DWill wrote:I saw the play a few years ago at the Blackfriars' Theatre in Staunton, VA, a recreation of the first stage Shakespeare's company used. From an entertainment standpoint, of course the play is all Falstaff, and we saw a good actor playing the part. He is the prototypical hard act to follow, which made the "serious stuff" in the play of somewhat secondary interest.
Hey, DWill, hope you can participate in this discussion.
My Arden Shakespeare version of the play includes a lengthy introduction by David Scott Kastan, who says that that there are many ways to interpret the play, and that playing up Falstaffs' comedic role is a relatively recent trend. There are actually four equal strands in the play—involving King Henry IV, Prince Hal, Hotspur and Falstaff. One of the play's "brilliant prismatic achievements," according to Kastan, is the equal sharing of these four distinct plot lines. Kastan seems to suggest that, historically, this play is more of a political drama than as a vehicle for Falstaff. Shakespeare's main purpose for Falstaff was as a foil for Prince Hal, and there's an underlying context about father and son relationships as well
"Indeed, 1 Henry IV is a play no less about relationships than about character:about subjects and rulers, fathers and sons, nephews and uncles, wives and husbands, and about friends. Hal's transformation from the truant prince of the tavern scenes to the chivalric hero on the battlefield at Shrewsbury is, no doubt, the central trajectory that the play traces, but 1 Henry IV i concerned as much with the complex social formation of England as it is with the complex moral formation of the king who will run day rule over it as Henry V."
It will be interesting to see one of the movie versions of this play to see how these various strands play out.
That's cool that you've already seen this play. Have you seen other Shakespeare plays?
\
