Day 50: Henry V, by William Shakespeare (BBC Hollow Crown adaptation)

It's a surprisingly rare treat to see one actor play the character of Harry through all three plays, and the shift in character from Prince to King might be easily chalked up to a change in actor in other circumstances. On film, small expressions that might be lost on stage show up the spark of Hal that's still very much alive behind the toughened mask of suddenly-acquired leadership. It also allows flashbacks from moments in Henry IV which would lose impact if played by someone else. The famous speeches as well become much more intimate and personal (something explored in the Hamlet adaptation I reviewed early in this project).

I'm glad I kept this one in reserve a while and let myself explore a little more Shakespeare before coming back to cover it properly for the blog. There is so much to appreciate that might have been lost on me a month ago. Henry V was originally one of the first plays written for the newly-built Globe, and there are references to that in the introduction from Chorus. Having just finished working through The Age of Shakespeare by Frank Kermode, there's mention in there that Will Kempe, who had played roles like Dogberry and Bottom, left the company when the Globe opened, and I've found comment elsewhere that Falstaff's offstage death at the start of this play seems a little abrupt after the promise at the end of IV part ii that he would return. It doesn't seem much of a leap to wonder if he was written out of the work-in-progress for reasons of continuity.

While there are several famous speeches, mostly delivered by Henry himself, I find I'm drawn rather strongly to the opening Chorus of "O, for a muse of fire". On the surface it's pretty poetry, but the whole speech has enormous depth to it which I didn't fully appreciate the first couple of times I watched this, without the subtitled script turned on. It's certainly something to go back to. One of the things I'm looking into doing this year is the RADA Shakespeare certificates, which have the bonus of not requiring sticking to gender, which school auditions at the end of the year will. I'd thought to try something from Midsummer Night's Dream (especially Puck) but I'm certainly considering this one now.

Day 24: Richard II, by William Shakespeare (BBC Hollow Crown adaptation)

The first time watching this one, I really didn't get it. Now with a few more viewings (including the subtitles for today's attempt) I have a better feel for the play. My first observation is a rather petty one - Richard being dressed in a nearly skin-toned suit for most of the film was a little bit off-putting. That said though, it does add to the uneasiness about the character in general, certainly by the end everyone around him seems to be sick of the melodramatics. It's difficult to feel any sympathy for him - he seems determined to give up and flake out of almost every situation he finds himself, including apparently (if the script is taken at face value) deciding he's been deposed at the first sign that his decisions have been challenged. It's a fair conclusion to draw, as it turns out, but technically Bollingbroke only asked for his lands back, not the crown - that was offered in a rather defeatist act that Richard keeps up for the rest of the play. I get the feeling maybe he didn't really want to be king in the first place, it just sort of happened that way.

Interestingly, when Bollingbroke gets banished, Richard says of him that he basically tips his hat to everyone no matter how low-class, and seems to imply that he himself wouldn't do such a thing. Later in Henry IV part i, the King Bollingbroke is to become pretty much says the same thing about Richard, and claims to have kept himself rarely seen and shrouded in mystery. I may be picking on a tiny thing here, but I can't help but feel there's a rather large chapter missing in the middle.

Once again I find myself wondering how much I really missed at school with my developing blind spot for History and English. When I was in primary school I loved to read, got stuck into every project we were given and usually chose ancient civilisations whether or not the subject matter was limited to historical themes, developed an interest in other languages that stuck with me all the way through to A-levels and already had a blossoming interest in not only Shakespeare but Chaucer. I won a school prize at the end of primary school for general improvement and was allowed to choose a book as a prize - that year we'd been introduced to the Canterbury Tales and I asked for a copy, which came in the form of a beautifully illustrated modern translation. The deeper I get into rediscovering Shakespeare, as well as discovering the wealth of modern work out there, it's a little bit like stepping back a lot further than I realised I needed to go to find that I didn't always shy away from all this. It's overgrown and sleeping, but there was at one point a real spark for everything I'm working to reclaim.

