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.

Day 147: What I Learned from Richard II

There are parts of Richard II that remind me a little of Harry Potter. And it's not just because I kept reading it while playing Harry Potter in the background (although I did). No, it's the part where Bolingbroke has taken the throne and is now King Henry IV and the Duke of York is in a panic because he wants to appear loyal to the new king (even though he was against him, like five minutes ago). So in order to prove his loyalty he immediately decides to sell out his own son, who had been a close ally to Richard II. His wife, the Duchess of York, flips the fuck out and tells him they must do everything they can to protect their only child, especially because she's not getting any younger and it's not like they're going to have more kids. But he doesn't care. All he wants to do is ingratiate himself to the new king at all costs.

Kind of like Lucius Malfoy.

Remember that part in The Deathly Hallows (and a little bit in The Half-Blood Prince) when Voldemort wants Draco to do this really dangerous thing for him and he'll probably get killed and Lucius is all like, "Yeah, serve the Dark Lord!" and his mom is all like, "EEK! NO! NOT MY SON!"? And then at the end when all the forces of good and evil are fighting and it looks like Voldemort's totally going to win and all hope is lost and Narcissa's all like, "Where's Draco? Is Draco alive?" AND THAT'S TOTALLY ALL THE FUCK SHE CARES ABOUT?

Yeah, it was like that.

tumblr.com

So what did I learn? Well I learned that if you have the Harry Potter movies on in the background when you're reading, it's going to seep into your brain.

Next up: Harry IV, Part I 

Day 146: Richard the Second in prison

     "Old boy Richard was right," Newton told me when I arrived at his cell the following week.     "About what?"     "Pacing. We all do it. Man! Where does Shakespeare get this insight?"     I had come to prison to teach prisoners about Shakespeare, but I would learn from them at least as much as I would teach to them. "Maybe he did time in prison himself," I told him. "We just don't know much about his life at all. Some people doubt that he even existed." Then I added, "Tell me about the pacing."     "Everybody does it, even if they don't acknowledge it," Newton explained. "Just like animals. When you lock an animal in a cage, for a while it just sits there and waits, but over time, once it accepts its confinement, it starts pacing, and that's when caregivers start worrying. When tigers start to pace, it's taken the wild out of them. The psychological shift is happening. We do the same thing. If you had cameras on, you'd see that's exactly what we do: sit around a while, get involved on the range, but over time, after the novelty wears off, we start pacing--just like the cats, you know what I mean? Doing the exact same thing. Everybody paces. And that's what they're all doing: playing out these fantasies in their head. You know, like old boy Richard."

from Shakespeare Saved My Life: Ten Years in Solitary with the Bard,
by Laura Bates

If Dr. Bates can get prisoners in solitary confinement, many of whom have no more than a fifth-grade education, to study this play and come up with real insights, then I guess I should be able to keep going with it. I'll let you know how it goes.

Day 145: EEK! I forgot to write something...AGAIN

Oops! I forgot to write something. I actually did fall asleep reading Richard II last night. Well, reading Richard II and watching Harry Potter. Here's what I've learned so far.

Richard II is a blowhard king and nobody likes him. Bolingbroke and this other guy (Mowby or something) are having a fight and the king intervenes. Turns out they're arguing about who killed a third guy--the Duke of Gloucester or something--but actually it was the king who killed him all along. OH and everyone actually knows that already. But Richard is a dick (HEY! Like his name!) and makes them dual anyway. Then he stops the dual and declares them both losers and banishes him. Like I said, he's a dick.

Then it starts to get fuzzy. I think Bolingbroke is banished to an island where he meets a giant who teaches him magic spells and he comes back and seeks revenge on Richard and the whole Slytherin house. Then he flys off on a broomstick and everyone shouts "Hooray!"

Or something.

I might have to re-read that last bit.

via fanpop