After posting about the talk back performance that Carol and I saw last Wednesday I realized that I still hadn't said a lot about the play itself. I was a little surprised at the beginning of the talk back when Beverly Bullock asked if anyone had ever seen Part II before. She went on to say something about it not being performed very much or more typically conflated into Part I. That question is more commonly asked with regard to the Henry VI plays which are even less seldom performed both in England and in the US. The RSC's highly successful production that we saw in England (all three plays in one day - 9+ hours) has probably increased people's exposure to those plays, but I still think more people have seen Henry IV Part II.
There has been a lot scholarly speculation about why there are two parts to Henry IV. Some think it was originally intended to be one play, but there was too much material. Part of this is due to the fact that Part I ends with Hal having "redeemed the time" through his performance at Shrewsbury, but throughout Part II he is still seems to be in trouble with his father. Back when I first saw these plays in 1960-61 I read somewhere that Shakespeare wrote Part II because Part I was so much fun and I have always like that explanation.
After seeing Part II as part of Age of Kings I hadn't seen it again until this year. Back in 2003 we saw the Lincoln Center production of Henry IV which was a conflation of the two plays. I can understand why that is tempting for directors and producers. While Part I is by far superior, probably because it is the best history play ever written, there is a lot of good stuff in Part II especially towards the end. Since, as Peter Saccio once commented, little seems to happen at the beginning, it is fairly easy to cut a lot of it and tack the balance on to Part I. That probably is what temped Orson Welles to go that route in "The Chimes at Midnight," a conflated version of the two plays. I have only seen a few parts of that, but to me it was ghastly.
Anyway after having not seen Part II for over 40 years I have seen it three times in 2008. First on the BBC video with David Gwillim and Anthony Quayle in anticipation of our trip to England, then in England at the RSC and finally at Shakespearenyc. I have to say that the play has grown on me. While not as funny as Part I, the interaction between Falstaff and the Chief Justice is funny and the scenes in Gloucestershire are priceless. At the RSC production the actors playing Shallow and Silence were excellent when Shallow gave the "Hem boys" watchword, he suddenly raised his voice causing Silence to fall off his bench. Benjamin Curns who played Falstaff at the Shakespearenyc I thought, said the famous "We have heard the chimes at midnight" line better than I have heard it before. I am still waiting to hear someone do Feeble's passage, "We all owe God a death . ." the way I think it should be said.
Then, of course, there is Henry IV's soliloquy on sleep ending with the most famous line ever written about kingship, "Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown," all of which is a lead into the death bed scene and the transition of Hal to Henry V. As everyone knows the climax of the play is Hal's, now Henry V, rejection of Falstaff. I have now seen it played a number of different ways, David Gwillim played it in a way that was consistent with his treatment of Falstaff throughout both plays. Geoffrey Streatfeild played it reluctantly, knowing he had to do it, but seemingly reluctant to do so. He conveyed that by hesitating for a long time before saying the fateful - "I know you not. . ." In the talk back in New York Brian Morvant said that his reading of the part was similar to Geoff's (we're old friends - a Falstaffian like claim on my part!) although it wasn't as obvious from the way he played it or at least not to me.
The rejection is in large measure what determines people's reaction to Hal and even Henry V. One thing that I have noticed just recently is that the rejection isn't quite as complete and cold as one might think. Henry calls on Falstaff to repent as he has repented offering him possible future access if he does so. In addition he also offers to provide some sort of pension so that Falstaff is not reduced to poverty. If we look at Falstaff objectively somehow getting past his attractive features it is possible to see that he got better than he deserved.
If any evidence is needed of Shakespeare's brilliance it can be seen in how he took one play, the anonymous "Famous Victories of Henry V" and made it into three plays each of which is packed with fascinating stuff. Part II is an important part of what has been called the Henriad, something I appreciate much more than I did at the beginning of 2008.
