HENRY IV, Part 1

Here are the presentations for this week on 1 Henry IV:

1 Henry IV

by Jess Wyer

The Hollow Crown – 2012 tv series, New adaptations of Shakespeare's tetralogy of history plays comprising the 'Henriad' for the BBC's 2012 Cultural Olympiad: King Richard II; King Henry IV, Part 1; King Henry IV, Part 2; King Henry V. Different directors for different episodes but Henry 1v part one adapted and directed by Richard Eyre.

Starts with act one scene 2 where we get a sense of Falstaff’s character as we see Prince Henry find him in bed with a woman which is a literal interpretation of Prince Henry’s line ‘the blessed sun himself a fair hot wench in flame-coloured taffeta’

Putting this scene before the war council scene presents the adaptation more as a comedy than a history play. Focus on the comic can be seen in the exaggerated presentation of Falstaff for example we see him urinating, slipping on leaves and falling over in the wood when sprung on by Poins and the Prince and his hearty performance in the tavern when he pretends that he was set upon by 100, then 16 and then 50 men in the woods.

The comic scenes are given more weighting in the play than the historical scenes because they are lengthier but in the tv show the comic scenes are given more weighting in the casting, for example Julie Walters is cast in the role of the Hostess, an insignificant role in the play made significant by Julie Walters, adding another comic layer to the tavern scenes through her performance. In choosing to expand the comic characters, the producers have recognised the value inherent in the comedy for without it the show would be quite drab.

Falstaff wears a saucepan for a crown when taking on the role of the king in performance which is a clever way of using props for the saucepan evokes the hollowness of the crown, echoing that the crown when stripped of its symbolism is just a piece of metal like the saucepan.

Interesting that Peto one of the Prince’s followers is cast as a man but some of his lines in act 2 scene 4 are given to a woman prostitute, for it is she and henry that distract the sheriff by pretending that the sheriff has interrupted there sexual involvement that sends him on his way when he comes looking for Falstaff. I think this combined with the bigger role created for the hostess shows the directors attempt to create more roles/space for women into the play. I think this creates an emphasis on the contrast between the warm, domestic slightly matriarchal space of the tavern with the cold patriarchal space of the court.

The contrast between the private domestic space and the public space of the court can also be seen in act 3 scene 1, when the scene starts with the rebels planning their attack by looking at maps and ends with them sat by the fire whilst Lady Mortimer enchants by singing in welsh. The two contrasted ends of the scene show the intermingling of public and private affairs.

These private scenes disappear as the time for battle approaches, and the ensuing battle is very underplayed in the tv performance. The battle is scaled to one field and a bit of woodland and the fighting is exaggeratingly play acted, perhaps because it was shown before the 9pm watershed or perhaps because the director felt that the focus shouldn’t be on the violence but on character. As we have close up of prince henry and Falstaff when they give their soliloquies on the battlefield.

 

1 HENRY IV

by Nick Ismail

After watching the BBC’s adaptation of Henry IV Part 1, in the programmes Hollow Crown series, it was clear that unlike various adaptations of Titus and Hamlet this screenplay followed the text very closely regarding context and setting. Indeed, it is a traditional close representation of the text.

            This performance was directed by Richard Eyre with a big budget, which is demonstrated by the climactic battle, where Prince Henry/Harry (referred to as both) kills Sir Henry Percy. The cast includes Jeremy Irons as Henry IV, Tom Hiddleston as Prince Henry/Harry and Simon Russell Beale as Sir John Falstaff. These actors’ prowess is demonstrated by their on-screen chemistry, which is excellent, portraying strong, tense and very real relationships.

            The adaptation does cut and switch around a variety of scenes. But in no way does this detract the audience from the goings on and themes within the play. It simply allows for the film to flow in a more believable and sequential way, i.e. Act III Scene 1 and 2 are swapped.

