King Henry IV Part I - Act 1

Please post your comments on Act 1 in this thread.

Scene I

Scene II

Scene III

This first act immediately establishes the juxtaposition of the two major poles in the two Henry IV plays - the Court and the Tavern. The Court, which features characters of great nobility and rank, where such things as inheritance, name, and honor are important, is the world of verse, and is epitomized by the King, i.e. Pole 1.

Scene 1 picks up where Richard II left off. The people who assisted Henry IV's (Bolingbroke) ascension to the crown by deposing Richard, the Percys are the major threat to Henry IV's precarious power in this play, and the obvious implication by this is that since Henry achieved power by usurping the de jure, ordained king (Rich. II), and therefore achieved power by being more practical and powerful than the metaphysical and aloof Richard, his position is one that can be overthrown by just the same logic. Because Henry has not achieved the crown by ordained means, he is liable to be overthrown by the same rebellion as he employed.

Henry's goal, then, is to go on a Crusade - a war in a far distant land, for a cause all Englishmen can agree on. This will draw attention away from the surreptitious means that he employed to gain the throne, and focus all the attentions of all his would-be-usurpers on a war against a far off enemy. Obviously, Henry never reaches this goal, though rebellion is put down in both Henry IV plays, and it is only till Henry V that his son is able to unite all of England against the French at Agincourt.

These Henry plays trace the development of Prince Hal, who is introduced, along with Falstaff and the rest of the Tavern crew, in Scene II, who develops from the youth who wavers between two poles (Pole 1 - Henry IV, Pole 2 - Falstaff), into Henry V, who is basically undefeatable.

The Tavern of Scene 2 introduces Falstaff (my favorite of Shakespeare's characters), who dismantles and critiques all of the high pomp of the Court, and whose wit knows no bounds. Falstaff, an old, fat knight lives entirely for the moment, cares nothing for honor, and manages to get away with some very scathing critiques of the Prince, owing to his jovial nature, the Prince's equally competative wit, and ultimately, what I believe to be Falstaff's deep-down sincerity in his caring for Hal.

Falstaff and the Tavern is the world of the moon (owing to all the moon imagery in Scene II's back-and-forth), a world of the night, and the world of prose (which is all Falstaff speaks), which puts it in sharp distinction with the Court's world, in which the King is the sun. Hal's superb soliloquy at the end of Act 1, Scene II, establishes his ambivalent, complex character, forshadows his eventual repudiation of Falstaff, because, after all, Hal is the son/sun, and therefore cannot remain in the shadowy world of the Tavern. Hal is never drawn to either pole completely in this play - a careful equilibrium is maintained - Hal speaks in both verse and prose, but these things can not remain this way, as Part Two will show.

All of this has dealt with very little of the actual text, but I just wanted to lay down some growndwork for a discussion of the play, and then get into an actual close reading after.
Layout-

I - Court - Henry IV - establishment of precarious English peace
II - Tavern - Falstaff and Hal - establishment of Falstaff's band of thieves, Hal's mean streak, the Falstaff robbery storyline, and Hal's assurance that he will "break through the foul and ugly mists", aka the low, degenerate (but entertaining) lower class.
III - Court - main antagonist, Hotspur introduced - his fantastic story of why he did not bring the hostages to Henry, and his establishment as the action-oriented, manly, upholder of honor.

Thanks for getting the conversation going, mayneverhave. I was starting to think this play would pass by unnoticed. I'm glad someone picked it up, though, because I think it could be a good discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mayneverhave

Falstaff and the Tavern is the world of the moon (owing to all the moon imagery in Scene II's back-and-forth), a world of the night, and the world of prose (which is all Falstaff speaks), which puts it in sharp distinction with the Court's world, in which the King is the sun.

---

That's a good observation. Falstaff is always gesturing toward the moon--verbally, that is. I wonder whether he's trying to draw a connection between himself and the sublunary. He is very much "of the world" with his enjoyment of everything selfishness and his skepticism toward anything honorable. Earlier I was in a discussion on "The Man with the Blue Guitar" where the moon was pale, abstract, and idealized, but here in Henry IV it comes across as quite the opposite. Falstaff's moon is one that presides over theft and greed. It belongs to a selfish reality covered up by the sun and polite, civilized society. Interestingly, Falstaff argues that this second world is just as ordered as that represented by the sun. He says "Let us be Diana's/ foresters, gentlemen of the shade, minions of the moon,/ and let men say we be men of good government, being/ govern'd, as the sea is, by our novle and chaste mistress/ the moon, under whose countenance we steal." Just as in civilized society, the selfish sublunary world has its own government and subordination. One might be tempted to look at Falstaff's practice as simply chaotic, but he seems to believe there is as much order in the night as there is during the day--only it's a different order. He sees himself as one part of that order, and hopes that the moon will indulge him. Meanwhile, he only wants to be permitted by the sun. This is dramatized in his conversations with Hal. He needs to get Hal to acknowledge this second, lunar reality. In fact, one of his first lines tries for exactly that: "Let not us that are squire's of the night's body be call's/ thieves of the day's beauty." As you said above, this puts Hal in between two extremes. He can listen to either Falstaff or the king, can spend his time in either the court or the tavern, and can look to either the sun or the moon.

I'll say something more about Hal and his byplay with Falstaff tomorrow, but it's getting a little late tonight. Thanks again for starting us off, mayneverhave.

I posted something last night that was a partial response, but I didn't get to everything. Mayneverhave mentioned just about everything there is to mention in his first post, so it's a bit of work to catch up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mayneverhave

since Henry achieved power by usurping the de jure, ordained king (Rich. II), and therefore achieved power by being more practical and powerful than the metaphysical and aloof Richard, his position is one that can be overthrown by just the same logic. Because Henry has not achieved the crown by ordained means, he is liable to be overthrown by the same rebellion as he employed.

Henry's goal, then, is to go on a Crusade - a war in a far distant land, for a cause all Englishmen can agree on. This will draw attention away from the surreptitious means that he employed to gain the throne,

---

Yeah, Henry IV recognizes his weak position--that if one king can be overthrown through force, then surely another could be, too. And Henry doesn't even know the half of it. When you read the plays set after Richard II, you start to think that kingship, far from being a lengthy appointment, is more like a temp job. In Richard III alone, three more kings are de-kinged. Clearly, Henry IV suspicions turn out to be well-founded, and one could read the opening lines of the play in front of us as rather anxious. "The edge of war," he says hopefully "like an ill-sheathes knife,/ no more shall cut his master." Before that sentence Henry talked about the English people and its lands--all plurals--but here he switches to the singular "master," and I sense that he has the interest of just one person in mind now: himself.

