Sharing Shakespeare

"And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell"
-St. Matthew 5:30

The assignment this week was to share Shakespeare in person and online, which I tried my best to do.  The in-person experience was fairly interesting because I did it-wait for it, group-during my home teaching visit.  I couldn't really run through the whole plot of my assigned play, and I also had to have a spiritual element to the message.  So I ended up talking about the relationship between Falstaff and Hal.

Falstaff is the devil's advocate of this play.  He's around to eat, drink, and be merry, and provide humor for everyone.  But he doesn't do anything other than that.  Hal, meanwhile, is going to become Henry V in a few short years, and while he is enjoying running around with Falstaff and his other friends, he has a royal destiny and has to accomplish it. 

So I told the girls that I visit that they needed to be like Henry V and cast off anything that might be holding them back from their royal destinies as God's children.  God has a plan for us, and wants us to accomplish it, but there are a lot of things in this world that can distract us and keep us from living up to our potential.  So we need to do our best to minimize those influences in our lives, just like Henry V began to leave behind his old life to embrace his true character.  (I did not, however, tell them about the part where Henry kills some people close to the end.  I felt like it would defeat the purpose of the visit.  Just a little). 

As for sharing online, I did two things.  I posted a comment on the blog by the all-female company I mentioned last week who put on a production of Henry IV, part 1, hoping to initiate a conversation and find out about their perspectives.  However, this did not happen and I found out that my comment was apparently deleted (Who knows?) Fortunately for my Internet presence, I also posted a Goodreads review of my play.  Here's the link: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13020.King_Henry_IV_Part_1

I'm hoping to get some comments soon.  Thanks for reading!

Social Discovery!

I found Henry IV, part 1 to be interesting and engaging, despite my initial reservations.  I especially found looking into the characters of Hal and Hotspur to be interesting and informative, and that was originally going to be my only focus, but I found as I kept reading the play and watching the BBC production that this isn't just about the two of them.  This play is character-driven.  Unlike The Tempest, which is about spectacle and mystery, the drama, action, and humor in this play comes from the characters, and I feel like any appropriate analysis of this work will be mostly centered on the characters. 

Let's start with Hotspur.  He is impulsive (as his name suggests), honor-driven, and youthful.  He's willing to sacrifice anything to maintain his honor, including his soldiers, as he shows here when he learns that his father the earl isn't coming to help the rebels:

I rather of his absence make this use:/It lends a lustre and more great opinion/A larger dare to our great enterprise/Than if the earl were here; for men must think/If we without his help can make a head/To push against a kingdom, with his help/We shall o'erturn it topsy-turvy down (4.1.2299-2305).

He likes looking awesome more than he cares about his army's chance of victory.  He exhibits a trait that the Greeks would have called hubris, excessive arrogance and self-confidence.  I previously discussed how this even extends to the supernatural realm (or at least one person's claim to the supernatural).  Hotspur is the classic tragic hero.  Young, strong, rational, and clever, but with that ultimate fatal flaw: arrogance.  The BBC production put more emphasis into this reading of Hotspur, showing his impulsive temper and condescension towards others. 

I also found online a fantastic blog in which the cast of an all-female production of Henry IV, part 1 wrote about their experiences playing various characters, and I thought the post from the actress who played Hotspur was a particularly valuable insight into the character.  Here's the link: http://pcshakespeare.com/blog/2011/08/19/playing-hotspur/

Then there's Hal.  Hal is a little more subtle than Hotspur.  Okay, a lot more subtle than Hotspur.  Hal is the consummate manipulator.  Some have taken this play as Hal's realization of his role in life and his acceptance of the responsibilities of the crown, but the thing is, he already knows what his role is supposed to be.  He's just planning for it by pretending to resemble a lowlife so he can look that much greater when he's the king.  Very Machiavellian, is Hal.  The film brought this out even more, especially during the dialogue when Hal and Falstaff are impersonating Henry IV and Hal at court.  Falstaff gives his famous line "banish not him thy Harry's company: banish plump Jack, and banish all the world" and Hal responds with "I do, I will."  The look on Falstaff's face when he realizes that Hal isn't joking anymore really brought the point home to me that Hal is using his friends as part of his plan.  I thought the director and actors really made that scene telling in the film. 



The man himself.



I was also struck by Henry's character.  I noted earlier that the film brought out his piety and real devotion to the Church, including his desire to crusade.  As I searched the Internet though, I found something I didn't consider: Henry does not consider himself the true king of England.  Historically, Henry IV seized power from his cousin Richard II, and had him executed.  In the play, Henry regrets this and feels as though his honor has been compromised.  He is a cross between Hal and Hotspur, combining Hal's semi-Machiavellian tendencies with Hotspur's desire for honor.  He shows this when he wishes that Hotspur had been his son instead of Hal.  Unlike either of them, however, he tries to redeem himself through the Church rather than seeking solace in combat and rationalism like Hotspur or social vindication like Hal.  Here's a link on Henry's motivations and ideas:

http://nabercoxnet.blogspot.com/2008/02/analysis.html

I felt with this play that Shakespeare's point was to show some of the hard, cold facts of life: it isn't always the heroic characters who succeed in life.  Hotspur dies at Hal's hands, even as Hal finishes Hotspur's last thought-that he is food for worms, and nothing more.  In most plays, the hero succeeds.  In this play, the hero is mortal just like everyone else, and it is the cold, calm planner who comes out on top. 

 

Just Can't Wait To Be King

My assigned play is Henry IV, part 1.  I had to admit, when I saw it on the assignment list, my first reaction was "What? I've never read that play in my life!"  I'm going to assume that I was assigned a history play because I'm a history major (Just a guess), although truth be told, I was hoping for Henry V if I was going to get a history-come on, the St. Crispin's Day speech is awesome, and Agincourt was a legendary battle both in Shakespeare and in real life-but I think I like this play too.  It'll be very interesting to learn the facts behind the events narrated in Henry IV, part 1. 

I've been looking around that font of all knowledge, the Internet, for information on my topic, and I think I want to examine the characters of Hotspur (Henry Percy) and Hal (the future Henry V), the main antagonist and protagonist respectively.  This interests me as a historian because these were the two historical characters who were fictionalized the most in the play.  Hotspur, in real life, was an older noble, a contemporary of Henry IV who led the rebellion, rather than a hothead youth who is pressured into fighting Henry by his noble relatives.  Hal, the Prince of Wales, is a semi-serious youth who runs around with a group of lowlife friends, most notably a fat old man named Falstaff.  He apparently has other motives for doing this, though, as he wants to "imitate the sun, who doth permit the base contagious clouds to smother up his beauty from the world, That, when he please again to be himself, Being wanted, he may be more wonder'd at" (1.1.300-05).  In other words, he's using his friends to look bad so he can look better as king.  Shakespeare deliberately altered the identities of these two historical characters when he didn't have to.  I want to know why that is. 

Falstaff and Hal-Friends don't let friends use them to become King of England.

Here are some links to look up summaries and background on Henry IV, part 1 in case you're interested.  (I won't be upset if you  aren't). 

General Information/Summaries/Analysis:

http://www.gradesaver.com/henry-iv-part-1/

Battle of Shrewsbury/Rebel Motives/Historical Analysis:

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/medieval/shrewsbury/