Penelope wrote:
Quite wonderful. But one needs to look carefully for any social commentary, or am I mistaken.

Not having studied the plays, I looked through Will Durant's history and found this line regarding Shakespeare, "However, he is no surface realist; things do not happen, people do not speak, in life as in his plays; but in the sum we feel that through these improbabilities and extravagances we are nearing the core of human instinct and thought."

So; No you are not likely mistaken in my opinion.
reading the plays as a script dialog with no stage direction, its is difficult for me as well to pick up on social commentary you speak of. but from what I'm gathering from various sources available to me, its not clear that was part of WS's intent.

Geo wrote;
Presumably, Falstaff comes from noble stock because he is a "Sir." But why does Hal hang out with him?

Matthew Dimmock; in his introduction to the copy of the play I'm reading says about Hal that his" power is based upon a sophisticated ability to dissemble, a full awareness of the role he is expected to play, and an under standing of the language of his subjects-he can coerce while(and by) inspiring devotion,"

I haven't read of how or were they all met but Falstaff, Poins, Bardolph, and Peto are used by Hal for a larger purpose.

I was struck, as Falstaff is later on, by the idea of 'honour'. King Henry despairs of his sons antics, and wishes that he could have had a son like Hotspur 'O that it could be proved/that some night-tripping fairy had exchanged/In cradle-clothes our children where they lay/ And called mine Percy, his Plantaganet'
Ha ha! I think many modern parents often think this, as well. Prince Hal's antics are relatively harmless, I see him as a typical rebel, whereas Hotspur is impulsive, short tempered, and willing to murderer for his cause. I'm a bit confused at the history. I think the two younger Henry's were cousins? Henry 1V was Welsh and spent his early years in exile in France i think? Will have to look it up

But i did enjoy the video, even though I watched it in three parts.

Got my Henry's mixed up
http://www.historytoday.com/peter-r-rob ... ess-tudors

heledd wrote:But i did enjoy the video, even though I watched it in three parts.

Which video?

Hal's arc as a character seems kind of stilted. You don't see much of his lusty, bawdy side and he announces at the end of Act I that he will soon start acting like the future king that he is. There's no crisis that prompts this change in the story. Hal just metamorphizes into a noble breed. His reputation precedes him.

So I was wondering about Hal's role in Richard II to see if some of this arc is portrayed there. It turns out that Hal doesn't make an appearance at all in Richard II (although Hotspur does). There's only this reference to Hal in Act V:

HENRY BOLINGBROKE
Can no man tell me of my unthrifty son?
'Tis full three months since I did see him last;
If any plague hang over us, 'tis he.
I would to God, my lords, he might be found:
Inquire at London, 'mongst the taverns there,
For there, they say, he daily doth frequent,
With unrestrained loose companions,
Even such, they say, as stand in narrow lanes,
And beat our watch, and rob our passengers;
Which he, young wanton and effeminate boy,
Takes on the point of honour to support
So dissolute a crew.

HENRY PERCY (Hotspur)
My lord, some two days since I saw the prince,
And told him of those triumphs held at Oxford.

HENRY BOLINGBROKE
And what said the gallant?

HENRY PERCY (Hotspur)
His answer was, he would unto the stews,
And from the common'st creature pluck a glove,
And wear it as a favour; and with that
He would unhorse the lustiest challenger.

HENRY BOLINGBROKE
As dissolute as desperate; yet through both
I see some sparks of better hope, which elder years
May happily bring forth. But who comes here?

The King calls his son "effeminate" but apparently this means only that he refuses to accept manly responsibility. But it's interesting that Hal's transformation is foreshadowed in this last line, as "sparks of better hope, which elder years may happily bring forth." Probably Shakespeare is just following Holinshed's The Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland, Vol. III, 1587, which he based the play on.

Geo wrote:
Hal's arc as a character seems kind of stilted. You don't see much of his lusty, bawdy side and he announces at the end of Act I that he will soon start acting like the future king that he is. There's no crisis that prompts this change in the story. Hal just metamorphizes into a noble breed. His reputation precedes him.

