This is the link to the modern interpretation done by The Royal Shakespeare Company, Presented By BBC. This is the first scene, and all following scenes are available afterward.
Acting lessons in Shakespeare
In Act 3, sc. 2 of Hamlet, the young Hamlet offers acting lessons to the Player of the “Mousetrap” performance that shed light on much more than the theater prowess of the prince. These directions reflect the different acting that goes on in the play, whether it is Hamlet “acting” crazy, the Queen “acting” like a good wife or Ophelia “acting” on her father’s behalf. These varieties of acting fall into the repeating idea that truth can be bated with lies and doing kindness with pain. The duplicity of acting is reflected in such plans as Hamlet’s concocted play and his utter blunt reveal to his mother of the wrong committed against her first husband, his father.
The lines
” Be not too tame neither, but let your own discretion be your tutor…For anything so o’erdone is from the purpose of playing whose end, both at the first and now, was an is to hold, as ’twere, the mirror up to nature, to show virtue her (own) feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and nature” (3.2 17- 26)
shed light on the purpose and pattern that Hamlet himself applies to his performance of lunacy. In his acting, he reveals not only the crime of his uncle, but the nature of his two friends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, the acting of Ophelia upon her father’s wishes, and the performance of his mother as the widowed Queen. It is to his madness that each of these relationships and actings respond and almost seem to bring an extreme that would not have been otherwise unearthed if it was not for Hamlet.
It is especially significant when considering that ideas like truth/lies and pain/kindness are opposites. Yet they are necessary to bring out the other within the play. These opposites are necessary for the other to exist and can actually bring out each other, like the opposite characters of the play and the different forms of acting that thread the play.
Group 2 Scene Study
There is only Honor amongst thieves…
Honor is a topic that is quite frequently mentioned throughout Henry IV Part One. It was the glory which men sought, whether they be on the battlefield or for a doing a noble deed. When you try to picture an honorable person, a King or a Lord or may come to mind. At the very least it will be someone who truly lives by a code of moral justice. It is interesting then, that Shakespeare chooses to never have honor mentioned by someone whom we may consider honorable. Instead, only those people who we would normally consider to be dishonorable, mainly Falstaff and Prince Hal, speak of what honor truly is. These characters partake in robberies; loiter around the tavern drinking in excess and lie in order to avoid punishment. They seem to be dregs of society, yet almost exclusively have the privilege of speaking about honor.
The first mention of honor is spoken by Sir John Falstaff, ironically just before they are taking their positions to rob a passing train of people. He exclaims “A plague upon it when thieves cannot be true to one another…” (2.2.27-28) after he can’t find where Poins hid his horse. In this context, honor is a trust amongst those in the same line of work. Next, Prince Hal, equates honor with how much sack (wine) he can drink, the honor being the recognition he receives for it. This comes as he is celebrating with Poins about their joke of robbing their own crew, who just robbed the caravan. The next mention of honor is also from Prince Hal, this time speaking of honor in a more true to the definition manner. His father has essentially called him a shame for whom he keeps company with, and Hal responds that in order to regain his honor he will kill the honorable Knight Hotspur. By doing this, he hopes to win favor back from his father. To back up the claim that Hotspur is an honorable man, Douglass reaffirms this thought by saying to Hotspur “Thou art the King of honor. No man so potent breathes upon the ground But I will [oppose] him” (4.1.10-12).
Finally, the last mention of honor belongs to Falstaff. He gives us yet another perspective of what honor is:
“…a word. What is in that word honor? What
is that honor? Air-. A trim reckoning! Who hath it?
He that died a Wednesday. Doth he feel it? No.
Doth he hear it? No. ‘Tis insensible, then? Yea,
to the dead…”
(5.2.132-138)
Essentially, Falstaff is saying that honor means nothing. It is simply a word that men use to gain fame. In their search for this glory, they often die, thus their legacy lives on with the title “the Honorable Sir so-and-so”. However, if you want to live then you must rely on yourself, and do what you must to scrape by. This may lead you down a path of wrongdoing, but in his view, it’s better to be and old man who enjoys his drink than to be a young man slain and called honorable.
