Social Buttons

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

In Context: Henry IV Parts I & II

Henry IV fends off rebellion, Falstaff cavorts at the tavern, and a crown is passed from father to son in the Royal Shakespeare Company’s take on Shakespeare's epic two-part play Henry IV, featuring Antony Sher and Alex Hassell. Context is everything, so get even closer to the show with this curated selection of related articles, interviews, and videos. After you've attended the show, let us know what you thought below and by posting on social media using #KingandCountry.

Program Notes

King and Country: Shakespeare's Great Cycle of Kings (PDF)

Read

Article
Shakespeare's Henriad (BAM Blog)
Written in part to fuel nationalist sentiment during the Golden Age of Elizabeth I, Shakespeare’s Henriad is a sweeping study of power squandered, seized, and dumped in the proverbial lap.

Article
Folger Gems (BAM Blog)
Shakespeare scholar James Shapiro discusses the promptbooks, rare quartos, and other treasures from the Folger Shakespeare Library that will be on display during King and Country.

Article
Henry V—Rebellion Broached (BAM Blog)
Shakespearean scholar James Shapiro describes how Shakespeare’s Henry V paralleled the Earl of Essex’s attempt to curtail rebellion in 1599.

Article
How I Climbed Into a Fat Knight, and He Into Me (American Theatre)
Excerpts from Sher's illustrated journal, Year of the Fat Knight: The Falstaff Diaries. Sher will sign copies and read from the book at Drama Book Shop in New York City on Thursday, April 28.

Summary
Synopsis: Henry IV Part 1 & 2 (KingAndCountry.org)
Study up now. Disappear into Shakespeare’s language later.

Watch & Listen

Video
Gregory Doran on King and Country: Shakespeare’s Great Cycle of Kings (BAM blog)
In a rich conversation with eminent Shakespeare scholar James Shapiro, Royal Shakespeare Company Artistic Director Gregory Doran sheds light on the four plays.

Website
The Royal Shakespeare Company’s Henry IV Part 1 & 2
Context and more context for the RSC’s epic productions—including cast video interviews and information, production shots, and more.

Video
On the Set Design of Henry IV Parts I & II (YouTube)
“It has to be a bit grubbier,” says Stephen Brimson Lewis. Fleas and all.

Video
RSC Fight Week: Stage Fighting in Henry IV (YouTube)
Henry and Hotspur go toe to toe in rehearsal.

Now your turn...

What did you think? Were Jasper Britton and Alex Hassell a convincing father/son pair? Tell us what's on your mind in the comments below and on social media using #KingandCountry.

17 comments:

  1. This snarky (you might say) post gives me no pleasure to write, but perhaps it might serve to stir some comment, which sadly seems lacking re: RSC at BAM. (I.e. I see No Comments till now.) We're devoted Friends of BAM and found Ivo Van Hove's ROMAN TRAGEDIES stunning and memorable a few years back. As someone who grew up in London, braving bombs to visit the Aldwych when that was RSC's home, and literally camping out in a field in Stratford one school break to see many plays, we jumped at the chance to see the Henriad. Last night, when leaving, someone behind me said "Hal was dreadful and John (Prince) was laughable..." and I have to agree with him. Tennant as R2 was fantastic, as was the staging in that first play. And Sir John Falstaff was magnificent in both Parts. But other actors would have graced school play stages, but not the RSC and BAM. IMHO that also includes Hal, who seemed lightweight throughout, and not just in Eastcheap. His capper, "I know you not old man..." came across as a throwaway comment, said without a mind at work. Scampering off stage was full of teen spirit, but hardly consistent with why he was lurking with the lower classes. Hotspur seemed to have been told that stamping his feet and shouting was all that was needed. Surely there's more depth to be mined, and shown? Now I am not sure we'll be keeping our tickets for H5, or the chat with the director - all of which we'd been looking forward to. Because the direction itself was flawed in many ways: in these plays, Falstaff, Pistol, etc., are supposed to bring the comedy. But letting Mistress Quickly snore, on stage and behind H4 as he laments about how uneasy lies the head that wears the crown, makes the leads comical - surely not what Will intended. And while Rumor's light projections were genuinely impressive - along with his Rolling Stone's T-shirt - nothing else echoed that contemporary approach. And why did Pistol have a Julie Taymor hair piece, where just about all others were naturalistic? Of course, there were some standout performances, including Justice Shallow. But that's what we expect from ALL RSC players. There are many more performances, and I noticed the director at intermission in R2. We saw Opening Nights: if any of these comments bubble up to the production team, I hope they might be worth considering. The RSC is the apogee of English theater, as is the Mariinsky in Russian dance. (And the recent Dying Swan solo was world-class perfection.) Does anyone else agree? Is a mid-course correction feasible? Or am I alone in these reactions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm afraid I have to agree with a good bit of your comment. I too saw R2 (before H4P1), and was very enthusiastic. Both Richard and Henry in that play were fantastic in it, as was the vast majority of the cast, and the staging, costume, lighting, all world class. I was, as a result, so disappointed at H4P1. The King remained excellent, and the rest of the cast would have been fine (not exceptional, but solid), were it not for Hal (the future Henry V). To be honest, it felt as if he has just managed to put his lines in his mind, but had not done the hard work of then shaping them in the scenes to discover the subtlety beneath them. His fellow actors would work to bring out the meaning of their lines, and their character, only to have him respond as if he were running lines with them. How in the world was he chosen to play the single most important part of the last three plays of the Henriad??? I heard you about Hotspur, but at least he worked the part a little. Perhaps it was a little over the top, but at least his actions and interpretation were consistent with the lines he's given). After the third scene where he "looses his cool", the director might have mined the role for more color, but that's on the director.