            Typical of a History play, there is no one central figure within the film. Although one could argue that Prince Henry and Sir John’s Falstaff’s relationship is integrally necessary to play and film’s success and popularity. This relationship is often comical with both individuals attempting to joke and make fun at the other, usually with Falstaff bearing the brunt. This good humoured relationship, however, mirrors the civil unrest that is ever-present in England at the time within the play. These comical scenes are mirrored by scenes of rebel activity concerning the Earl of Northumberland and the Earl of Worcester and their respective families. Equally, Falstaff and Prince Henry’s relationship may parallel the seriousness of Prince Henry and King Henry IV’s strained relationship, presented in the film (Act III Scene 2) in dark room with a scornful look on the King’s face regarding his discussions with his son. Prince Henry recognises the severity of the situation after his father slaps him hard across the face. It is this point of violence that brings Hal to a realisation of the severity of his father's disappointment, causing him to ascent to the dais in protestation of his own worth. The King responds to this speech: ‘Thou shalt have charge and sovereign trust herein.’ Here we see the theme of lineage and the notion of the King’s Divine Right. These themes are key to this play and film, and other History plays.

            The music within the film acts as too much as an indicator too the mood and tone of the scenes. Indeed, it is overly used and detracts the audience from the words being said. This is most true in Falstaff’s ‘honour’ soliloquy, which is presented as a melancholy voice-over. It is evocative, although the music manipulates the very words, presenting the speech as wholly downhearted, missing the elements of humour within it, in that honour, he concludes, is just a word (Act V Scene 1).

            This film (being true of the play) contrasts between the serious and the comical, the act of rebellion and the follies of certain characters (namely Prince Henry and John Falstaff). The scenes where this opposition takes place contrast completely, with the courtly scenes being deeply formal and played as a high drama. While the tavern scene containing carnivalesque and bawdy humour is made exceptional by the fact that a Prince is engaging in such activity.

Finally, there is great evidence of character progression, acted well by Tom Hiddleston. Especially in Prince Henry, who begins to realise the weight of his authority in state affairs, which is best reflected by his slaying of Sir Percy and the victory over the rebels. Ultimately, however, the play and film end where they began, in civil unrest, which makes for a more poignant ending; particularly in the eyes of the audience and Prince Henry. 

Richard III

Here are your presentations for this week:

 Richard III

by Laura Shield

 I looked at the 1995 film of Richard III which was adapted from a stage production by Ian Mckellan who played Richard, and was directed by Richard Loncraine. The context of the play has been changed to a fascist government in England in the 1930s, set in a fictitious, alternate world. It sees Richard attempt to install himself as a political dictator.
In Act One Scene One the film has manipulated Richard's opening speech so that it begins in a public forum as he toasts his brother's success but ends with him alone on the screen directly facing the camera as he reveals his real plans. In looking straight at the camera Richard attempts to make the audience an accomplice in his plans as he confides in us his true nature - we alone know what he actually intends to do. Or involvement is implicit - we are placed involuntarily almost on Richard's side. The switch from a public space to a private bathroom setting shows Richard's hidden corruption - a moral decline from who he portrays himself as around others and who he is in private - demonstrating and then stripping away Richard's use of performance.
The film changes Act 5 Scene 4 where Richard is sleeping and haunted by ghosts, so the ghosts don't physically appear on screen. Instead the audience hears their voices - the sole focus drawn to the effect that has on Richard as he becomes increasingly more agitated before waking. Richmond is removed entirely from the scene so we are only faced with Richard's turmoil as his unconscious mind dwells on what he has done. The dark setting of the scene and the increasingly louder overlap of voices emphasises Richard's inner crisis of conscience - battling the part of himself that acknowledges the wrong he has done.

Richard III

by Amrita Gill

Though under the genre of history, Richard Loncraine’s 1995 production of Richard III places the play out its own historical context. Instead of the traditional, medieval setting the play is set during the 1930’s and mirrors images of the Second World War.

Similar to the audience of Shakespeare’s time, we as Loncraine’s audience can be reminded of a bloody past we wish not to repeat- World War Two. By bringing a modern history to a historical play Loncraine complicates the idea of history as fixed and something that is always past. The most striking scene in the film is the director’s edition to the play which falls before Act 3, Scene 4 in which Ian Mckellen, as Richard, appears before the people in a Nazi-like rally. Despite not yet being ruler or King Richard is still equated to a tyrannical figure of a modern history, Hitler. Just as Shakespeare uses historical figures to warn his audience that chaos will ensure with an illegitimate King, the scene in Loncraine’s adaptation reminds a modern audience of the destruction that occurs with fascism. The bloody end of the film encompasses this theme as the battle between Richard and Richmond looks more like the footage from a battlefield in Normandy thank of a Shakespearean production. The use of guns and explosions demonstrates recent history’s bloody consequences as well as the result of Richard’s usurpation.

