King Henry IV Part I - Act 1

[Janine]

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".

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.

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.

Kittens will be harmed if this discussion doesn't happen!

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

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.

[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.

[Janine]

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.

[Quark]

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.

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.

[mayneverhave]

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.

[Janine]

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, , 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.

[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/

[Quark]

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.

Yeah, , 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.

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.

[Janine]

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

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.

[DanielBenoit]

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.

[mayneverhave]

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.

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."

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.

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.

[Quark]

Actually, Hal is not off fighting elsewhere

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

[Janine]

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.

[Janine]

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 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.

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.

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?

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

[DanielBenoit]

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.

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.