The Hollow Crown: Henry IV, Part II
Jul. 16th, 2012 07:29 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakLast time on "It's Hard Out There For A Lancaster": yes, they do previouslies instead of the "Rumours" chorus, which actually I admit I don't miss at all. This second part is generally less popular than the first, but in this version I felt it was actually the better one. Still suffers from Chimes at Midnight comparison as far as cinematography is concerned (though Eyre now remembers to do the occasional non-eye level shot), but what doesn'?t? The acting is top notch, and overall it felt like a Rembrandt painting come to life. And I finally was reminded where jesuswasbatman' "I cannot abide swaggerers" quote is from.
First of all: Jeremy Irons, how so awesome? This is the first production where Henry IV doesn't feel like a minor guest star in the plays named after him (this includes you, John Guilgud, and yes, you were in an Orson directed picture built around Falstaff, but then this production was pretty Falstaff centric as well, and that didn't stop Irons). My usual reaction to the "uneasy lies the head that wears the crown" scene is "cry me another, Bolingbroke", but not here. Loved the silent acting bit with Henry playing dice with his younger sons on the council table which is his way of trying to show affection. By choosing teenage actors for Gloucester and Clarence, you get the Lancaster dysfunctionality/ chilliness of royalty across as well in Hal's homecoming scene because nobody hugs anyone; it's just not done. Which since John of Gaunt did it I blame on Henry going "I will not be like Richard and be physical with my family as I king, no, I mustn't!", but precisely that makes the bit with taking up the boys' dice and trying to play with them while hearing reports touching, no pun intended. And the whole death sequence with Hal is just stunning. Incidentally, I knew they wouldn't waste Hiddleston's ability to cry prettily and do the teary eyed stare, but I'm glad he does it not in front of dad but when thinking dad is dead and sitting on the throne with the crown on his head for a try. Because Hal's "bad crown (lemme have it)" bit is another part where usually I think "you are so full of bullshit, Hal!" but here Hiddleston actually sold me on Hal feeling precisely what he claims to have felt a minute later when dad wakes up.
But really, Jeremy Irons: the anger, the guilt (because he himself ursurped the crown so of course he thinks Hal would jump on the chance), the disappointment, the renewed hope, the tenderness of a dying man, all that, and he manages to give the most cynical and ruthless advice in the entire Henriad in a way that makes you want to hug Henry (but Henry doesn't do hugs). In case, dear viewer, you did not read the play and were as bedazzled by Irons, that's the bit about how Hal should keep people busy with foreign wars so they don't have the time to question his right to the throne or politics in general. Which is, imo, the most subversive thing Shakespeare wrote in the Histories, because it casts such a deeply cynical light on what's sold as a grand patriotic enterprise in Henry V. and on England's Greatest Warrior King (tm) in general.zahrawithaz said in the last decade many a US production of the Henriad made the George W. Bush = Hal parallels, and while Dubya himself does not strike me as the Hal type (Hal, love him or hate him, is smart, for starters), I can see the point.
On to the other father figure in the play. After part I, I've seen a lot of reaction that Falstaff is too dark and not sympathetic enough (I didn't have that impression, but then, I'm also the only person on the planet who didn't see Hal/Poins, though admittedly that might have been due to my deep Poins loathing), and since in Part II he's textually darker than in I, there were worries of how this would impact the denouement. Well, again I might only speak for myself, but I thought Beale was fantastic in part II. (Without ever becoming Falstaff the martyr; the recruitment scene, as mentioned before, is a good illustration of why you don't give Falstaff even a little bit of power.) The scene with Doll showed the value of hiring Maxine Peake for the part; there was a lovely give and take there and genuine tenderness as well as charm (on his part, I mean, not solely on hers), and when she said she loved him, you believed her and understood why, just as you believed she would carry a knife around and draw it. (Beale also has a bit of calculated charm when he soothes Mistress Quickley earlier, but that's of a darker persuasion because it's clear it's a bit of business to get out of being harrassed for his debts again, whereas the Doll scene is uncalculated emotion.) It also made Hal and Poins and their "let's spy on the old man unable to get it up anymore, har, har" prank doubly crass. (Did I mention I hate Poins yet? Because I really really do. SO GLAD he's not in Henry V..) Production wise, it's also notable that Hal is played as genuinenly angry with Falstaff and cold in his "good night, Falstaff" here as opposed to amused by Falstaff's lies the way he was in part I, which is a good lead-up to the big finale. Of course, one of the theoretical problems of the plays is that you have Hal swearing reformation in part I already, and then Shakespeare has him back in town in part II so Henry can be frustrated some more and they can have the death sequence in the way they do. This production's Hal is already very disaffected in thefanservice bath scene with Poins (though Poins doesn't notice) and his reaction to Falstaff later comes across as partly self disgust to me (in a "I' can't believe I'm still doing this" way), but basically he's aware the holidays are almost over and he's marking time, plus being at court instead he'd have to actually see his father die and interact with him and he still hasn't much of an idea of how to handle that.
