The Hollow Crown: Henry IV, Part I

In which Lary Mary Crawley makes out with Alan a Dale while Loki gets chewed out by Rodrigo Borgia and gets his hands on Martha Costello. In other words, the BBC continue their Histories with a stellar cast. Less cinematically in this turn, or maybe that's just my impression because any film version of Henry IV competes with the late great Orson Welles' Chimes at Midnight, plus as opposed to Richard II, which offered up spectacular landscapes a plenty, this one stayed indoors mostly (both for the tavern and the court scenes) except for the big battle of Shrewsbury sequence, about which more later.

Henry IV doesn't have the Richard II problem that the whole "divine right of kings" sentiment isn't there in today's audience anymore, and hence less of a dilemma; but it has a problem/challenge of its own, and that's how to take Hal's monologue early on, which essentually outlines his arc through both parts. "I'm just slumming it with the lot of you because that will make me ever so much better once I reform and will impress people far more than if I had been a good boy from the start, oh, and btw, I'm going to dump the lot of you who believe you are my friends" is Hal at his most cold, and it's possible to play Hal as a Machiavellian machine ticking along, but then the fact he does become king and follows suit on his plans hardly is an occasion for cheer. Then again, while Falstaff is fun and a lot of middle aged men went sentimental about him, Shakespeare also makes it clear that Falstaff with power in his hands would be an utter disaster because he is incredibly corrupt, with the recruitment scene in part II being the most glaring example (in part I, which this film version does use, you have him talking about the poor guys he pressed into service and we get to see them, which makes that point as well). Then you have Henry "Hotspur" Percy whose spontanity has its charm but who is dumb as a post and occasionally a dick as well; and our title character, Henry IV., whose arc through the first part is basically to throw up his hands and think/say "I ursurped the throne for this?!?" ("It's hard out there for a Lancaster" being a sentiment both Henry IV and Henry V. are prone to spout.) Not exactly a Hollywood recipe for success.

The way this particular production went about it was to have their cake and eat it, and actually get away with it. By which I mean is that we get Hal's "just wait till I'm king, suckers!" monologue as a mental voice over (so we're to take it as true), but the way Hiddleston plays his scenes with both Falstaff and Henry IV shows he actually does care for Falstaff and is seriously upset at his father's bad opinion of him. The later is helped by the fact that Jeremy Irons, bless him, plays older Henry quite different from what I've seen. John Gielgud in Chimes at Midnight is basically more Gothic statue than human being, and all voice (being Gielgud) to contrast the more with Falstaff being all flesh, and the two theatre productions I saw followed suit. Jeremy Irons is decidedly not a statue, a very mobile Henry, pacing up and down, working himself up to a rage, making mince meat of the Percies, and bringing on the "you suck, you suck, and did I mention, YOU SUCK, AND I WISH I DIDN'T CARE" of paternal disappointment so effectively and viscerally that you can't help but flinch along with Hal. (Which in turn has the effect of making one believe that Hal, despite the earlier Machiavellian "this is all an act" speech, really desperately cares as well.) My favourite production solution to Hal's "just wait till I'm King, suckers!" speech still remains the way Orson did it - i.e. making Hal say it out loud to Falstaff, because that's the kind of thing they actually do to each other, and it has the same ambiguity of "I'm jesting, and yet I'm totally not" their pretend play later has - but this is pretty good, too.

Speaking of the big roleplay scene: that's the piece of resistance, the core of the first part. I'd be curious how the people watching the play solely for Tom Hiddleston who haven't read it and haven't looked up the summary at Wikipedia interpret the "banish plumb Jack, and banish all the world!"/ "I do. I will." exchange (do they believe/are aware he will indeed do it?). The way the roleplay starts included a fresh element (for me; as always, it's possible lots of productions did it this before and I just didn't see them), because the way Simon Russell Beale plays Falstaff suggesting it it comes across as Falstaff aware the news from the palace has seriously shaken Hal and offering him quick therapy. Beale's Falstaff in general is more aware than many Falstaffs I've seen, though of course not completely. (BTW, he gets the big monologue turned into a voice over treatment as well, for his famous "honour" speech, thought while he wanders through the soldiers preparing themselves for the battle of Shrewsbury.) When playing the king, Beale as Falstaff doesn't go for an Jeremy Irons imitation, whereas when he plays Hal he mimicks Hiddleston a bit. Conversely, Hiddleston playing Hal playing the king does go for a Jeremy Irons imitation, except for Hal's last reply. Which makes sense. The "I do; I will" is spoken purely as Hal, and as in Chimes at Midnight and Branagh's Henry V which added this scene as a flashback, the exchange of looks between Falstaff and Hal means they're both aware this isn't a joke/play act anymore, though Falstaff still hopes Hal doesn't mean it (which is Falstaff for you).

