• In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Henry IV (Part 1), Act 5

#135: Dec. - Jan. 2015 (Fiction)
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Henry IV (Part 1), Act 5

Unread post

Orson Welles made a movie that includes portions of the four plays in the Henriad, mostly Henry IV, parts one and two. The film revolves on Falstaff as the central character (played by Welles himself). This movie wasn't well received when it first came out and has remained in relative obscurity. Although Roger Ebert and other critics now feel the movie is right up there with Citizen Cane, and Welles considered it his best work.

Anyway, if you watch this trailer, you'll recognize a few lines from Part One.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eii4_wbuPJY
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Henry IV (Part 1), Act 5

Unread post

Flann 5 wrote:There's ambiguity between the personal family loyalties and political ones.
Falstaff is a clown like character but his pragmatism questions the romantic ideal of valour.
I think his cynicism is corrosive and his only remaining goals are self indulgent.
He's portrayed as a coward in the robbery escapade and playing dead rather than be killed in combat.Neither has he the slightest qualm about stealing the money bound for the kings treasury.Hal of course reimburses this which Falstaff considers madness.
So there's an inherent value contradiction in Hal allowing him claim honour for killing Hotspur.
Indeed, much of intrigue with Shakespeare lies in his ambiguity. If it doesn't quite make sense that Hal pals around with Falstaff or that their motives seem contradictory, isn't this an accurate reflection of the real world?

I fear my lumping Falstaff with Shakespeare's other clowns and fools isn't quite accurate. Most of Shakespeare's fools are minor characters, and Falstaff is, of course, a major character who appears in several plays. It will be interesting to read Bloom's chapter on 1 Henry IV in his book, Shakespeare, the Invention of the Human. I also have Isaac Asimov's book on Shakespeare. I enjoy reading this stuff.

I found yet another book today in a used book shop. It's called, Shakespeare's English Kings by Peter Saccio. Saccio discusses history of the English monarchs in Shakespeare's ten history plays, comparing modern scholarly knowledge with the source material that Shakespeare used. I don't know when I'll have time to read it, but it does look pretty interesting
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6497
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2717 times
Been thanked: 2659 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Henry IV (Part 1), Act 5

Unread post

The fool in King Lear is able to say things that are true that no one would ordinarily dare to say. The fool is outside the normal structures of ambitions for power and his cynical descriptions are not seen as a threat.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Henry IV (Part 1), Act 5

Unread post

Taylor wrote:I feel better about that "whoreson round man" all the time. :yes:
I always recommend Bloom mostly because he writes well and his essays are fun to read. That said, in THE INVENTION OF THE HUMAN, he really goes on and on about Falstaff to the point that some Amazon reviewers say the old man has gone completely batty.

Anyway, I recall something Bloom said in the chapter on A Midsummer Night's Dream (which I've read a number of times because Midsummer is the one and only Shakespeare play I have taught). There's a clownish character in Midsummer named Bottom, a rustic country gent who is turned into a donkey in the play. Bottom is a great simple-minded character who, as Robert says, is able to make unpretentious comments that ring true in a play where the whole world turns topsy turvy. Bloom wastes no time in comparing Bottom to Falstaff and, of course, must reiterate for the umpteenth time that Falstaff is Shakespeare's best character.

"Bottom is Shakespeare's Everyman, a true original, a clown rather than a fool or jester. He is a wise clown, though he smilingly denies his palpable wisdom, as if his innocent vanity did not extend to such pretension. One delights in Falstaff (unless one is an academic moralist), but one loves Bottom, though necessarily he is the lesser figure of the two. No one in Shakespeare, not even Hamlet or Rosalind, Iago or Edmund, is more intelligent than Falstaff. Bottom is as shrewd as he is kind, but he is not a wit, and Falstaff is Monarch of Wit. Every exigency finds Bottom round and ready: his response is always admirable."

So much of Bloom's infatuation for Falstaff has to do with his wit and intelligence. Indeed, many of the memorable scenes in 1 Henry IV feature the witty banter between Hal and Falstaff. And though Taylor and I may still see this play as Hal's coming-of-age story, we are both still talking an awful lot about Falstaff.

If you haven't checked out Orson Welles' portrayal of Falstaff in the trailer I posted, please do so. He really seems to nail the part. Welles uses his natural "roundness" to good effect.