Mortality is a theme both of the court scenes for Henry and in the tavern scenes for Falstaff - the quote that gave Welles his title "we have heard the chimes at midnight, Master Shallow" - "Jesus, the days that we have seen" - makes for a very moving scene. But of course as much as Falstaff is aware of his mortality he seeks to avoid it, and so he sets himself up for destruction. The "I know thee not, old man" scene is one of the all time greatest Shakespeare scenes and if you fail it, you deserve Shakespearean hell, so I'm really glad to report everyone brought their A-Game. My favourite acting detail is that when Falstaff after the first immediate shock tries to rally, Beale striking the posture Falstaff previously did when Hal brought on the insults (you can feel him think desperately "oh, of course, he's just playing our game, that must be it!") just before retorting, Hiddleston steps closer and switches from ringing official pronouncement to intimate and therefore even more devastating warning in his tone with the "no, I'm not kidding around, I'm really serious about this" part of his speech, and that's even more devastating than the initial "I know thee not, old man" because that's when Falstaff knows this is for real.
At the same time? This particular production really sells you on the fact this is necessary, and not just because Falstaff has just publically embarrassed the king. It's also the first production where Hal's tiny little loophole in the rejection speech - the hint that if he hears Falstaff has reformed, there will be advancement - doesn't come across as cynical (because obviously, anyone who knows Falstaff knows he never could change his ways now, it's far too late for him), but as a last bit of affection in the middle of all the rejection. Just the reverse of the earlier tavern scene, if you like, where Hal is all disgust and coldness underneath the old guise of playfulness; here, the way these lines are spoken by Hiddleston gave me the impression that he says them not because he believes that ever could happen - he knows very well it won't, and this is the last time he'll ever see Falstaff - but to give the old man something (hope? admission that it wasn't all calculation and that he did care?) amidst the repudiation.
On to Agincourt now. Can we get Henry's "busy with foreign quarrels" line in the previouslies?
jesuswasbatman' "I cannot abide swaggerers" quote is from. First of all: Jeremy Irons, how so awesome? This is the first production where Henry IV doesn't feel like a minor guest star in the plays named after him (this includes you, John Guilgud, and yes, you were in an Orson directed picture built around Falstaff, but then this production was pretty Falstaff centric as well, and that didn't stop Irons). My usual reaction to the "uneasy lies the head that wears the crown" scene is "cry me another, Bolingbroke", but not here. Loved the silent acting bit with Henry playing dice with his younger sons on the council table which is his way of trying to show affection. By choosing teenage actors for Gloucester and Clarence, you get the Lancaster dysfunctionality/ chilliness of royalty across as well in Hal's homecoming scene because nobody hugs anyone; it's just not done. Which since John of Gaunt did it I blame on Henry going "I will not be like Richard and be physical with my family as I king, no, I mustn't!", but precisely that makes the bit with taking up the boys' dice and trying to play with them while hearing reports touching, no pun intended. And the whole death sequence with Hal is just stunning. Incidentally, I knew they wouldn't waste Hiddleston's ability to cry prettily and do the teary eyed stare, but I'm glad he does it not in front of dad but when thinking dad is dead and sitting on the throne with the crown on his head for a try. Because Hal's "bad crown (lemme have it)" bit is another part where usually I think "you are so full of bullshit, Hal!" but here Hiddleston actually sold me on Hal feeling precisely what he claims to have felt a minute later when dad wakes up.