I wouldn't write it off as just a politically savvy move by the king, though. Remember that back in Richard II he gives a different reason for his trip to Arabia "I'll make a voyage to the Holy Land,/ To wash this blood off from my guilty hands." Henry's venture in the middle-east may have as much to do with his soul as it does with his safety. Of course, I don't know how much we can take from Richard II and apply it to Henry IV. Shakespeare does change some details in between the plays. In this instance, he changes Henry's voyage from what sounds like a pilgrimage in Richard II to a crusade in Henry IV. The play Richard II just mentions that he's going to visit the holy land. I don't remember anything about chasing pagans from the field. Yet I still think that Henry's guilt is present in the later play, as well. We see it in his paranoid characterization of his son as the "hot vengeance, and rod of heaven" punishing him for usurping the throne. I think it motivates the speech at the start of this play, as well. The crusade is a rather complex move on Henry's part. It's partly motivated by political concerns, but it's also a personal quest for absolution.

What do you think about him breaking it off so quickly, though? We brought that up in the Richard II discussion, but I don't remember coming to any conclusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mayneverhave

These Henry plays trace the development of Prince Hal, who is introduced, along with Falstaff and the rest of the Tavern crew, in Scene II, who develops from the youth who wavers between two poles (Pole 1 - Henry IV, Pole 2 - Falstaff), into Henry V, who is basically undefeatable.

---

I think you're right to look at these plays together. Henry IV and Henry V--and also Richard II--have so much interlocking that they make a rather convincing whole. I know I mentioned before that some of the details change from one work to another, but the characters and themes do not. Not only do they continue from play to play, but they progress. Henry V is good example. In Henry IV, Hal and Falstaff establish the two poles you mentioned and quip back and forth about how each deals with the other. Their conversation in this play is a running commentary about the strengths and weakness of the realities represented by court and tavern, sun and moon. Falstaff will point out how insubstantial honor and valor are--that they're just words--and Hal shows how foolish self-interest can be. At the very introduction of these characters, they're already commenting on each other's position. Falstaff says he belongs to the moon, and Hal replies that "Thou sayest well, and it holds well too; for the/ fortune of us that are the moon's men doth ebb and/ flow like the sea"

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/d...ustration2.jpg
Sorry, couldn't think of one

Hal is showing that those who steal under the moon are not in control of their fortune. Anything you gain while the moon is out can be lost just as easily. This little observation starts off what becomes a long conversation on whether it's better to live under the sun or the moon. In Henry V, though, the clever back-and-forth is replaced by a synthesis. The character Henry V combines both the court's respectability and Falstaff's worldly awareness. Not only does he unite England, but he combines the two poles you mentioned. Henry V, the play (the italics are hardly noticeable), takes up the discussion in the previous play and moves beyond it--just as Henry IV continues the story of Richard II. It was a good decision to move onto this play after reading Richard II. Maybe we'll do Henry V after this. I know some people would like that. Janine mentioned Henry V as a favorite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mayneverhave

Falstaff, an old, fat knight lives entirely for the moment, cares nothing for honor, and manages to get away with some very scathing critiques of the Prince, owing to his jovial nature, the Prince's equally competative wit, and ultimately, what I believe to be Falstaff's deep-down sincerity in his caring for Hal.

---

Just about everyone in this play gets in a scathing critique. It's a very probing, critical play. Hal and the Falstaff mock each other, but there's also Hotspur mocking Glendower, the king attacking his son. Everyone apparently has something to say about each other. I think my favorite of them is when Hotspur is trying to deflate Glendower's ego. I feel like I've had that conversation so many times. I won't say whether I was Glendower or Hotspur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

Yeah, Henry IV recognizes his weak position--that if one king can be overthrown through force, then surely another could be, too. And Henry doesn't even know the half of it. When you read the plays set after Richard II, you start to think that kingship, far from being a lengthy appointment, is more like a temp job. In Richard III alone, three more kings are de-kinged.

---

Not only do these plays imply that the kingship is just a, as you put it, "temp job" - which it, of course, in all reality is - but this play, along with the rest of this tetralogy (and in this we could include all the plays that address royalty, i.e. Macbeth, Hamlet, King Lear, The Tempest, etc.) lead us to question the very right of kings, the temporality of earthly achievments, and the hypocrisy that is present in almost every level of society. Take Henry V (both the man and the play). Henry V ruled for a total 9 years, was arguably the greatest militaristic king in England's history, won the battle of Agincourt over the French (as depicted in the play), and then died, at which point his heirs were never able to duplicate his success, lost the claim to the French throne, and lost the throne of England to the House of York.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

Hal is showing that those who steal under the moon are not in control of their fortune. Anything you gain while the moon is out can be lost just as easily. This little observation starts off what becomes a long conversation on whether it's better to live under the sun or the moon. In Henry V, though, the clever back-and-forth is replaced by a synthesis. The character Henry V combines both the court's respectability and Falstaff's worldly awareness. Not only does he unite England, but he combines the two poles you mentioned. Henry V, the play (the italics are hardly noticeable), takes up the discussion in the previous play and moves beyond it--just as Henry IV continues the story of Richard II. It was a good decision to move onto this play after reading Richard II. Maybe we'll do Henry V after this. I know some people would like that. Janine mentioned Henry V as a favorite.

---

Read Hal's lines here just a bit closer.

Quote:

---

Thou sayest well, and it holds well too; for the
fortune of us that are the moon's men doth ebb and
flow like the sea, being governed, as the sea is,
by the moon. As, for proof, now: a purse of gold
most resolutely snatched on Monday night and most
dissolutely spent on Tuesday morning; got with
swearing 'Lay by' and spent with crying 'Bring in;'
now in as low an ebb as the foot of the ladder
and by and by in as high a flow as the ridge of the gallows.

---

Not only are those that steal by night subject to the ever changing fortunes of the tide, but their fortunes can lead them to nowhere but the gallows. The "low ebb" is the foot of the ladder leading to the gallows, and the "high" is the ridge. Falstaff quickly changes the subject.

Hal synthesis in Henry V, as you pointed out, occurs because of his great understanding of politics - the need to play a multitude of roles all at the same time, and thereby never lose at anything. The fact that Falstaff dies before Henry V, and is by degrees repudiated in Henry IV, Part Two eliminates any character that has the wits enough to criticize Hal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mayneverhave

Read Hal's lines here just a bit closer.

---

Well lets look at the entire Act closer. I know we've said quite a lot about the play in general, but we haven't really gotten down to the text as of yet. Maybe we should start with this part of scene ii since it seems like there's plenty to say about it. Here's some of the text:

Quote:

---

FALSTAFF
Marry, then, sweet wag, when thou art king, let not
us that are squires of the night's body be called
thieves of the day's beauty: let us be Diana's
foresters, gentlemen of the shade, minions of the
moon; and let men say we be men of good government,
being governed, as the sea is, by our noble and
chaste mistress the moon, under whose countenance we steal.