Day 20: Henry IV, part ii, by William Shakespeare (BBC Hollow Crown adaptation)

Wrapping up the week where it started, with part two of Henry IV. As a play, the second installment feels rather more disjointed than the first, in particular Falstaff's thread of the story seems to get a lot of airtime when it's clear from the start Hal is already distancing himself from him. That does set up the final scene to be all the more heartbreaking, which is presumably the point. Prince John being given some very public authority seems to pass almost entirely unremarked by anyone involved - though in the interviews it's been hinted that some lines were cut in the name of timing for these adaptations and I wonder if that particular battlefield scene is explained any more deeply in the complete text. I certainly intend to come back and read these plays later in the year.

After yesterday's revalation of Imogen as a female role I can relate to, and now watching this, I realise I've been unfair in my assessment. The histories (particularly those covered by the Hollow Crown series) are of necessity "manly" plays, dealing with succession and war and suitably dutiful women (and occasional whores). In the same way, the romantic comedy plays are stories specifically about falling in and out of love and the female roles are mostly going to be primarily written for someone else to spurn, fall for or whatever. Anything we see of those women is probably going to be related to those storylines (though, I still maintain he's inherantly distrusting of women and is convinced we're all plotting to kill at least one person at any given time).

The deeper into this project I get, the more I wonder at how much I hated English classes at school. I'm finding myself totally drawn in to the language, remembering experiences, and seeing the world a little differently every day. And maybe that's why - most of the voices in Shakespeare are adults, with the experience of all those deep and complicated feelings like grief, pride, duty, honour - of which, when I was a kid, I had no real understanding. Even romantic love was something I didn't really experience myself until my mid teens. (That last was one of the many sticking points with the much-maligned English Teacher - she seemed to think everything in literature pretty much ever written was about sex - something that made me very uncomfortable when it was discussed in class when I was 12). And it's not just Shakespeare - pretty much every play draws on that experience and emotional maturity that can only really be understood by someone who's at least peripherally experienced something similar. Next week there will be one or two plays apparently written for children, and I'm interested now to see how that lack of emotional language and understanding is adressed.

Day 15: Henry IV, part i, by William Shakespeare (BBC Hollow Crown adaptation)

This is technically not a first viewing... in fact, it's the one that got me to start thinking about getting back into drama again. While in recovery from surgery, I came across the Hollow Crown series and I'll admit, approached them with mixed feelings. There's a lot of names I know and love in the cast of all 4 of these films, but I had never read or seen any of the plays before and had actively avoided engaging with any of the histories as a kid. I think that was mostly to do with not really liking History as a subject (I didn't like English as a subject much either but that was more to do with a teacher I've mentioned before, and my love of the theatre and performing pretty much got me through that).

What I found, as a first taste of these plays (I think I'd seen some clips of the more famous Henry V speeches and such, but not the whole thing) was nothing short of captivating. I can't really compare the adaptations to anything else, but from what I've found with various interviews and reviews I've watched over the last few weeks (and some of them again today) it seems that my impression of the reputation of those plays when I was at school and avoiding them for it still exists... or at least did until these films were made.

So, leaving aside the general comments about the series, I'll turn to the specifics of this play. I've talked about the "wayward son" character before and this is pretty much the showcase for that. Prince Hal does a lot of growing up through the course of this play, but it's actually pretty early that the first inkling that he plans to change his ways eventually shows itself - in this version it's a voiceover but he's talking about having fun and playing while he can knowing that the change will be noticed, and suggesting that being royal when the time comes will be all the more celebrated when his youth is there to compare to. Naturally that's precisely the opposite to what his father thinks as we later find out in a spectacular fight between two very talented actors. But they reconcile their differences over the idea of going to war against Hotspur and those first hints that Hal's starting to leave his old life behind creep into the way he talks to Fallstaff before, during and after the fight. We also get a glimpse of the old King's failing health which sets up part two.

As far as female roles go, there's not many long speeches and probably the most likable woman is Quickly. I'm not really old enough to play her, but the performance here is some of the most naturally spoken (female) Shakespeare I've heard. Again, the allstar casting here helps immensely, but it's also the fact that when the lines come from a character who isn't meant to be courtly, or lovesick or otherwise waxing poetic, I think they tend to read as easier to speak naturally. That's true in any case though, not just Shakespeare... it's just a bit more obvious when the whole thing is in older language than it would be in a modern play. Watching politicians or similar today they still use a lot of long-winded addresses and titles and forms which you wouldn't use among friends in a pub...and Shakespeare doesn't really populate his taverns with many women.