Also, since this is Christmas, it just occurred to me that Clarence, the angel in It's A Wonderful Life, is a very Bottom-like character. If you were enrolled in a Shakespeare course somewhere, comparing the two characters would make an interesting paper!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2ZZUu2HUuo
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Henry IV (Part 1), Act 5

Unread post

Taylor wrote:I found this Quote from Harold Bloom:
"What, then are the teachings of the philosopher of Eastcheap? Eating, drinking, fornication, and the other obvious indulgences are not the heart of Falstaffianism, though they certainly take up much of the knight's time. This does not matter, because Falstaff, as Hal tells us, has nothing to do with the time of the day. That which we are, that only we can teach; Falstaff, who is free, instructs us in freedom-not a freedom in society, but from society".
Hi Taylor, It probably seems that I'm hard on Falstaff. I think that the more you look the more subtle and nuanced the play is.
I can't agree with Bloom here at all though. Falstaff is justifiably cynical about the realities of power and the weight of value placed on valour in that lopsided way.
He is not free from society though and has to fight on the king's side in the battle. He's also vulnerable to the exploitation of his likeminded confederates in crime, who's loyalty comes at a price.
I think Geo makes a good point about the contradictions of human nature itself.It's almost impossible to actually implement the romanticised ideal.
The scene of Falstaff's recruiting of his army for battle is telling.Falstaff and co are obliged to fight, They are unwilling 'volunteers' but adopt a pragmatic and mercenary approach to reality.
Bardolph wants payment. They press gang those down on their luck, into service for the king's shilling, most of whom are not soldiers at all but beggars and misfits and are doomed to extermination in battle.
Hal is quite blase about all this.
We have the comic irony of Falstaff, and his 'lieutenants' Bardolph and Peto fighting for the king's "own."
So we have the contrast between the romantic ideal of valour and the pragmatic mercenary approach of Falstaff and co.
The king is not so callous that he wants war at all costs. knowing the human toll. He is though portrayed as harbouring guilt for his past crimes which a crusade war against the pagans might atone for.And from a psychological perspective this is mercenary in it's own way.
So I suppose the ideal of valour is a kind of distortion of reality,and maybe there is a real parallel between the tavern thieves and the nobles in their striving for power and land.
I think Falstaff is a larger than life character, witty and entertaining and real to life in many ways.
It might seem a bit harsh but that's how it looks to me.
User avatar
Taylor

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Awesome
Posts: 959
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:39 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 422 times
Been thanked: 589 times

Re: Henry IV (Part 1), Act 5

Unread post

I found the Bloom book the other day, Its where I pulled the quote from, but I'm leery of the outside influence as I might loose my thoughts, in exchange for someone else's, Bloom is certainly beyond me, I've only just recently ever read any WS. I bought the book thinking it will gain me better insight into the plays, and it seems it may, but as I say to much of another's insight might over influence my own.

I watched the trailer, Wells was a giant of his time, I consider myself a fan. I'm interested in his take on Falstaff.

I believe Falstaff's freedom is more about the intellect than the physical act of freedom, as we well know medieval freedom is an oxymoron. I also think that Falstaff's vulnerabilities are derived from his perverse honesty, granting he is debauched and thieving, he is still dreaming of a better way, as for those around him its their choice to come along for the ride. I think the Falstaff's wit is knowledge of life that the young don't have yet, he knows this and in his way imparts.
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Henry IV (Part 1), Act 5

Unread post

Taylor wrote:I believe Falstaff's freedom is more about the intellect than the physical act of freedom, as we well know medieval freedom is an oxymoron. I also think that Falstaff's vulnerabilities are derived from his perverse honesty, granting he is debauched and thieving, he is still dreaming of a better way, as for those around him its their choice to come along for the ride. I think the Falstaff's wit is knowledge of life that the young don't have yet, he knows this and in his way imparts.
Hi Taylor, thanks.
I suppose he would be entertaining company.He has his own philosophy which boils down to self preservation, and his view of reality is true in many ways. Still, I think his cynicism is self destructive, and destructive of others and I think Shakespeare shows this.
The philosophy itself is reactionary and he seems inexorably set on his rakish course. No expiatory crusades for him!
In fact he speaks of himself as being at the wrong end of many years of living this way.
He does at the very end of part one, speak of amending his ways as befits a nobleman,as he says.
Overall though he's resigned that there's hell to pay,but not just yet!
An interesting character for sure and not thoughtless, and though a comic character, there's a tragedy in there too,I think.
User avatar
Taylor

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Awesome
Posts: 959
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:39 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 422 times
Been thanked: 589 times

Re: Henry IV (Part 1), Act 5

Unread post

Flann 5 wrote:
I suppose he would be entertaining company.He has his own philosophy which boils down to self preservation, and his view of reality is true in many ways. Still, I think his cynicism is self destructive, and destructive of others and I think Shakespeare shows this.
The philosophy itself is reactionary and he seems inexorably set on his rakish course. No expiatory crusades for him!
In fact he speaks of himself as being at the wrong end of many years of living this way.
He does at the very end of part one, speak of amending his ways as befits a nobleman,as he says.
Overall though he's resigned that there's hell to pay,but not just yet!
An interesting character for sure and not thoughtless, and though a comic character, there's a tragedy in there too,I think.
All true and all too true indeed.

Falstaff's story had to be written as it was, if written any other way it would be someone else's story. Think if Hal hadn't rejected Jack, what change would WS have written for Jack? Nobility perchance? it would have distorted the reality of Jack. Rewriting Falstaff would be rewriting history, a rewrite of real people into unreal persona. There was no example for WS to draw from as I can see, story wise at least. Even Hals metamorphosis to the pious Henry 5 to me has a fecundity about it, a coming of age comes to what? A sell out that's what. WS's hands were tied by the times, as were Hals and our trodden Jack, his end is the bitter end of the vagabond, the biting death of the unknown artists travel on roads less taken. I applaud Hal for ultimately living up to expectation but at the price of what? the maintenance of the status quo.