Falstaff and Bottom: Shakespeare was no fool to create these fools
Falstaff is a particularly interesting and colorful character in Henry IV. He couldn’t help but remind me of Bottom from A Midsummer Night’s Dream with his use of bombastic language and silly antics, but above all, the significance behind his reputation as the “fool” of the play. I was doing a bit of research and found a very interesting article by Arthur F. Kinney that discusses Shakespeare’s use of Falstaff as a prime example of parody. He is an extremely vibrant and witty character, and because of this, he seems to rival Hal and other characters who are higher in status. As we discussed in class, he is also present throughout much of the play in different realms (such as the tavern, the court, and the battlefield); although he isn’t necessarily taking part in the action, he always has a great understanding of what’s happening around him and makes note of this in a witty and appealing way. We also see this with Bottom, who is present in all realms of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, though he seems a bit less clued in than Falstaff in regard to what’s happening around him, especially in the woods.
Kinney’s article also reveals that Shakespeare parodied English history with his creation of Falstaff, for many believe that his character is based on Sir John Oldcastle, a true historical figure who served as a knight for the real King Henry IV (sec. II). Oldcastle was well-liked by the king, but he was also involved in a religious group that went against the ways of the king’s Catholic church. He was condemned as a heretic and thrown in jail, where he eventually escaped as was said to have conspired with a group to use force against the king. This reminds readers of Falstaff, who constantly rises back up after what seems like defeat (think: Act 5, Scene 4 when he feigns his own death to protect himself).
In terms of Falstaff’s rhetoric skill, Kinney writes, “His quick repartee is heavily grounded in alliteration, repetition, and classical allusion that characterized euphuism, the sophisticated language of an earlier Elizabethan court; from the start, he is parodie” (sec I). We must remember that Bottom, too was a character surrounded by allusion in Shakespeare’s work, and though he could be deemed the fool of the play, his use of language brought attention to many of the greater issues lying beneath the surface of the work, such as living a life governed by reason rather than the fickle heart and wandering imagination. Falstaff might be considered to be the fat, cowardly jester of the play, but as Kinney points out, “style…can override substance”. He goes on to say, “serious ideas may be diminished or even erased if their examination is funny enough…seen this way, parody is not a means of translating ideas but a means of overturning them” (section V). If looked at this way, Falstaff’s purpose is actually quite different from Bottom’s. His linguistic style arguably draws attention away from what readers would see as “substantial” ideas in the play; instead, it rests on the idea of parody itself and Shakespeare’s awareness of its underlying significance in Henry IV.
Source:
Kinney, Arthur F. “Shakespeare’s Falstaff as parody.” Connotations 12.2-3 (2002): 105+. Literature Resource Center. Web. 1 Oct. 2013.
Debts paid in blood
1 Henry IV opens with what is essentially the King’s version of a politician’s speech. Driving home the imagery of blood soaked Earth and the evils of war, specifically civil war. Imagine my surprise when the Prince evokes this image yet again but instead of speaking of the pain of war, he soaks honor in blood. This stark contrast makes for a particularly interesting scene drawing my attention away from Hal’s ability to justify his many downfalls and shameful behaviours, and pulls it towards another example of his calculating mind and the question of honor.
What is honor in Henry IV? Who defines it? Hal gives it the only definition in his speech but then I highly doubt that Percy or Glendower would agree. Every character has their own version of the widely undefined status of honour, and yet Hal, the tactician of the play, promises to redeem all of his wrongs with Percy’s head “and stain [his] favors in a bloody mask.” He plans to regain his footing through the very civil war that his father denounced, he plans to regain his loyalties through blood.
Funny enough blood often refers to family relationships in Henry IV, with Falstaff accusing Hal of having no royal blood in him. So if the heir apparent Hal, accused of having neither honor nor royal blood is always being compared to Percy, the most honorable and most acclaimed. One can see why his calculating mind would plan to repay his debts and seek redemption by soaking him self in the blood of the man who has all that he is lacking.
A Highwayman and His Guilt
Shakespeare shows an account of guilt in 1 HenryIV and draws a picture of how it literally consumes a king for his past deeds throughout his ruling time. Henry IV’s overthrowing king Richard II seating himself on the throne is presumably the source of his guilt. Once a strong and chivalric nobleman, Henry Bolingbroke now turns out to be a weak and aged king Henry in 1 Henry IV. We, the audience, can take a peek into his spooky soul through his words usage throughout the play.
In the beginning of the play, the audience hears the tension and hardship king Henry going through by the word “ shaken,” which echoes the sound of civil war across his kingdom. It can also be a reminder to the audience, those who have seen King Richard II, of Henry Bolingbroke and his usurpation of the throne, followed by taking King Richard a prisoner and having him assassinated. As a result, we aren’t surprised at all seeing him tremble at the news of civil war, since it may bring King Henry back through flashback to Henry Bolingbroke. He may have foreseen another uprising and be terrified of another invasion to his illegitimate kingship.
