he blustered and shouted, this was a good man, who wanted, originally, only what was his by right. And he was manly, honourable and heroic where Hal was not. Plus he got a really good death speech before the stupid bit. That was one of the bits I liked.
Plus, and this amuses me, for all this is about 12, 13 years old, it was in the Radio Times preview for this that I first saw Rufus Sewell so Hotspur is the image of him I always conjure. So it's nice to finally see it.
Jonathan Firth as Prince Hal - I put him second, mainly because Jonathan Firth is one of my favourite actors so I know I'm not going to be unbiased in this.
His Hal wasn't the traditional rebellious son, they went with the text and he was cold and clever and ever so dangerous. Part 1 is one my Mum's favourite plays and she said this is the only time she's ever been scared of Hal. It works in one way because those few moments where he is sincere, with his brother, with Hotspur, with Poins and with his father, it shines through. His scenes with his father were especially good.
Now onto David Calder as Falstaff. In many ways, he was the one most hurt by the director's choice to make everyone a shade of grey. My introduction to Falstaff was Robbie Coltrane in Branagh's Henry V (insert obligatory 'watch this' rec) where yes, he was a drunk, yes he was mean-spirited on occasion but there was the wreck of a grand man there. He wasn't allowed to be that here, he was a base letch and a drunken sot with almost no redeeming features. The question wasn't why did Hal banish him, more why did Hal put up with him? (Okay this production answered it thus - Hal looked out the most unsuitable rogues to consort with so his eventual redemption would look all the better.)
But still despite this, he managed to be affecting, especially in the scene with Justice Shallow where he realises it's been 55 years since he was a boy at the inns of court. The actor managed to convey astonishment, dread at time passing, fear of suddenly more imminent seeming death and sadness at the wasted time, without a word.
Everyone else was as they should be, Henry IV jittery, John, backupish, Poins sneaky etc. Plus it had Corin Redgrave and Paul Eddington in, so if nothing else I would have watched it for them - and they were good BTW.
Two more notes:
Having not seen it before, and having the gravest doubts about the director, am I supposed to spend part 1 and the very beginning of part 2 thinking that Hal and Poins are doing it?
Henry IV, like the Merchant of Venice, is one of those plays where the title character isn't the main character and seems to be there only to react rather than act.