PRINCE HENRY
Thou sayest well, and it holds well too; for the
fortune of us that are the moon's men doth ebb and
flow like the sea, being governed, as the sea is,
by the moon. As, for proof, now: a purse of gold
most resolutely snatched on Monday night and most
dissolutely spent on Tuesday morning; got with
swearing 'Lay by' and spent with crying 'Bring in;'
now in as low an ebb as the foot of the ladder
and by and by in as high a flow as the ridge of the gallows.

FALSTAFF
By the Lord, thou sayest true, lad. And is not my
hostess of the tavern a most sweet wench?

PRINCE HENRY
As the honey of Hybla, my old lad of the castle. And
is not a buff jerkin a most sweet robe of durance?

FALSTAFF
How now, how now, mad wag! what, in thy quips and
thy quiddities? what a plague have I to do with a
buff jerkin?

PRINCE HENRY
Why, what a pox have I to do with my hostess of the tavern?

FALSTAFF
Well, thou hast called her to a reckoning many a
time and oft.

PRINCE HENRY
Did I ever call for thee to pay thy part?

FALSTAFF
No; I'll give thee thy due, thou hast paid all there.

PRINCE HENRY
Yea, and elsewhere, so far as my coin would stretch;
and where it would not, I have used my credit.

FALSTAFF
Yea, and so used it that were it not here apparent
that thou art heir apparent

---

I completely agree that Hal's gallows humor foreshadows Falstaff's repudiation and death. It's also Hal's way of fixing distance in between himself and Falstaff. There's an interesting movement between moments of closeness and distance in this scene, and I think you can see it in even this small part. The joking about punishment and death clearly puts Falstaff and Hal in different positions, but the mention later of Hal's money puts them back in the same position. Hal is using his money and even his credit--derived from future kingship--to finance both his own and Falstaff's revels. This makes them appear much more in league with each other than the morbid jokes earlier in the scene. We know where this will ultimately go, but right now Hal seems pretty undecided about what his relation to Falstaff is.

http://www.nigraphic.com/files/image...maranjab_1.jpg
Thread Desertification

Holy smokes! I didn't know you started this one yet. I will have to cheat and watch the BBC movie. I read the play years ago.

"Thread Desertification"
what's this?...Quark, you never cease to amaze me! Cool photo.....:lol:

Wait, is there no hope for this thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Holy smokes! I didn't know you started this one yet. I will have to cheat and watch the BBC movie. I read the play years ago.

---

I wonder if you can get that on YouTube? I'd be interested to see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

"Thread Desertification"
what's this?...

---

It's a visual reminder of the chance we're missing. If we don't discuss this play soon the next one will replace it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

I wonder if you can get that on YouTube? I'd be interested to see it.

---

You probably can; not much you can't find on there. Just look it up in seach; BBC production. I have a channel page on there and tons of playlists stored by now. If I find it, I can mark it in one of the files. I love Youtube!

Quote:

---

It's a visual reminder of the chance we're missing. If we don't discuss this play soon the next one will replace it.

---

Yeah, I know it. I hope she does not post the next one, when we didn't start this one or hardly got it off the ground. I knew we bit off more than we all could chew. It's always that way. Doing all of the history plays is pretty challenging.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

You probably can; not much you can't find on there. Just look it up in seach; BBC production. I have a channel page on there and tons of playlists stored by now. If I find it, I can mark it in one of the files. I love Youtube!

---

Yeah, I found it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zxtyGpzWco

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I knew we bit off more than we all could chew. It's always that way. Doing all of the history plays is pretty challenging.

---

That's probably true. Doing these plays is a lot more challenging than the five to twenty page short stories we usually attempt. If you do make you way through Henry IV, though, let me know. I'd be more than willing to post on the play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

Yeah, I found it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zxtyGpzWco

---

Oh good; glad you found it. I started to look last night and guess what? I got side-tracked with other videos - happens to me all the time.:rolleyes: It did look like it was listed though. Enjoy watching it. Maybe I will watch that tonight. Last night, I watched the 1937 film "Lost Horizons" and loved it; recall seeing it years ago, but not in 1937 :lol:! Ever see it, Quark? Wow, I kept thinking of Lawrence's ideas of a peaceful utopian society. It was quite interesting. I recall loving the book, too. Maybe I will write something up in 'Movie' thread later tonight.

Quote:

---

That's probably true. Doing these plays is a lot more challenging than the five to twenty page short stories we usually attempt. If you do make you way through Henry IV, though, let me know. I'd be more than willing to post on the play.

---

It is more difficult I think; history is never simply either or drama of Shakespeare's plays.

Ok, I will do that....:nod:

You know. I'm in need of a good lit discussion. Though I've currently got two novels running at the same time, perhaps I'll try to read this play and join you guys. But I'll need at least this weekend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Last night, I watched the 1937 film "Lost Horizons" and loved it; recall seeing it years ago, but not in 1937 :lol:! Ever see it, Quark?

---

No, I haven't seen that one, but classic movies are great. I actually just finished watching "Lawrence of Arabia" for the first time--another great classic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

It is more difficult I think; history is never simply either or drama of Shakespeare's plays.

---

That might be the case. The history plays have so much backstory, but I think after doing so many of these we're starting to get the chronology down. Richard II and Henry IV almost overlap so one doesn't need too much outside information to appreciate what's going on here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Ok, I will do that....:nod:

---

Excellent. I was starting to doubt we were going to get this discussion in before the next play is announced. I tried to guilt people into posting with my passive-agressive picture and caption above, but I figured it would just get ignored. If it works, though, I just going to keep doing it.

http://felixgilman.com/wordpress/wp-.../04/kitten.jpg
Kittens will be harmed if this discussion doesn't happen!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

You know. I'm in need of a good lit discussion. Though I've currently got two novels running at the same time, perhaps I'll try to read this play and join you guys. But I'll need at least this weekend.

---

Sounds good. Nothing will probably materialize until next week anyway. We decided to do this only yesterday so I'm not even ready to start discussing yet.

Great!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

No, I haven't seen that one, but classic movies are great. I actually just finished watching "Lawrence of Arabia" for the first time--another great classic.

---

I invested in the movie, because I was at B&N the other night looking through their bargain shelves and spied it...only $9.99. I knew it was great because I loved it as a kid. I didn't go wrong one bit...well worth the money; I will definitely be viewing this film more than once.

"Lawrence of Arabian" is one of my alltime favorite films! I love films by David Lean. He was a genius and an artist. I love these and own them, too, along with LOA - "A Passage to India", "Ryan's Daughter"; my library has "Bridge Over the River Kwai"; and the library just got in "Dr. Zhivago".

Quote:

---

That might be the case. The history plays have so much backstory, but I think after doing so many of these we're starting to get the chronology down. Richard II and Henry IV almost overlap so one doesn't need too much outside information to appreciate what's going on here.

---

That is so true. That's right. Those plays do overlap - sort of a part one and a part 2. I read all the plays a few years back. I loved them all.