      You have a much more discerning eye than I for the design aspects that troubled you. The overall effect, particularly of the costumes for me, was beautiful and lush, and the staging worked well. I thought all of the theatre craft was, as you would expect from RSC, beautifully and professionally done. It was mainly Hal that annoyed me. I should mention that Falstaff was excellent as well, as you said. It is a classic role, of course, and he's given a great deal to work with by WS, but still it must be performed with energy and comic abandon, and he brought all that and good deal more. Needless to say, I'm much less excited about the third and fourth parts of the Henriad than I was after R2. Having paid the price for them, I'll be there, but I don't know if I'll be able to stay the course if Hal continues in the same vein.

      Delete
  2. I didn't realize the gallery was up so many stairs. My husband has a heart condition so this was a real problem for him. Then the seats in the gallery are truly uncomfortable. It was like sitting on a bar stool all night and everyone seemed to feel it with the noise of the springs constantly interrupting the show.
    The performance was moving and I felt foruntate to see it. A pity the other issues really spoiled the performance and we won't be able to go again until an elevator is fitted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The stairs were a real struggle for my companion, as well, and the seats were horribly uncomfortable. She had difficulty climbing up into them and, with my long legs, my knees protruded over the back of the seat in front of me. With no thigh support I felt rather precariously perched and had quite a lot of back and hip pain the next day as a result of having to balance. We were fortunate that we only had to suffer for one day, as we had excellent seats for Richard II and managed to obtain orchestra level seats for the final two plays.... but then the issue became the absurd number of late arrivals who were permitted to enter during the play. What a disappointment that was.

      We definitely enjoyed the performances, but the accommodations and management left much to be desired.

      Delete
    2. Hi! Thanks for sharing your concerns with late seating for Richard II. The late seating policy varies from show to show and is established by each individual presenting company to ensure minimal disruption for audience and performers. For Richard II, the Royal Shakespeare Company requested that we allow seating during the choral singing, then hold late seating before the first line of dialogue. Afterwards, we only have one other late seating cue during a break 18 minutes into the performance.

      We’re sorry to hear that you found this disruptive and have passed your feedback on to the theater managers.

      Delete
  3. I absolutely loved Richard II. Tennant was marvelous and he is much missed in the Henrys. I cannot say enough good about Anthony Sher who is, as always, brilliant. Hal in Henry IV Part Two was abysmal and I was not looking forward to him in Part One but I actually think he was much improved. Whether that was because of tweaking in his performance after a week of working out the details or because he is more comfortable with the less complex character in the earlier play I cannot say. But he seemed more comfortable with the lighter more playful aspects of the character and his "belonging" to the group of low class misfits. The rest of the cast was serviceable and both henrys at times dragged a bit whereas the Richard had a vitality that kept interest throughout.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I saw the Henry plays part one and two on April 6th & 7th: they were not up to the standards that I expect from the RSC. Hal was not at all up to the role and the others seemed to be (with very few exceptions) brats from the 21st century! I loved Sir John F. but he is a seasoned performer and well up to the task. He had a lot to work against as many of the younger actors seemed ill prepared for their roles. Is England losing its talent? Does not the name of RST mean anything anymore? Or is it something in the water...???

    ReplyDelete
  5. Henry IV, Part I - An all round superb production. After what I thought was a disastrous Richard II, I had no hope for Henry; but how wrong I was.

    Problem with Richard was inaudibility. Devid Tennant spoke in a high-pitched whine that was extremely irritating and mannered. Not helped by the fact that BAM's hearing enhancers were NOT available during the first act. I was told they were being borrowed from the Opera House and would be in soon. Come back!! Was I supposed to leave in the middle of the Act to secure one? Then, at intermission, I finally got one; however, it was non-working, had not been calibrated to the Harvey Theatre or some such nonsense. I should have spoken to the manager and got my money back. Hard to believe the same company did Henry IV, Pt. I. They were audible and superbe to a person. Enhancers worked perfectly which, of course, helped.