Once again I appeal to Harold Bloom; "As for exercising moral disapproval upon Falstaff- why, who is there in the Henriad whom we could prefer to Fat Jack? Henry 4, hypocrite and usurper, is not an option, nor is Hal/Henry 5, hypocrite and brutal soldier, slaughter of prisoners and of his old companion Bardolph. Are we to prefer Hotspur's "die all, die merrily" to Falstaff's "Give me life"? Is Falstaff morally inferior to the treacherous Prince John? There is, of course, the Lord Chief Justice, if you have a strong taste for law enforcement as such" Though I've made my choices in life I could hardly argue against Blooms logic.


Then as now the characters work because we see Falstaffian figures in our own lives, for that matter we see Henrican drama in our own lives as well,

I'm curious, has any of you an experience with your own personal Falstaff or Henry 4 types? I can see the parallels between Hal and his old man in my own confrontations with my father when I was around twenty years old, and for much of the same behaviors, even Falstaff in the form of an old friend was there for me, my parents hated this guy.(a starving artist type, a musician really, but beyond having a great local band and a dream for a record deal, a wastrel)
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Henry IV (Part 1), Act 5

Unread post

Taylor wrote:. . . Even Hals metamorphosis to the pious Henry 5 to me has a fecundity about it, a coming of age comes to what? A sell out that's what. WS's hands were tied by the times, as were Hals and our trodden Jack, his end is the bitter end of the vagabond, the biting death of the unknown artists travel on roads less taken. I applaud Hal for ultimately living up to expectation but at the price of what? the maintenance of the status quo.

Once again I appeal to Harold Bloom; "As for exercising moral disapproval upon Falstaff- why, who is there in the Henriad whom we could prefer to Fat Jack? Henry 4, hypocrite and usurper, is not an option, nor is Hal/Henry 5, hypocrite and brutal soldier, slaughter of prisoners and of his old companion Bardolph. Are we to prefer Hotspur's "die all, die merrily" to Falstaff's "Give me life"? Is Falstaff morally inferior to the treacherous Prince John? There is, of course, the Lord Chief Justice, if you have a strong taste for law enforcement as such" Though I've made my choices in life I could hardly argue against Blooms logic.
You make some great points, Taylor.

Falstaff defies easy categorization. He's a cad, but an honest cad, perhaps the most honest character in the play. He sees through everyone else's pretensions, thumbs his nose at the hypocrisy all around him. Though Hal becomes a good king, he still has a dark side. Recall the scene at the Boar's Head where Hal relentlessly teases the drawer (a busboy). What a hypocrite! Hal brought up by the kingdom’s finest tutors, laughing at this poor befuddled working man. Then again, Hal defies easy categorization too.

The scene where Falstaff talks about honor seems important because I think he speaks truth. To the nobles, honor means it's okay to butcher the opposite camp. It takes a brave and honest man to cut through this kind of bullshit. Who wants to die in a war when you know that it's for nothing?
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Henry IV (Part 1), Act 5

Unread post

Taylor wrote:Once again I appeal to Harold Bloom; "As for exercising moral disapproval upon Falstaff- why, who is there in the Henriad whom we could prefer to Fat Jack? Henry 4, hypocrite and usurper, is not an option, nor is Hal/Henry 5, hypocrite and brutal soldier, slaughter of prisoners and of his old companion Bardolph. Are we to prefer Hotspur's "die all, die merrily" to Falstaff's "Give me life"? Is Falstaff morally inferior to the treacherous Prince John? There is, of course, the Lord Chief Justice, if you have a strong taste for law enforcement as such" Though I've made my choices in life I could hardly argue against Blooms logic.
Hi Taylor, Thanks for your ideas here. Maybe I'm taking it too seriously. Falstaff is a comic clown, largely the butt off jokes and pranks.It's the attempt to elevate him to philosophical sage that I question.
Orson Welles thinks he's really a good guy and the epitome of merry England.
I agree with Bloom that hypocrisy is rife. Hal and Hotspur are trapped in their romantic fantasy of valour,glory and honour.
Falstaff despite himself, recognises there is real value in courage and loyalty. When apparently abandoned at the robbery by Hal and Poins,he later denounces them with the vehement repetition of; "A plague on all cowards."
And in his reconstruction he exaggerates and presents himself as fighting valianty against many adversaries.The joke of course is that everyone knows he does no such thing.
Both philosophies are flawed and the realities of war and events show this.
Are the denizens and little criminals of the tavern worse than the hereditary elites with their intrigues and power struggles? I wouldn't say so.
Post Reply

Return to “King Henry IV, Part 1 (Arden Shakespeare: Third Series) (Pt. 1) - by William Shakespeare”