Quote:

---

Excellent. I was starting to doubt we were going to get this discussion in before the next play is announced. I tried to guilt people into posting with my passive-agressive picture and caption above, but I figured it would just get ignored. If it works, though, I just going to keep doing it.

http://felixgilman.com/wordpress/wp-.../04/kitten.jpg
Kittens will be harmed if this discussion doesn't happen!

---

Ahhh.. I want that kitten! She/he is so cute.....

Quote:

---

Sounds good. Nothing will probably materialize until next week anyway. We decided to do this only yesterday so I'm not even ready to start discussing yet.

---

It will nice - the three of us again. We are the die-hards in Shakespeare. :lol:

Yes, sorry for being away from this thread for so long.

I honestly want to do a more thorough job on this play, as it is one of my favorites. No one else posting, however, made it feel like less of a discussion than Quark and I lecturing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mayneverhave

Yes, sorry for being away from this thread for so long.

I honestly want to do a more thorough job on this play, as it is one of my favorites. No one else posting, however, made it feel like less of a discussion than Quark and I lecturing.

---

That is good to hear!
hahha....mayneverhave, I like your last line. I hope that Virgil and I will join in with the two of you lecturers! Virgil said he needed the weekend to read the play and I was going to watch the film on the weekend since I read the play already. I hope if we start about Monday to discuss that will work out for everyone. It should be such an interesting play to discuss. I am partial to the 'Henry' History plays myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mayneverhave

Yes, sorry for being away from this thread for so long.

I honestly want to do a more thorough job on this play, as it is one of my favorites.

---

I've been wanting to get back into this play, too. It really is one of the better ones, and, while I like Richard II and Winter's Tale, Henry IV is much closer to being a favorite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Virgil said he needed the weekend to read the play and I was going to watch the film on the weekend since I read the play already. I hope if we start about Monday to discuss that will work out for everyone.

---

I may have to wait until Tuesday to post. On Monday I have three classes and probably won't have time to post anything too long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

That is good to hear!
hahha....mayneverhave, I like your last line. I hope that Virgil and I will join in with the two of you lecturers! Virgil said he needed the weekend to read the play and I was going to watch the film on the weekend since I read the play already. I hope if we start about Monday to discuss that will work out for everyone. It should be such an interesting play to discuss. I am partial to the 'Henry' History plays myself.

---

Might I also recommend Gus Van Sant's film, My Own Private Idaho, which is a loose adaptation of this play, with, unfortunately, Keanu Reeves in the Hal role.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

I've been wanting to get back into this play, too. It really is one of the better ones, and, while I like Richard II and Winter's Tale, Henry IV is much closer to being a favorite.

I may have to wait until Tuesday to post. On Monday I have three classes and probably won't have time to post anything too long.

---

Yeah, :banana:, I watched the BBC production last night and I really liked it. It's hard to fully understand all the political stuff; but maybe, you guys can all enlighten me on that score, when we start discussing it. I like this play, also because Prince Hal finally makes his appearance and I am sort of fond of Prince Hal; Falstaff also is so interesting. I love Henry V best, but these plays leading up to Henry V have to be read first to really appreciate Henry V.

To see a great film adaption of Henry IV, see Chimes at Midnight directed by Orson Welles, who also plays Falstaff. Best Falstaff I've seen! It's available for free on google video.

I've written an essay, half of it concerned the very subject of of Falstaff's outlook on life and his relationship with Hal. The other half being a comparison of Falstaff with an analysis of Hamlet. I won't post it here since it's too long for this thread.

Find it here on my blog:

http://danielbenoit.blog.com/falstaf...ife-and-death/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mayneverhave

unfortunately, Keanu Reeves in the Hal role.

---

He's rather unfortunately starred in a few Shakespeare plays, hasn't he? He was in a version of Much Ado About Nothing, and I thought he was in something else too. His blank facial expression and monotone didn't do much for either if I remember.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Yeah, :banana:, I watched the BBC production last night and I really liked it. It's hard to fully understand all the political stuff; but maybe, you guys can all enlighten me on that score, when we start discussing it.

---

Really all you need to know for the first Act is that Hal has been fighting elsewhere. Meanwhile, Northumberland and Worcester feel that the King is slighting them--even though they helped him to the throne. They're all part of the Percy family which is becoming increasingly alienated from Henry IV. Mortimer was the next in line to be king under Richard II, but lost his place when Henry IV took over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

To see a great film adaption of Henry IV, see Chimes at Midnight directed by Orson Welles, who also plays Falstaff. Best Falstaff I've seen! It's available for free on google video.

---

That sounds interesting. I'm guessing it's the later, more rotund Orson Welles playing Falstaff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

To see a great film adaption of Henry IV, see Chimes at Midnight directed by Orson Welles, who also plays Falstaff. Best Falstaff I've seen! It's available for free on google video.

I've written an essay, half of it concerned the very subject of of Falstaff's outlook on life and his relationship with Hal. The other half being a comparison of Falstaff with an analysis of Hamlet. I won't post it here since it's too long for this thread.

Find it here on my blog:

http://danielbenoit.blog.com/falstaf...ife-and-death/

---

Daniel, that is my favorite moment in Hamlet - your post quote.....We defy augury....

Your essay sounds interesting; I will have to check it out. Hamlet is my favorite play and fascination. Comparing Falstaff to Hamlet should prove interesting.

Quark, yes, Keanu Reeves played the villanous brother of Don Pedro in Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing. I so agree; he was totally flat, his performance was lacking greatly. I can't even fathom him playing Prince Hal eeek. I could not bear to see it; sorry mayneverhave. I just think he is not the actor to play Hal. He can't do Shakespeare, period!

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

Quote:

---

To see a great film adaption of Henry IV, see Chimes at Midnight directed by Orson Welles, who also plays Falstaff. Best Falstaff I've seen! It's available for free on google video.

---

Daniel, that is interesting; I never knew he played Falstaff. I liked Orson Welles' version of Macbeth; although, it's a very dark film. I thought it was entirely interesting and intense though. Ever see it? The set design was quite impressive for the day. The acting was quite good.

I watched the second half of Henry IV tonight; even though, I know that we are not doing that part yet. I couldn't help myself. I had to see Prince Hal become king and get crowned. I found both plays a little difficult to totally grasp with all the wit and peasant language. I may have to read them both again. They both were quite good, but long; both were the BBC productions, part of the History series. Same actor for Hal in each; he was very good; cute looking, too. haha...That's a woman's perspective for you! ;)

Quark, thanks for your quick synopsis on the political factions. I should have read my synopsis in my book. I think I will do so tonight and for the other play/half, too.

Quote:

---

Daniel, that is interesting; I never knew he played Falstaff. I liked Orson Welles' version of Macbeth; although, it's a very dark film. I thought it was entirely interesting and intense though. Ever see it? The set design was quite impressive for the day. The acting was quite good.