    ReplyDelete
  6. we enjoyed this production very much and thought the main and many of the supporting ctors were quite wonderful. Highlights were Antony Sher, Matthew Needham (wow!), Emma King, Jasper Britton, and Alex Hassell, whom we liked very much as Hal. We found his reading of the role cerebral and rather cool, a nice juxtaposition against Needham's fiery Hotspur. On the other hand, we had some difficulty understanding Mistress Quickly (pity) and could not understand Pistol at all (but, then, who really ever understands Pistol?). All in all, we found this production a lot of fun and very powerful. The time just whizzed by.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This was the first time I've seen Henry, Part l and Part II. I really enjoyed Part I, and though it had been years since I had read the play In college, I was able to follow the play fairly easily. However, in my opinion, Part ll was not worth the time or the money..."time wasted!" The overall performance lacked balance given what I think was an exaggerated Falstaff, distracting from the historical focus. It may have been the play itself, the direction, or the unevenness of the cast's performances, but the Falstaff character came across more as slap -stick than wit. and I was ready for the play to be over long before the end.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Everyone here is a critic, aren't they? How many times has anyone here played any of these leads? And in rep, no doubt. I thought the work was excellent, individually and as an ensemble, including the technical designs. I sat in the gallery and in the upper orchestra. I preferred the gallery, as there was room for my legs; the rows in the upper orchestra are too close together leaving my knees cramped. Otherwise, I was thrilled to watch these productions.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I have just returned from seeing Henry IV part 1. I am, overall, very impressed. I am a big Shakespeare enthusiast, though not an academic, and I read the play before seeing it. I thought it was an incredible representation of the play, a very real depiction of what Shakespeare wrote. I was especially impressed with the portrayals of Hotspur, Falstaff, and King Henry, but I really liked the production as a whole and was engaged from beginning to end. I am looking forward to Part 2.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Going to see all four. So far I've seen Richard II which, of course, was an unparalleled performance. Last night I saw Henry IV, part 1, AFTER reading the "snarky" (their word) post of the first "reviewer" here, and some of the subsequent ones, I was a little wary of the show. Well, the show was fantastic and the performances were great, and I don't know what the hell you're talking about. We SHOULD be talking about the audience! One guy directly behind me kept grunting after most of the lines -- to show HE GOT IT -- HE UNDERSTOOD IT -- HE FELT IT. I don't know whether this was meant for his companion or for the rest of us, but he had to show that HE GOT IT... I hear other people doing this sometimes, too, however this guy did it the entire show. I was going to say something at intermission, and I'm sorry I didn't. Also, and this happens all the time at BAM for Shakespeare there -- EVEN KING LEAR, THE BIGGEST TRAGEDY OF ALL... People snicker and laugh at things that would only be funny to a child who doesn't understand the context. Last night this was happening all through Henry IV, part 1. Of course, the show alternates between serious historical scenes and lighthearted ones with the fabulous character, Falstaff. But Falstaff's scenes do not the entire play a comedy make. Anyway, go see Lear the next time it's at BAM and see how much of a comedy the audience thinks it is. And don't grunt knowingly and approvingly and showingly after over other line. LOL Hmmm... I think I was a little snarky there myself!

    ReplyDelete
  11. On April 6 I saw Henry IV part I. Last night I saw part II. I must say, it's been great to see the lively commentary about the plays on this blog. I am new to the Henriad, so each of the four performances are firsts for me. I am seeing all four plays in order. I have not even read these plays, so imagine my delight at encountering the character of Falstaff for the first time, with the exuberant Antony Sher in the role -- now as my benchmark! The advantage of being new to these works is the delicious experience of viewing each one fresh (as in beginner's mind). I have no preconceived ideas about how the plays "should" be. The disadvantage is that I most certainly missed dialogue that was difficult to hear, and without knowing the plays in depth, may not have had as clear a sense of them as more experience viewers. That said, I thought both of the Henry IV plays were fabulous. Is it bad that Falstaff eclipsed every other character in both plays? Perhaps. Was Prince Hal a little weak in the role? Maybe. Was Hotspur like a toddler throwing a tantrum? I think so. But I was deeply engaged in both plays, loved the sets and costumes, and I have walked away from each one enriched and entertained. I would like to think the Bard would be well satisfied. As for my favorite? So far I am most drawn to Richard II, although Falstaff is going to be sorely missed. I'll cast a final vote after I see Henry V!

    ReplyDelete
  12. I saw Henry IV part 2 this past Sat. night, and part 1 this Wed. mat. I was in the gallery for both, but further up for part 2 which might explain why it was so very often hard to hear. Not hearing well must have contributed to my lack of connection, but part 2 was not engaging for me or my guests. We found Henry IV, esp. hard to hear, and Hal quite stiff and not lifelike. We all enjoyed Fallstaff very much, and Pistol, and Henry IV when we could hear him. Given all this, my expectations for part 1 (by the way, my brain had no trouble putting them back in order) were not high, but I enjoyed it very much. I am thinking that has much to do with the interesting symmetry of the play: the 2 young Harrys, and Hal's treatment of his Eastcheap life as a costume to be put off when the time is ripe; perhaps it is just the far better play? in any case, Hal was better in this than in part 2, and hearing the whole better from my better seats also helped. Now I put try to see V as well.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Wow! A lot of thespians here. I've seen RSC here and in England and thought Henry IV Part 1 was superb! In fact I was thinking it was as good as anything I'd seen in England with the RSC, which is quite a compliment. Antony Sher is one of the greats and his Falstaff was so rich and layered. He gets to great and then takes it deeper. What a pleasure it is to see him perform. The direction was pure. My only wish was to have seen more of the series.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Jake Meads was a treat as the Page!

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.