The changing of the historical background is not without consequences. Richard’s opening speech is not given until more than five minutes into the film as Loncraine has to set up, establish as well as explain what is happening and why it is happening at this historical moment.

Overall I thought the use of a different historical narrative managed to make the production more authentic. We are able to feel as a Shakespearean audience felt because, much like the dangers of falling back into civil war loomed over Shakespeare and his contemporaries, the rise of fascism in the 1930’s still hangs over our heads. Loncraine therefore shows that Shakespeare’s history is not static but flexible and transferable.

Richard III

by Leticia Bravo

Richard III is an early Shakespearean play (probably from 1591) that completes the first “tetralogy” of history plays. It was and still is really popular and follows the three previous parts of Henry I.

Shakespeare´s tale Richard III in which is represented the XV^th Century is relocated in the England of 1930s by Richard Loncraine in the homonym film Richard III. Therefore, we have an updated version in which swords and horses are replaced by guns and cars.

The play starts with a soliloquy of Richard III; however it is not how the film starts. It is quite shocking because Loncraine changes a London street for a “public toilet” for the initial soliloquy, what in my opinion gives to Richard a ridiculous and unreliable view.

Another important change is the fact that the marriage between Richmond and Elizabeth is moved to the night before the battle and the film finishes with Richard III shot by Richmond. This change probably occurs in order to increase both the romantic moment of the film and the film and the dramatic end for Richard.

Finally, two scenes in which we can perfectly see the relocation of the play are: firstly in the arrival of the Prince, by train. Very strange since Train is an invention of the XVIII^th Century. Secondly, the scene in which Buckinham, Richard and Lady Anne are seeing a recording of Richard´s III coronation in a big screen; something unbelievable in the XV^th Century.

We can see that Richard III is even nowadays a very popular and interesting play for today´s audiences.

Richard III 

by Jenny Sloan

Introduction

è 1995 film adaption directed by Richard Loncraine

è Ian McKellen plays Richard à acted in many Shakespearean stage productions such as Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, King Lear, Othello and Macbeth and also the 2008 film adaption of King Lear à well known as an actor of Shakespearean scripts

è Chose to set the film in 1930s England à looming Nazi presence à tension/conflict/confrontation at the time within England and on a global scale (escalating Nazi violence and increasing pressures for international involvement)

è Critically acclaimed and received positive reviews à won Academy Awards, BAFTAs and Prizes at the Berlin Film Festival

Differences between Film and Play

è Richard’s cunning nature is emphasised more in the film. In the opening scene of the play Richard talks about the celebrations over Edward being crowned king and the civil war being over, but in the film this is actually acted out  so the audience can more clearly see how he is pretending to celebrate to the rest of the party, but once he looked at the camera the audience hears what he is really thinking à his self-presentation is reinforced more in the film

è Also, part of his speech is turned from monologue (in the play) to  celebratory speech in front of the party (in the film) à emphasises his spilt personality

è Scenes are placed into a more contemporary arena à when Richard looks at the camera after the celebrations of Edward becoming King we follow him into the toilet while he uses the urinal and unmasks his violent hatred of his brother and reveals his desire to become king à also inside of a procession, it is a mortuary where Richard tries to seduce Anne à modernised to suit 1930s England

è For the sake of modernisation, the plays most climatic line ‘A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse’ (spoken by Richard during the final battle scene)

è Decadent, hedonistic jazz music plays as he leaves the toilet and walks up the stairs dancing à showing insanity perhaps? Good use of music that was perhaps not used during the first performances of the play

è James Tyrell is introduced much earlier in the film than he is in the play à In the play we meet him in Act 4 Scene 2 but in the film we are introduced to him ater the first half hour à to save characters and to make the audience familiar with Richard’s accomplices à Very specific setting of their meeting à Richard approaches James when he is feeding pigs and conspires with him à Richard throws the food at the pig and makes it squeal à highlighting his cruel, sadistic nature