There has been a lot scholarly speculation about why there are two parts to Henry IV. Some think it was originally intended to be one play, but there was too much material. Part of this is due to the fact that Part I ends with Hal having "redeemed the time" through his performance at Shrewsbury, but throughout Part II he is still seems to be in trouble with his father. Back when I first saw these plays in 1960-61 I read somewhere that Shakespeare wrote Part II because Part I was so much fun and I have always like that explanation.
After seeing Part II as part of Age of Kings I hadn't seen it again until this year. Back in 2003 we saw the Lincoln Center production of Henry IV which was a conflation of the two plays. I can understand why that is tempting for directors and producers. While Part I is by far superior, probably because it is the best history play ever written, there is a lot of good stuff in Part II especially towards the end. Since, as Peter Saccio once commented, little seems to happen at the beginning, it is fairly easy to cut a lot of it and tack the balance on to Part I. That probably is what temped Orson Welles to go that route in "The Chimes at Midnight," a conflated version of the two plays. I have only seen a few parts of that, but to me it was ghastly.
Anyway after having not seen Part II for over 40 years I have seen it three times in 2008. First on the BBC video with David Gwillim and Anthony Quayle in anticipation of our trip to England, then in England at the RSC and finally at Shakespearenyc. I have to say that the play has grown on me. While not as funny as Part I, the interaction between Falstaff and the Chief Justice is funny and the scenes in Gloucestershire are priceless. At the RSC production the actors playing Shallow and Silence were excellent when Shallow gave the "Hem boys" watchword, he suddenly raised his voice causing Silence to fall off his bench. Benjamin Curns who played Falstaff at the Shakespearenyc I thought, said the famous "We have heard the chimes at midnight" line better than I have heard it before. I am still waiting to hear someone do Feeble's passage, "We all owe God a death . ." the way I think it should be said.
Then, of course, there is Henry IV's soliloquy on sleep ending with the most famous line ever written about kingship, "Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown," all of which is a lead into the death bed scene and the transition of Hal to Henry V. As everyone knows the climax of the play is Hal's, now Henry V, rejection of Falstaff. I have now seen it played a number of different ways, David Gwillim played it in a way that was consistent with his treatment of Falstaff throughout both plays. Geoffrey Streatfeild played it reluctantly, knowing he had to do it, but seemingly reluctant to do so. He conveyed that by hesitating for a long time before saying the fateful - "I know you not. . ." In the talk back in New York Brian Morvant said that his reading of the part was similar to Geoff's (we're old friends - a Falstaffian like claim on my part!) although it wasn't as obvious from the way he played it or at least not to me.
The rejection is in large measure what determines people's reaction to Hal and even Henry V. One thing that I have noticed just recently is that the rejection isn't quite as complete and cold as one might think. Henry calls on Falstaff to repent as he has repented offering him possible future access if he does so. In addition he also offers to provide some sort of pension so that Falstaff is not reduced to poverty. If we look at Falstaff objectively somehow getting past his attractive features it is possible to see that he got better than he deserved.
If any evidence is needed of Shakespeare's brilliance it can be seen in how he took one play, the anonymous "Famous Victories of Henry V" and made it into three plays each of which is packed with fascinating stuff. Part II is an important part of what has been called the Henriad, something I appreciate much more than I did at the beginning of 2008.
2 comments:
Last year I atteded Henry IV parts 1 and 2 at the National theatre in London with Sir Michael Gambon as Falstaff. To say he was sublime is an understatement. He left us in no doubt that Falstaff was venal, idle, lazy and a coward and yet, at the same time, we knew how much he loved his boy, his Hal. When his rejection came at the end of part II, there was such a silence in the theatre everyone was afraid to breathe in case the spell was broken. A lot of tears as well. I spent six hours in the theatre and came out feeling as if I could sit through it all over again, Wonderful. Elaine (randomjottings)
Elaine,
Thanks for visiting and your comment. Carol and I had a similar reaction to nine plus hours of the Henry VI plays in Stratford as did the rest of the audience that stood and cheered.
John
Post a Comment