---

No, but I've been meaning too, it's so hard to find. Too bad Orson Welles and Laurence Oliver never collaborated. . . . .

By the way, I wasn't aware that the set design was that good. From what I've heard, the set design was made on a very low budget with props that revealingly looked like papier-maches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

He's rather unfortunately starred in a few Shakespeare plays, hasn't he? He was in a version of Much Ado About Nothing, and I thought he was in something else too. His blank facial expression and monotone didn't do much for either if I remember.

---

I was actually just watching Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing today (not the first time I've seen it), and I enjoyed most of the cast, most surprisingly Denzel Washington as Don Pedro, but every line Keanu Reeves delivered was stripped of all of Shakespeare's exuberance.

Quote:

---

Really all you need to know for the first Act is that Hal has been fighting elsewhere. Meanwhile, Northumberland and Worcester feel that the King is slighting them--even though they helped him to the throne. They're all part of the Percy family which is becoming increasingly alienated from Henry IV. Mortimer was the next in line to be king under Richard II, but lost his place when Henry IV took over.

---

Actually, Hal is not off fighting elsewhere, but is already a dissolute tavern-goer. From RII, Act 5, Scene 3:

HENRY BOLINGBROKE

Can no man tell me of my unthrifty son?
'Tis full three months since I did see him last;
If any plague hang over us, 'tis he.
I would to God, my lords, he might be found:
Inquire at London, 'mongst the taverns there,
For there, they say, he daily doth frequent,
With unrestrained loose companions,
Even such, they say, as stand in narrow lanes,
And beat our watch, and rob our passengers;
Which he, young wanton and effeminate boy,
Takes on the point of honour to support
So dissolute a crew.

This is important because it prepares us for the Hal we find in Henry IV. Not the robust son Henry can be proud of (at which the King remarks that Hotspur is more his son than Hal), but a thief and degenerate, and (in Hal's own words): "a devil haunts thee in the likeness of an old fat man; a tun of man is thy companion."

Quote:

---

That sounds interesting. I'm guessing it's the later, more rotund Orson Welles playing Falstaff.

---

From what I've read, Orson Welles actually had to lose weight to play Falstaff, if you can believe it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

sorry mayneverhave. I just think he is not the actor to play Hal. He can't do Shakespeare, period!

---

The movie's worth watching simply for the performance of River Phoenix. It's not a straight adaptation anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mayneverhave

Actually, Hal is not off fighting elsewhere

---

I meant Hotspur. I wrote that post a little too quickly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

No, but I've been meaning too, it's so hard to find. Too bad Orson Welles and Laurence Oliver never collaborated. . . . .

By the way, I wasn't aware that the set design was that good. From what I've heard, the set design was made on a very low budget with props that revealingly looked like papier-maches.

---

Daniel, most likely it was low-budge. I maybe should not have made that statement. If you like old films then you overlook the fact they are not very realistic. Today's films have the advantage of computer graphics and manipulation, even restoration. I only saw Welle's Macbeth from an old VHS copy from my local library. It was so dark a film, to be honest with you, I couldn't make out what anything was made from. Perhaps it was paper-mache! That is pretty funny. I do however like the admosphere that was achieved. I think one is diverted from inspecting the set design too closely by the intensity of the story and acting. I just recall a scene looking off a cliff that was rather awesome, even though one knew realistically it was not realistic. The set feels more like a stage design. In that respect I found it intersting for an old film. Now when I see the film again, I know I will be looking for the paper-mache! haha...

Well, the set for Olivier's Hamlet is quite bare and articical, as well, obviously done in the studio. I must now prefer the set design presented in later productions, such as Branagh's full length Hamlet film, in which the set design is very rich and full and feels more realistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mayneverhave

I was actually just watching Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing today (not the first time I've seen it), and I enjoyed most of the cast, most surprisingly Denzel Washington as Don Pedro, but every line Keanu Reeves delivered was stripped of all of Shakespeare's exuberance.

---

I own the movie and everytime I watch it, which is often, I want to blur him out of my memory. I keep trying to find some merit in that performance, but I am afraid even with repeat viewings, I only cringe more. It is good his part is not too long. Otherwise he would have ruined the film.
Just curious, mayneverhave, did you like the performance of Michael Keaton? I was ambivalent and still am about his portrayal of Dogberry. Otherwise, I find the film a great lot of fun. I am a big Branagh fan; so if there are any 'Ken bashers' here, please :bawling: refrain....hahaha...I agree that Denzel Washington was wonderful in this role. I love his work, too. I very much liked the rest of the cast, many are Branagh regulars or later became so, so that they all worked very well together.

Quote:

---

Actually, Hal is not off fighting elsewhere, but is already a dissolute tavern-goer. From RII, Act 5, Scene 3:

HENRY BOLINGBROKE

Can no man tell me of my unthrifty son?
'Tis full three months since I did see him last;
If any plague hang over us, 'tis he.
I would to God, my lords, he might be found:
Inquire at London, 'mongst the taverns there,
For there, they say, he daily doth frequent,
With unrestrained loose companions,
Even such, they say, as stand in narrow lanes,
And beat our watch, and rob our passengers;
Which he, young wanton and effeminate boy,
Takes on the point of honour to support
So dissolute a crew.

This is important because it prepares us for the Hal we find in Henry IV. Not the robust son Henry can be proud of (at which the King remarks that Hotspur is more his son than Hal), but a thief and degenerate, and (in Hal's own words): "a devil haunts thee in the likeness of an old fat man; a tun of man is thy companion."

---

I thought the same thing. I didn't see where the play once mentioned Hal having fought any true battles. In reality, I think I did once read part of the true history and Harry did go and fight abroad a number of times; or at least, working up to Henry V's reign and the battle of Agincourt....perhaps that is what I am thinking of. That would make more sense. In Henry IV Part I, he did fight and kill Henry Percy.

Quote:

---

From what I've read, Orson Welles actually had to lose weight to play Falstaff, if you can believe it.

---

Wow, seriously? He must have weighted a great deal. How did Welles die? Was it heartattack?

Quote:

---

The movie's worth watching simply for the performance of River Phoenix. It's not a straight adaptation anyway.

---

Which movie features River Phoenix? The newer version Daniel mentioned of this play...Chimes at Midnight?

When will be start discussing and how will we discuss, scene by scene or act by act?

Quark, I can see how you mixed up the two Henry's; easy to do. I was thinking of looking up some commentary online, to fill in the background story on the political stuff going on from the start; I find that a little confusing and it continues on in the next play. Did you read Henry IV Part I yet, Quark?

Here's some interesting information, much of it background on the play:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_IV,_Part_1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Wow, seriously? He must have weighted a great deal. How did Welles die? Was it heartattack?