Robbery, Rochester, Roads- all seem to symbolize the sick environment of king’s kingdom that gives rise to highwaymen. The robbery scenes in Act 2 Scene 2 and 4, to my mind, is an allegory of King Richard’s kingdom loss to Henry. Henry, in a sense, robbed this kingdom, like a highwayman, from King Richard. Falstaff, along with Gadshill and Peto firstly robs the travelers, and then he gets robbed by Hal and Poins. By this robbery scene Shakespeare maybe tries to give his audience a subtle hint that King Henry and Falstaff both act out of same motivation even though Henry hasn’t got robbed ( he still has his kingdom) in the play unlike Falstaff.
Shakespeare makes it more relevant to the plot of 1 Henry IV by creating the character the Highwaymen where the king himself holds one on the same skeleton.
The Witted Abilities of Falstaff
In third scene of act III, we are once again provided with a visual of Falstaff’s skill in the art of wit. In this scene, we return to the tavern where we find Falstaff complaining to Bardolph about how weak he has gotten along with the drastic loss of weight he has suffered (ln. 1-11). This can be rather humorous because we, in fact, know that he is far from thin due to his overweight stature. Soon after the crying of Falstaff begins, the hostess of the tavern enters demanding the payment of all food and drinks he has consumed but has not paid for. Not having any money, Falstaff quickly thinks on his feet and claims to have been pick-pocketed. After an exchange of words, he uses the Hostess’ emotions against her and claims that she might’ve been the source who had victimized him.
At this point, Prince Harry arrives and admits to being the one who pick-pocketed Falstaff. While, Falstaff claimed to have had great valuables at his time of misfortune, we know he had worthless items along with various amounts of receipts from earlier scenes (Act II scene 4). Once Prince Harry confronts his clump of lies, Falstaff immediately confronts the situation of being victimized, completing disregarding being caught in a series of lies.His mastery of wit places him in a position to say that he forgives the hostess and continues to order breakfast.
While it is not a good trait to be considered a habitual liar, Falstaff creates a sense of admiration to readers because of his insane ability to turn any situation into an advantage.
Honor as Property in 1 Henry IV
For most of Henry IV, Shakespeare handles honor in an indirect way. Although nearly every character stakes some claim to honor, the audience is left without a fundamental definition of it on which to build an understanding and more importantly, against which the “honor” of a character may be measured. There is, however, a notable shift away from this pattern of the indirect treatment of honor in Act 3, Scene 2, when King Henry and Hal are reunited after the Prince’s self-imposed “exile” to discuss the “villainous news” (2.4.334) of the Percy rebellion. During his discussion with his father, Hal’s description of honor implies that he perceives it as form of property, i.e., a thing whose ownership of can be transplanted. This notion of honor as property not only deepens our understanding of the rivalry between Hotspur and Hal, but also helps us find a better bearing on the dynamics of honor in Henry IV.
Dream, reality, and somewhere in between
Even in a dreamlike world of commoners, lovers, and fairies, different levels of reality still exist. The most believable plot involves the relationship between Theseus and Hippolyta. The duke “wooed” her with his sword and now gets to marry his prize. Naturally, Hippolyta is neither eager nor ecstatic to marry her victor as she is a strong-headed Amazon woman. It will come as no surprise if Theseus “breaks his faith” again as he had done before. Relationships that resemble that of Theseus and Hippolyta are not uncommon in their time.
At the other end of the reality spectrum, there is Oberon and Titania’s fantastical relationship. They are volatile characters that resort to magic to solve their issues. Oberon not only wishes his wife to fall in love with a vile creature but he also steals the changeling from her. After all the strange events, Titania and Oberon exit the stage in unity. Their relationship is unrealistic to say the least.
In between reality and fantasy, there are the four Athenian lovers and the mechanicals. Hermia and Lysander are deeply in love for reasons unknown to the audience while Helena blindly pursues Demetrius despite his cruel responses. They are blissfully and naively in love. Just as naïve are the workers who persuade themselves that they are worthy of performing at the duke’s wedding. These groups of characters have no control over their fates. Demetrius only falls in love with Helena because of the “love juice” and the workers’ play only gets chosen because of its absurdity. Despite their difference in class, the Athenians and the workers are all puppets within the play.