Oh no! I'm back at the histories!

It was the histories that killed me. I couldn't get through Henry IV Part 2 and I just stopped altogether. Now I've read almost everything else and I just have to power through them. Next up: The Merry Wives of Windsor. Not strictly a history, but more of a spin-off from the Henry IV plays. I hope it's delightful at least. Here I go.

Day 159: The Hollow Crown

Hey, did you know there's a BBC show based on Shakespeare's Richard & Henry plays (Richard III, Henry IV, Parts 1 and 2, Henry V)? But Jeremy Irons plays King Henry IV so I'm guessing they've added a creepy sexual predator element to the original material. I'm not saying that Jeremy Irons is secretly a sexual predator. I'm saying that all of his characters are, whether it's in the script or not. 

Here's a clip:

Day 154: What I Learned from Henry IV, Part I

I admit I was apprehensive about the histories and so far I have found them a little intimidating, but it's almost impossible not to see the appeal of Falstaff and Prince Hal in Henry IV. Most of their scenes take place in a pub, either drunkenly planning or drunkenly recounting all manner of petty crimes unbefitting the heir to the throne. It's no wonder why King Henry wishes he could trade his son in for a better one.

Matthew Macfadyen as Prince Hal and Michael Gambon as Falstaff in Henry IV, National Theatre.
Photo: Catherine Ashmore (via guardian.co.uk)

Falstaff and Prince Hal have been interpreted a number of ways, including as a street hustler and pimp in My Own Private Idaho. But as I was reading it I kept picturing them as the sort of characters who could be played by Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. Sure, there isn't the age difference between them that there is between Falstaff and Prince Henry, but that same sort of slacker/wastrel/bad influence/best mate relationship is totally there. Can't you just picture Simon Pegg as the reluctant heir to the throne who spends all of his time at the pub with his up-to-no-good best friend who brings out the (hilariously) worst in him? If you've ever seen ANYTHING with the two of them in it, THEN OF COURSE YOU CAN.

Nick Frost and Simon Pegg from Shaun of the Dead (2004) (via downwithfilm.com)

There's even a scene at the end of Act III in Henry IV Part I in which Prince Henry realizes that he has to get up off his bar stool and actually go to war that reminds me of Simon Pegg's "this shit just got real" moment in Hot Fuzz. 

Prince Henry declares:

The land is burning. Percy stands on high,

And either we or they must lower lie.

To which Falstaff responds that he will gladly go to war with his friend...after a good breakfast.

Nick Frost and Simon Pegg (with a swan) in Hot Fuzz (2007) (via fanpop.com)

If Simon Pegg were a Shakespeare geek (which, FYI, he TOTALLY IS) he could definitely do justice to Henry IV. And maybe even have time for a Cornetto (which I just realized sounds like 'crown'--OH MY GOD IT'S SO PERFECT!). 

Day 153: Finally! It's time to talk about My Own Private Idaho

via

I've been waiting to talk about this movie since I first started the Shakespeare project in January. As I was searching for more things to say about Henry IV Part I this week, it hit me: that's the play My Own Private Idaho is based on! Sort of. It's more like a sleepy version of Midnight Cowboy with a slight dash of Scotland PA thrown in. 

And speaking of sleepy...

River Phoenix, seen here not demonstrating how narcolepsy works (via)

I would just like to, once and for all, call bullshit on River Phoenix's character's "narcoleptic fits" in the movie. Let me tell you, I have narcolepsy. My father had it. My sister has it. I know whereof I speak on this one (despite what they show in the movies). You don't have a "fit" followed by an elaborate dream sequence that results in you waking up in another state! NARCOLEPSY IS NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH RUFIES!

Glad I cleared that up.

And since we're talking My Own Private Idaho...

Has anyone seen James Franco's "personal director's cut" remake of the original Gus Van Sant movie that highlights River Phoenix's performance, called My Own Private River? I'm guessing no one has ever seen this, ever. BUT IF YOU HAVE PLEASE TELL ME ALL ABOUT IT IN THE COMMENTS!!!

via

Day 151: Whither Day 151?

I just now realized that I never published my blog post for Friday, May 31st (Day 151). I must have hit "save" instead of "publish." It's that sort of inattention to detail that tells you how little to expect from this blog. However, here it is. It's about the character of Falstaff and it's called "Whither Falstaff?" Enjoy.

Whither Falstaff?

As I previously mentioned, the popular character of John (or Jack) Falstaff from King Henry IV Parts 1 and 2 was not an historical figure but was based on at least two different people, Sir John Fastolf and Sir John Oldcastle. But just who were they?