---

I think it might've been the other way around, that he needed a fat-suit in order to look heavier. Either way, Welles was a big fellow throughout his whole life and despite surpassing the limits of the imagination in obesity, he lived to be 70 (which still is relatively young, I suppose), dying of. . . . .a heart-attack.

Quote:

---

Which movie features River Phoenix? The newer version Daniel mentioned of this play...Chimes at Midnight?

---

My Own Private Idaho is the one starring River Phoenix and Keanu Reeves. It is directed by Gus van Sant and is very loosely based on the first part of Henry IV and contains none of Shakespeare's language. But it is a very good film and certainly worth watching anytime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

I think it might've been the other way around, that he needed a fat-suit in order to look heavier. Either way, Welles was a big fellow throughout his whole life and despite surpassing the limits of the imagination in obesity, he lived to be 70 (which still is relatively young, I suppose), dying of. . . . .a heart-attack.

---

Gee, I'm a good guesser. I guess he got rounder as the years went by. Maybe he did have to wear a suit to look heavier. I can't imagine he would have to lose weight to play Falstaff. I favor Robby Coltrane, who makes a brief appearance as Falstaff in Kenneth Branagh's Henry V. In reality, he does not appeart in Henry V; but Branagh cleverly intersperses some flashback scenes and a visual to account for his death scene, which gives the film more scope and depth. A shame Henry IV - both parts - was not also made; Coltrane could have played Falstaff. I am sure he would have given a great performance. I am not that thrilled over the performance on the BBC set of Falstaff by Anthony Quayle. He seems to visually fit the part, but oftimes I could not quite catch what he was saying; he sometimes mumbled. I just couldn't take to him, as much as I tried. I thought his performance a bit tiresome at times and I didn't find him that likable, even though, he is such a roughish and obsurdly humorous character. I didn't realise just how huge a part it was for Falstaff until now.

Quote:

---

My Own Private Idaho is the one starring River Phoenix and Keanu Reeves. It is directed by Gus van Sant and is very loosely based on the first part of Henry IV and contains none of Shakespeare's language. But it is a very good film and certainly worth watching anytime.

---

I have heard of that film; however, I never knew their was any connection. Someday, I will have to check it out. Interesting to know.

I found these online and thought they were interesting...a few visuals to pep up this thread:
Title Page, First Folio
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p...title_page.jpg

First Folio
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p...romFirstFo.jpg

Falstaff and Prince Hal
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p...-and-Princ.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mayneverhave

I was actually just watching Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing today (not the first time I've seen it), and I enjoyed most of the cast, most surprisingly Denzel Washington as Don Pedro, but every line Keanu Reeves delivered was stripped of all of Shakespeare's exuberance.

---

Despite Keanu, it was a good version. Denzel Washington was excellent as Don Pedro, and it was pretty well directed. They also added some funny gags.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mayneverhave

From what I've read, Orson Welles actually had to lose weight to play Falstaff, if you can believe it.

---

That must have hurt. Being told you're too fat to play Falstaff is quite an insult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

When will be start discussing and how will we discuss, scene by scene or act by act?

---

I'm ready to start whenever. The threads are devoted to Acts so I guess we'll discuss Act by Act. I'd like to start at the beginning of each Act and work toward the end, if that's possible, though. That make it a little easier for me to keep track of where we are in the play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Did you read Henry IV Part I yet, Quark?

---

Yeah, I read it about a month ago when mayneverhave and I started discussing the play, so I'm more than ready to join in now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Here's some interesting information, much of it background on the play:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_IV,_Part_1

---

Good find Janine. This part is particularly helpful:

Quote:

---

Henry Bolingbroke – now King Henry IV – is having an unquiet reign. His personal disquiet at the means whereby he gained the crown – by deposing Richard II – would be solved by a journey or crusade to the Holy Land to fight Muslims, but broils on his borders with Scotland and Wales prevent that. Moreover, his guilt causes him to mistreat the Earls Northumberland and Worcester, heads of the Percy family, and Edmund Mortimer, the Earl of March. The first two helped him to his throne, and the third was proclaimed by Richard, the former king, as his rightful heir.

Adding to King Henry's troubles is the behaviour of his son and heir, the Prince of Wales. Hal (the future Henry V) has forsaken the Royal Court to waste his time in taverns with low companions. This makes him an object of scorn to the nobles and calls into question his royal worthiness. Hal's chief friend and foil in living the low life is Sir John Falstaff. Fat, old, drunk, and corrupt as he is, he has a charisma and a zest for life that captivates the Prince, born into a world of hypocritical pieties and mortal seriousness.

The play has three groups of characters that interact slightly at first, and then come together in the Battle of Shrewsbury, where the success of the rebellion will be decided. First there is King Henry himself and his immediate council. He is the engine of the play, but usually in the background. Next there is the group of rebels, energetically embodied in Harry Percy – Hotspur – and including his father (Northumberland) and lead by his uncle Thomas Percy (Worcester). The Scottish Earl of Douglas, Edmund Mortimer and the Welshman Owen Glendower also join. Finally, at the center of the play are the young Prince Hal and his companions Falstaff, Poins, Bardolph, and Peto. Streetwise and pound-foolish, these rogues manage to paint over this grim history in the colours of comedy.

As the play opens, the king is angry with Hotspur for refusing him most of the prisoners taken in a recent action against the Scots at Holmedon

---

The only thing that might be a little too interpretative to be called background is the reason Wikipedia gives for Henry IV slighting the Percy family. I think guilt has something to do with it, but one could argue that Henry IV just used that family as a stepping stone. Now that they're no longer useful he doesn't see any reason to favor them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

I've written an essay, half of it concerned the very subject of of Falstaff's outlook on life and his relationship with Hal. The other half being a comparison of Falstaff with an analysis of Hamlet. I won't post it here since it's too long for this thread.

---

Good essay, DanielBenoit. It will be interesting to see what gets said when we get to scene ii, though, as I think you and mayneverhave see Falstaff in very different ways.


Oh, and check out the images Janine just posted--some cool textual stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

Despite Keanu, it was a good version. Denzel Washington was excellent as Don Pedro, and it was pretty well directed. They also added some funny gags.

---

Did you like Michael Keaton then? I thought he went a little 'over-the-top'; but he was quite funny at times. Best line was insisting they all refer to him as an a--! It was a good film and very entertaining, plus beautifully staged and filmed.

Quote:

---

That must have hurt. Being told you're too fat to play Falstaff is quite an insult.

---

Really...

Quote:

---

I'm ready to start whenever. The threads are devoted to Acts so I guess we'll discuss Act by Act. I'd like to start at the beginning of each Act and work toward the end, if that's possible, though. That make it a little easier for me to keep track of where we are in the play.

---

Good plan; that way I or anyone else won't get too confused. I re-watched Act I again and only a little of Act II. I now have Act I pretty much in my mind and am ready to disguss it. Today I have to go out for most of the day and evening. Start if you wish and I will catch up; or wait till tomorrow, when I will hopefully be at home.