I like what your saying here, It got me to re-re-read the beginning of act 1 scene 2, the intro to Hal and Falstaff.
To me the bawdy language conceals what only becomes obvious at the close of the scene.

we are introduced to the future king engaged in what is presumed to be a silly situation, but the dialog is quit serious if you consider a premeditation on Hals part. Hal is in control of his environment. Falstaff asks a facetious question," Now Hal, what time of day is it , lad?" Hal counters, (I love this entire exchange) " Thou art so fat-witted, with drinking of old sack," I'll not reproduce the entirety of the exchange but as I was getting to. Hal wants to know whats on Falstaff's mind, which is basically Falstaff needs to know whats to become of him when Hal is king? Sir John has fears that his meal ticket is going to leave his drinking buddies behind. Hal knows its what people are thinking, does he care? I'd say yes. is there much he can do about it?,
I'd say not likely. I'm not a historian but I do know that there are proprieties between kings and knaves. even if only heir to the throne as yet. I think this idea of mine is hit home when further on in the scene we learn that Hal has covered many of Falstaff's tavern debts.
Anyway, I enjoy their banter, But Hal is the kid who is carful to ensure, his is the upper hand.
I think we see Hals mind working with premeditation through out the plays he's written in.

Taylor wrote:

Geo wrote:
Hal's arc as a character seems kind of stilted. You don't see much of his lusty, bawdy side and he announces at the end of Act I that he will soon start acting like the future king that he is. There's no crisis that prompts this change in the story. Hal just metamorphizes into a noble breed. His reputation precedes him.

I like what your saying here, It got me to re-re-read the beginning of act 1 scene 2, the intro to Hal and Falstaff.
To me the bawdy language conceals what only becomes obvious at the close of the scene.

we are introduced to the future king engaged in what is presumed to be a silly situation, but the dialog is quit serious if you consider a premeditation on Hals part. Hal is in control of his environment. Falstaff asks a facetious question," Now Hal, what time of day is it , lad?" Hal counters, (I love this entire exchange) " Thou art so fat-witted, with drinking of old sack," I'll not reproduce the entirety of the exchange but as I was getting to. Hal wants to know whats on Falstaff's mind, which is basically Falstaff needs to know whats to become of him when Hal is king? Sir John has fears that his meal ticket is going to leave his drinking buddies behind. Hal knows its what people are thinking, does he care? I'd say yes. is there much he can do about it?,
I'd say not likely. I'm not a historian but I do know that there are proprieties between kings and knaves. even if only heir to the throne as yet. I think this idea of mine is hit home when further on in the scene we learn that Hal has covered many of Falstaff's tavern debts.
Anyway, I enjoy their banter, But Hal is the kid who is carful to ensure, his is the upper hand.
I think we see Hals mind working with premeditation through out the plays he's written in.

I think I know what you mean that Hal is always careful to have the upper hand. Falstaff and Poins are well aware of Hal's future as king. And Hal himself must reconcile himself to his lot in life. And though he's hanging around with the guys, he's always the Prince in waiting. He is keenly aware of the reckoning that some day will come. There's no getting around it. But even now I think he bears himself in a noble way and outdoes Falstaff in most or all their witty banter.

His relationship with Falstaff is curious though. The two badger each other constantly with wittty banter. There are some great insults in this play. Hal reminds me of Hamlet in that respect. He's a very intelligent guy who always seeks to amuse himself, and Falstaff is the perfect foil. If I got anything out of my Shakespeare course, it was the concept of literary foil, which Shakespeare uses a lot in all of his plays. A foil is a "character who contrasts with another character (usually the protagonist) in order to highlight particular qualities of the other character." (Wikipedia). Shakespeare arguably uses Hotspur as a foil for Hal as well. He also contrasts high drama of the state with the lowlife antics of Hal and his comrades. That's a kind of foil as well.

Anyway, I love these scenes too. Hal telling Falstaff that he has no need to know the time because all he does is drink and carouse and sleep on benches until noon. Presumably the only prop in this scene is the bench on which Falstaff lies as he wakes up to greet the day, asking what time it is. "What a devil hast thou to do with the time of day?" Hal says.

Geo wrote: His relationship with Falstaff is curious though.

It is, It also allows one to speculate their early relationship, such as was Falstaff a landed knight at any time? if so what happened that he ends up sleeping on that bench?. I can picture in my mind these two meeting at some kings court, certainly Falstaff would carry his gregarious nature with him, Hal could easily recognize a kindred spirit. anyway fun to imagine. unpaid debt would put Falstaff on the outs with typical gentry.

Shakespeare arguably uses Hotspur as a foil for Hal as well. He also contrasts high drama of the state with the lowlife antics of Hal and his comrades. That's a kind of foil as well.

They certainly are contrasting, When we meet Hotspur he called before the man (Henry IV).[ My lunch break is over heading back to work]

Taylor wrote:. . . was Falstaff a landed knight at any time? if so what happened that he ends up sleeping on that bench?

I just finished Act IV this morning. And Hal makes sure that Falstaff contributes to the war effort as the King's army moves north. So he is a nobleman of sorts, obviously one who's broke.