Something cut in Chimes which is included here is the scene of Hal and Poins bullying making fun of the poor waiter, and that reminded me why Ned Poins is my most loathed character in the entire Henriad. Whether or not you see Hal as a Machiavellian machine, he's interestingly fucked up. Poins is just a syophantic mean bully of the frat boy type. Or: what they do to the waiter reminds of Gratiano in Merchant of Venice going after Shylock once Shylock is down, taunting him; it's just mean spirited bullying masquerading as prankism and so unfunny it hurts.

Meanwhile, in the North and Wales: Michelle Dockery is great as Kate, bringing the charm and wit she had as Lady Mary to the role but without the idleness. It's interesting that a scene which is possibly just another example of Shakespeare making fun of the Welsh in this film comes across as Percy being a clueless boor and Glendower showing extreme restraint for not throwing him off the next battlement instead (also, win for letting Lady Mortimer actually talk Welsh and reminding me how beautiful it sounds), while Percy's actor is handsome and charismatic enough, and does come across as sincerely in love with his wife (with whom he has excellent sexual chemistry), that you understand why even a smart woman like Kate puts up with him. Kate's brother Mortimer is the first uncreepy role I've seen Harry Llyod in for a while, so that was odd.

Missing out: any homoerotic subtext, interestingly enough after Richard II which had it in spades. I mean, slash is in the eyes of the beholder, and no doubt other viewers will judge differently, but I didn't see it anywhere in this film version, and it could have been there. (This being the source text for My Own Private Idaho where both Hal Character/Poins Character and Hal Character/ Falstaff Character is on screen canon.) This is the straightest version of Henry IV. I've ever seen.

Battle of Shrewsbury: inevitably, this is the sequence most overtly influenced by Chimes at Midnight. Many war films have the problem of on the one hand aiming for a "war is bad" message but on the other conveying "war is exciting" via the battle filming ("war is boring" equalling "we'll lose viewers"). The only film which managed to present a battle scene that is both cinematically breathtaking and yet an utter condemnation of war without falling into that trap is the one from Chimes at Midnight, in which Orson Welles, despite a minimal budget and defiinitely no actual masses at his disposal, let alone special effects, nonetheless came up with something that conveyed the brutality of warface than anything I've seen since. Branagh's Henry V took several elements from this for his staging of the battle of Agincourt - the mud and rain, notably - but then turned it around to everyone singing "Gloria" in relief. Richard Eyre, who directed this Henry IV, Part I, also took the mud, rain/snowfall and the brutality of medieaval warfare but added, because of the wintery landscape, something afterwards that associated more the crater landscapes of WWI. He also showed the duel between Percy and Hal longer, and gave the scene where Falstaff arrives with the body of dead Percy, claiming to have killed him, a completely different subtext. In Chimes at Midnight, this happens in front of the king (an Orson innovation). Hal could call Falstaff a liar, but he just doesn't because his father expects him to. It's a three way (mostly) silent glare and power struggle. In this Henry IV, the witness is John of Lancaster and Hal at first makes his textual protest and gives the impression he actually would like to have it known he defeated Percy, thanks a lot, but Beale-as-Falstaff's counter claims have the subtext of "give me this, at least give me this, come on" and then Hal in a mixture of amusement and genuine affection lets it happen, but you also have the impression this is where Falstaff seals his fate if it isn't sealed already (which of course it was).

In conclusion: bring on the next part! In all other versions I've seen so far I'm always tempted to fast forward through the "Dad is dead! Bad crown (let me have it)! Not dead yet, oops!" sequence but here I'm actively looking forward to it because I'm really curious to see what Jeremy Irons and Tom Hiddleston make of it. And of course, in a masochistic way, to "I know thee not, old man".