I also admit that last night, I sneaked a peek into the Henry V BBC play, just to see how the actor, who played Hal, had changed between the plays. I have to say they chomped his hair off, gave him a queer short bob/bowl cut and now he doesn't look quite as cute. Oh well, I guess he is made to look more kingly looking. Also, why BBC insists on putting these kings into sissy clothes is beyond me. He looked great in street clothes of the period and in the wooing scene with Katherine he looked a little efeminine in that silly heavy brocade...eek.

One comment; this Henry V version can't compare with the amazing one by Branagh, even if some of the text is slightly cut; these parts can be tetious anyway. The Branagh version portrays much more emotional impact. The scenes are lighted better and impart more drama. Lastly, who can beat a cast that included Judy Dench, Derek Jacobi, Christian Bale and Ken Branagh himself, not to mention many other fine actors from stage and screen?

Quote:

---

Yeah, I read it about a month ago when mayneverhave and I started discussing the play, so I'm more than ready to join in now.

---

Great! So you both are ready to go.

Quote:

---

Good find Janine. This part is particularly helpful:

---

I thought they were of interest. I may have more photos of those paintings of Falstaff. I will check my offline files.

Quote:

---

The only thing that might be a little too interpretative to be called background is the reason Wikipedia gives for Henry IV slighting the Percy family. I think guilt has something to do with it, but one could argue that Henry IV just used that family as a stepping stone. Now that they're no longer useful he doesn't see any reason to favor them.

---

On second viewing last night, I could see your point about this. Glad I read what you wrote first. I think Richard did act a bit paranoid about losing his crown to the other family. We can discuss that when we get to it. It has a lot to do with his insecurity about his own son as compared to Henry Percy. He is definitely at a time of declining health and he is feeling very insecure in his own power.

Quote:

---

Good essay, DanielBenoit. It will be interesting to see what gets said when we get to scene ii, though, as I think you and mayneverhave see Falstaff in very different ways.

---

Oh, I must read that. It sound entirely interesting to me because I love Hamlet.

Quote:

---

Oh, and check out the images Janine just posted--some cool textual stuff.

---

Thanks for pointing that out to the rest of the gang, Quark. You know me. I like illustrations!

Thanks Quark! From what I've read at the begining of the thread, I do think that mayneverhave and I do have some differences in opinion concerning Falstaff. But I think we both recognize that he is one of the most well written characters in all of Shakespeare.

Amazing find Janine! I escpecially liked the old illustration of Falstaff and Hal, that's from the First Folio as well?

I'm ready to start the discussion when everybody else is, what's funny is that almost this entire thread has been in preparation for discussing Act I. I'm currently reading another novel so I might not be here all the time, but I'll try my best to contribute. By the way, is there a moderator here or something? who starts the discussion? Or is it just a free for all, and we just start whenever we want?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

Thanks Quark! From what I've read at the begining of the thread, I do think that mayneverhave and I do have some differences in opinion concerning Falstaff. But I think we both recognize that he is one of the most well written characters in all of Shakespeare.

---

haha...We might all have differences of opinion on Falstaff in the end. Wait until we get started; it should be fun.:D

Quote:

---

Amazing find Janine! I escpecially liked the old illustration of Falstaff and Hal, that's from the First Folio as well?

---

I don't think that picture was from the same source so it probably was not from the first folio. I found the picture long ago and it was in my file with other Shakespeare play illustrations. I started a thread way back dedicated just to that subject but no one has posted for awhile. I need to post and revive it. I have some other neat illustrations from Shakespeare's plays; I am sure you would find them equally interesting. I found the photos of the folios on Wikipedia the other day. I thought they were neat.

Quote:

---

I'm ready to start the discussion when everybody else is, what's funny is that almost this entire thread has been in preparation for discussing Act I. I'm currently reading another novel so I might not be here all the time, but I'll try my best to contribute. By the way, is there a moderator here or something? who starts the discussion? Or is it just a free for all, and we just start whenever we want?

---

No mod to direct us; basically, we are on our own, but if we elect Quark to lead us I am sure he would love the title.;) It does help for someone to sort of keep the discussion on track and flowing along at a good pace. Hey, Quark, what do you say? Will you be the Shakespeare play leader?

Edit: actually it's next day now...but using my same post...

Last night, I got this book out of my library; one side of each page is the original text and the other is the translated modern text. I thought it might be helpful, enlightening.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p...nryIVPart1.jpg

Another illustration, this one of Hotspur and his wife
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p...and-His-Wi.jpg

This may be the book I got those out of originally; looks like an interesting book, doesn't it?
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p...llustrated.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Did you like Michael Keaton then? I thought he went a little 'over-the-top';

---

Well he was playing a pretty over-the-top character.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Good plan; that way I or anyone else won't get too confused. I re-watched Act I again and only a little of Act II. I now have Act I pretty much in my mind and am ready to disguss it.

---

Lets start then:

Henry IV Part I Discussion Begins Now!

What did everyone think of the first scene? Three things stick out about it to me. Henry IV's beginning speech is one of them. This is his view of what just happened in the last play. In Henry's mind there was a general fight between two sides which just happened to end up with him as King. He divorces himself from the conflict entirely, and instead tells a story about two unnamed sides senselessly doing damage to the land and one another. Even though he was directly responsible for the war, he believes that only now does he really have a role to play in this--and that role oddly enough is peacekeeper. Henry plans to go to the "holy fields" and divert sectarian animosities away from rebellion and toward an outside foe. Another interesting part of the opening scene is the characterization of Glendower. Just as in Richard II or Macbeth, the resistance to the king is pictured as coming from some obscure part of the country. The rebels are rarely tied to an urban center or castle, rather they come from the woods or the fringe of the nation. Henry IV's rebels hid in the wilds of Gloucester, Macduff moved in on Macbeth's castle from the forest, and this time Glendower is found in Wales. The difference between these cases is that while Macduff and particularly Henry IV are portrayed as the retribution of the country for the crimes of the court, Glendower is portrayed as only barbaric and violent. Glendower and Mortimer's alliance could easily be cast in the same light as other Shakespearean rebels like Henry IV in the previous play, as the order of the court has been upset and now the rebels are trying to reset things. In the first scene, though, everything that could implicate Henry IV is suppressed.

One last thing about this scene: why are scene i. and iii. split up. One could have easily combined them since they have roughly the same subject and characters. Why put scene ii. in the middle of this discussion on the Welsh conflict?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

By the way, is there a moderator here or something? who starts the discussion? Or is it just a free for all, and we just start whenever we want?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

No mod to direct us; basically, we are on our own, but if we elect Quark to lead us I am sure he would love the title.;) It does help for someone to sort of keep the discussion on track and flowing along at a good pace. Hey, Quark, what do you say? Will you be the Shakespeare play leader?