But really, Jeremy Irons: the anger, the guilt (because he himself ursurped the crown so of course he thinks Hal would jump on the chance), the disappointment, the renewed hope, the tenderness of a dying man, all that, and he manages to give the most cynical and ruthless advice in the entire Henriad in a way that makes you want to hug Henry (but Henry doesn't do hugs). In case, dear viewer, you did not read the play and were as bedazzled by Irons, that's the bit about how Hal should keep people busy with foreign wars so they don't have the time to question his right to the throne or politics in general. Which is, imo, the most subversive thing Shakespeare wrote in the Histories, because it casts such a deeply cynical light on what's sold as a grand patriotic enterprise in Henry V. and on England's Greatest Warrior King (tm) in general.
zahrawithaz said in the last decade many a US production of the Henriad made the George W. Bush = Hal parallels, and while Dubya himself does not strike me as the Hal type (Hal, love him or hate him, is smart, for starters), I can see the point. On to the other father figure in the play. After part I, I've seen a lot of reaction that Falstaff is too dark and not sympathetic enough (I didn't have that impression, but then, I'm also the only person on the planet who didn't see Hal/Poins, though admittedly that might have been due to my deep Poins loathing), and since in Part II he's textually darker than in I, there were worries of how this would impact the denouement. Well, again I might only speak for myself, but I thought Beale was fantastic in part II. (Without ever becoming Falstaff the martyr; the recruitment scene, as mentioned before, is a good illustration of why you don't give Falstaff even a little bit of power.) The scene with Doll showed the value of hiring Maxine Peake for the part; there was a lovely give and take there and genuine tenderness as well as charm (on his part, I mean, not solely on hers), and when she said she loved him, you believed her and understood why, just as you believed she would carry a knife around and draw it. (Beale also has a bit of calculated charm when he soothes Mistress Quickley earlier, but that's of a darker persuasion because it's clear it's a bit of business to get out of being harrassed for his debts again, whereas the Doll scene is uncalculated emotion.) It also made Hal and Poins and their "let's spy on the old man unable to get it up anymore, har, har" prank doubly crass. (Did I mention I hate Poins yet? Because I really really do. SO GLAD he's not in Henry V..) Production wise, it's also notable that Hal is played as genuinenly angry with Falstaff and cold in his "good night, Falstaff" here as opposed to amused by Falstaff's lies the way he was in part I, which is a good lead-up to the big finale. Of course, one of the theoretical problems of the plays is that you have Hal swearing reformation in part I already, and then Shakespeare has him back in town in part II so Henry can be frustrated some more and they can have the death sequence in the way they do. This production's Hal is already very disaffected in the
Mortality is a theme both of the court scenes for Henry and in the tavern scenes for Falstaff - the quote that gave Welles his title "we have heard the chimes at midnight, Master Shallow" - "Jesus, the days that we have seen" - makes for a very moving scene. But of course as much as Falstaff is aware of his mortality he seeks to avoid it, and so he sets himself up for destruction. The "I know thee not, old man" scene is one of the all time greatest Shakespeare scenes and if you fail it, you deserve Shakespearean hell, so I'm really glad to report everyone brought their A-Game. My favourite acting detail is that when Falstaff after the first immediate shock tries to rally, Beale striking the posture Falstaff previously did when Hal brought on the insults (you can feel him think desperately "oh, of course, he's just playing our game, that must be it!") just before retorting, Hiddleston steps closer and switches from ringing official pronouncement to intimate and therefore even more devastating warning in his tone with the "no, I'm not kidding around, I'm really serious about this" part of his speech, and that's even more devastating than the initial "I know thee not, old man" because that's when Falstaff knows this is for real.
At the same time? This particular production really sells you on the fact this is necessary, and not just because Falstaff has just publically embarrassed the king. It's also the first production where Hal's tiny little loophole in the rejection speech - the hint that if he hears Falstaff has reformed, there will be advancement - doesn't come across as cynical (because obviously, anyone who knows Falstaff knows he never could change his ways now, it's far too late for him), but as a last bit of affection in the middle of all the rejection. Just the reverse of the earlier tavern scene, if you like, where Hal is all disgust and coldness underneath the old guise of playfulness; here, the way these lines are spoken by Hiddleston gave me the impression that he says them not because he believes that ever could happen - he knows very well it won't, and this is the last time he'll ever see Falstaff - but to give the old man something (hope? admission that it wasn't all calculation and that he did care?) amidst the repudiation.
On to Agincourt now. Can we get Henry's "busy with foreign quarrels" line in the previouslies?