Eduard von Grützner:
Falstaff mit großer Weinkanne und Becher (1896)
(Falstaff with big wine jar and cup, 1896)
(via wikipedia)

Sir John Oldcastle

Sir John Oldcastle was a friend of Henry V and a famed English Lollard who long escaped prosecution for heresy because of his royal connections. Eventually though, he was brought to trial and executed for his Lollardy beliefs in 1417. It is believed that William Brooke, 10th Baron Cobham and a direct descendant of Oldcastle, opposed Shakespeare's characterization of his relative and blocked him from using the name in his plays. In the published version of Henry IV, Part 1, Falstaff's name is always unmetrical, suggesting a name change after the original composition; Prince Hal refers to Falstaff as "my old lad of the castle" in the first act of the play, which further suggests that the character was originally called "Oldcastle."

Sir John Oldcastle burned for heresy (via wikipedia)

Sir John Fastolf

Sir John Fastolf was an English knight during the Hundred Years War, fought--and lost--against Joan of Arc, and was charged with cowardice for fleeing from the Battle of Patay, though he was later able to clear his name of that charge. Also, he was the owner of the real Boar's Head Inn, the favourite haunt of Shakespeare's Falstaff. John Fastolf appears as a character in the Henry VI plays, which were written earlier than the Henry IV plays.

Sir John Fastolf (via all-generals.ru)

Day 150: Shakespeare in Review-- "Henry 4" at the Sydney Opera House

The cast of Henry 4 | Drama Theatre, from crikey.com.au

I read a review of a recent Australian production of Shakespeare's King Henry IV, Parts 1 and 2, titled "Henry 4," that called the play "the best place to start for Shakespeare novices." 

Reviewer Lloyd Bradford Syke gushes: "If there was ever a production designed to cure theatre novices of their aversion (to Shakespeare in particular, probably developed at high school), it’s John Bell’s deft adaptation of ye olde Bill’s history plays, Henry IV, parts one and two." 

REALLY? 

Henry IV?? THAT'S where you think the "Shakespeare averse" should start? That must have been one HELL of a production because I can't imagine recommending anyone start in the midst of the bard's histories as their first introduction to Shakespeare. 

But Syke has a huge boner for the modern language and bawdy characters. He goes on:

Lloyd Bradford Syke

"When one considers that Shakespeare never published any of his plays and that we’ve ever relied upon unauthorised versions transcribed posthumously (not by him, obviously), it seems fitting to transcend the falsely sacrosanct approach to his work and make it sensible for a contemporary audience."

Well, that may be technically true but it's not the best argument in support of translating Shakespeare into modern language. There are other, better arguments for that. Just saying "Shakespeare didn't publish this, therefore we don't know what the hell he actually said" isn't a good one. Dismissing Shakespeare's words entirely because some of the oldest written copies that have survived to this day were transcribed by his actors instead of by the man himself seems to go against the spirit of Shakespearean study. And I'm guessing the director of this particular play chose to modernize the language to make it more accessible, not because he didn't believe in the accuracy of the folios.

Later in that same paragraph, Syke writes:

"From the get go, it’s electric with with energy; the stage populated by sharply-drawn and defined characters, played by a fine ensemble of imaginatively cast actors" (emphasis mine). I guess Syke's article must have been an unauthorized transcription.

If you're curious to see the play that's getting such rave review, you're out of luck. It closed May 26. Bummer.

via

Now I have to get back to actually reading the damn thing. From what I can tell so far, it is pretty good and quite funny, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it "designed to cure theatre novices of their aversion to Shakespeare." I guess that was only the Sydney production. 

Day 149: Is there a Henry IV Part I word cloud? Why yes there is!

Hooray for SCC English and their wordles!

Day 148: New Play Tuesday! Henry IV, Part I

Falstaff and Prince Hal, Henry IV, Part I (Act II, Scene iv) via mystudios.com

Contrary to popular belief (okay not popular belief, just my lazy assumption), Shakespeare wrote the Richard II and the Henry IV plays AFTER he wrote Henry V and the Henry VI plays. There was no Henry VII as far as I can tell. OR WAS THERE? (No, there was not.)

And apparently Falstaff, that old crowd favourite, was actually supposed to be called Oldcastle, based on a real guy, except that he still had living relatives in Shakespeare's day who were very influential and they threatened to...whatever the Elizabethan version of suing for defamation was. So he changed it to Falstaff, based on John Fastolf...who had no living heirs to complain. Or at least that's what Wikipedia says.