---

I don't think I'll have time to lead the discussion, but I will be around a lot between Thursday and Sunday. With no more than five posters, though, do we really need a moderator?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

Henry IV Part I Discussion Begins Now!

---

:banana::banana::banana:http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/hu...smiley-017.gifhttp://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/hu...smiley-017.gif:banana::banana::banana:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

One last thing about this scene: why are scene i. and iii. split up. One could have easily combined them since they have roughly the same subject and characters. Why put scene ii. in the middle of this discussion on the Welsh conflict?

---

Maybe because Shakespeare wanted to from the start create a polarization of the two worlds contained within the play. To not have the first tavern scene interupt the serious political scenes would remove the play of its important contrast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

Maybe because Shakespeare wanted to from the start create a polarization of the two worlds contained within the play. To not have the first tavern scene interupt the serious political scenes would remove the play of its important contrast.

---

Yes, we finally have started. I am happy, too. Been anxious to get discussing while all is fresh in my mind. I just placed two things on my desktop. The full text for Act I and the synopsis, also on this site; for easy reference.
Hey, Quark,haha... did we need 5 inch letters again? haha...do you think we are losing our eyesight? :lol: You always crack me up with your mega large type announcement! :lol:

Ok, time to get serious. First off, I agree with DanielB. If Shakespeare hadn't split the scenes up, it would not really have paced the play or added any suspense on how it would progress; also he not have engaged his audience so quickly. The scene would be longer and the introduction of Falstaff and Hal really spice up the play. I find the way Shakespeare interspersed the humor with the serious works very well, as it usually does with his plays. I also think, even though Scene II is humorous and a frolic at times, it also has some very serious and meaningful moments in it. The first, is when Henry ruminates about his being the sun obscured by the clouds. Let me quote this part which actually fall towardes the very end of that scene; this scene clearly demonstrates how Prince Hal is now considering his true place in history and how he will then appear when accepting his true calling in life, responsibilty in taking over the thrown. He compares himself to the sun being obscured by clouds, which will appear more the brighter when revealed at last. Interesting that in Hamlet the word 'sun' is used similarly, in the fact it is takes on two meanings - the 'son' and the 'sun'. In Richard III, the word sun crops up again, only this time, to mean the opposite of what Richard is revealing or expressing directly to the audience.

Here is Hal's quiet singular ruminating, asside from the others:

Quote:

---

PRINCE HENRY
I know you all, and will awhile uphold
The unyoked humour of your idleness:
Yet herein will I imitate the sun,
Who doth permit the base contagious clouds
To smother up his beauty from the world,
That, when he please again to be himself,
Being wanted, he may be more wonder'd at,
By breaking through the foul and ugly mists
Of vapours that did seem to strangle him.
If all the year were playing holidays,
To sport would be as tedious as to work;
But when they seldom come, they wish'd for come,
And nothing pleaseth but rare accidents.
So, when this loose behavior I throw off
And pay the debt I never promised,
By how much better than my word I am,
By so much shall I falsify men's hopes;
And like bright metal on a sullen ground,
My reformation, glittering o'er my fault,
Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes
Than that which hath no foil to set it off.
I'll so offend, to make offence a skill;
Redeeming time when men think least I will.

---

Later on in Act II, I find the part where Falstaff plays Henry IV and Hal plays himself, a very telling moment, as well. This scene has humor, but also much seriousness about it. If you notice when the two actors change roles, things become a little more grave by the end. We can discuss that part when we get to it. Didn't mean to jump ahead - just trying to demonstrate a point - how Shakepeare mixes up the humor with the serious.

In Scene II of Act I, you will also notice this interesting exchange between Falstaff and Prince Hal, this time using the moon in contrast to the sun, which I earlier mentioned:

Quote:

---

FALSTAFF
Indeed, you come near me now, Hal; for we that take
purses go by the moon and the seven stars, and not
by Phoebus, he,'that wandering knight so fair.' And,
I prithee, sweet wag, when thou art king, as, God
save thy grace,--majesty I should say, for grace
thou wilt have none,--

PRINCE HENRY
What, none?

FALSTAFF
No, by my troth, not so much as will serve to
prologue to an egg and butter.

PRINCE HENRY
Well, how then? come, roundly, roundly.

FALSTAFF
Marry, then, sweet wag, when thou art king, let not
us that are squires of the night's body be called
thieves of the day's beauty: let us be Diana's
foresters, gentlemen of the shade, minions of the

moon; and let men say we be men of good government,
being governed, as the sea is, by our noble and
chaste mistress the moon, under whose countenance we steal.

PRINCE HENRY
Thou sayest well, and it holds well too; for the
fortune of us that are the moon's men doth ebb and
flow like the sea, being governed, as the sea is,
by the moon. As, for proof, now: a purse of gold
most resolutely snatched on Monday night and most
dissolutely spent on Tuesday morning; got with
swearing 'Lay by' and spent with crying 'Bring in;'
now in as low an ebb as the foot of the ladder
and by and by in as high a flow as the ridge of the gallows.

---

Then a little later on in the same conversation, again the mention of the 'gallows'; throughout the play there is a number of times when the threat of the gallows is mentioned; obviously, this fortells a number of events to come in later plays:

Quote:

---

FALSTAFF
Yea, and so used it that were it not here apparent
that thou art heir apparent--But, I prithee, sweet
wag, shall there be gallows standing in England when
thou art king? and resolution thus fobbed as it is
with the rusty curb of old father antic the law? Do
not thou, when thou art king, hang a thief.

PRINCE HENRY
No; thou shalt.

FALSTAFF
Shall I? O rare! By the Lord, I'll be a brave judge.

PRINCE HENRY
Thou judgest false already: I mean, thou shalt have
the hanging of the thieves and so become a rare hangman.

---

I find a subtext here which forsees the coming events.

Another thing stands out to me. In each scene the last line or paragraph is very much a 'cliff-hanger'. Was this intentional in order to build suspense and keep the viewer watching the play? I believe it was. I know it works for me.

Scene I

Quote:

---

KING HENRY IV
But I have sent for him to answer this;
And for this cause awhile we must neglect
Our holy purpose to Jerusalem.
Cousin, on Wednesday next our council we
Will hold at Windsor; so inform the lords:
But come yourself with speed to us again;
For more is to be said and to be done
Than out of anger can be uttered.

WESTMORELAND
I will, my liege.

---

Scene II

Quote:

---

PRINCE HENRY
Well, I'll go with thee: provide us all things
necessary and meet me to-morrow night in Eastcheap;
there I'll sup. Farewell.

POINS
Farewell, my lord.

---

Scene III

Quote:

---

NORTHUMBERLAND
Farewell, good brother: we shall thrive, I trust.

HOTSPUR
Uncle, Adieu: O, let the hours be short
Till fields and blows and groans applaud our sport!

---

Each scene is 'to be continued' in the next Act, adding that much needed break and bit of suspense.