è In the play Richard flatters Tyrell with phrases such as ‘king Tyrell’ and ‘gentle Tyrell’ but these are omitted from the film à perhaps Loncraine was worried in case they could be seen as not masculine enough and anachronistic

è In the play(Act 1 Scene 2) Annie is wooed over quickly by Richard, agreeing to take the ring and meet up with him à she goes to stab him but stops when Richard talks about her beauty à However in the film, it is not his ‘beauty’ talk that stops her (this has begun before she even holds the knife) but instead we get the impression it is more about her conscience as a brake, and the type of person she is à more realistic to modern day audiences à also she doesn’t take his ring, which would also be highly unrealistic à However they do keep linguistic devices such as the triple repetition of ‘cursed’ and she spits at him à shows her rage and hatred towards him

è Clarence’s dream (Act 1 Scene 4) in the film he stands bedside muddy water and it begins to rain and we hear thunder à pathetic fallacy (something that is not given in Shakespeare’s stage directions)

è Also Brackenbury is only a guard and is very unresponsive (unlike Brackenbury in the dream who encourages Clarence to talk about his dream) à save characters and to make it easier to follow for the audience

Hamlet

Here are our two presentations on Hamlet productions:

Hamlet

by Mim Ballard



Hamlet 1948 Production

Directed by and starring Laurence Olivier. The film is shot in black and white and the set is an old castle, which gives a Gothic feel to the production. This is capitalised on with the scenes with the ghost, mist and fog are used to add a sense of fear and contribute to the films Gothic atmosphere. Directorial decisions indicate that Olivier is clear on what he sees Hamlet as being about – over the opening credits is read ‘This is the tragedy of a man who could not make up his mind’, stating decisions as the focus for the film.

One of the most noticeable things about this performance is how the original text was cut and adapted. There are some significant changes to the original play, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are omitted entirely, therefore meaning that many of the comic moments from the script are also gone, giving the film a more serious tone. In addition the character of Fortinbras in removed, and so the themes of political disorder and political threat to Denmark are less significant, meaning that the focus of the court is inward looking, and there is urgency for Hamlet to make a decision.

The ordering of various events is also changed; ‘To be or not to be’ occurs after Hamlet’s confrontation with Ophelia instead of before it, the result meaning that Hamlet makes this speech after an emotional confrontation. This appears to give more motive and depth to the speech, as it is said out of a reaction to events, rather than philosophical musings. For the duration of the speech Hamlet is in the open air, looking over the edge of a cliff. The lightness of the outdoors gives a strong contrast to the darkness and constraint of the castle rooms, indicating that suicide would give Hamlet freedom from the oppression of the court and his mind, and equally the camera’s focus on the long drop to the sea adds tension to the speech.

Overall, the production is good, the combination of the cuts and the frequent close ups of Olivier throughout make it clear that this productions focus is entirely on Hamlet, the other characters development and any political threat is only secondary.

Hamlet

by Vicky Carter

Hamlet is a famous production of Shakespeare’s and is constantly being reworked, reformed and reproduced for theatres and society today. The production I saw of Hamlet was in 2010 at the RSC theatre in Stratford Upon Avon. As it was performed in the birthplace of Shakespeare and with the renowned Shakespeare theatre group, I did expect the performance to be more traditional than it was, however the performance had been modernised to fit a 21^st Century performance.

The performance was directed by Gregory Doran, Gertude was played by Penny Dane, Claudius was played by Patrick Stewart, and Hamlet was played by David Tennant. All actors gave a memorable performance developing their characterisation through their use of facial expressions and body language, particularly David Tennant and his crazed eyes when demonstrating his descent into madness. The modernisation of this performance was demonstrated through the use of props and set. The set had mirrors, as well as, gold and black marble which emphasized the sense of luxury and wealth established by a King, which Shakespeare would have represented differently in his time. Costume is another significant factor in establishing the 21^st Century interpretation on the play, with the use of suits and ball gowns instead of traditional dress and costume, and even at one point Hamlet wearing a t shirt and jeans to establish his attire and it’s reflection of internal conflicting thoughts.

The most memorable part of the performance was Act 4 in which Hamlet speaks to Gertude about what his uncle has done to their father. In this production, Gertude expresses this theme of modernity by taking off her wig and pouring herself a drink whilst Hamlet enters her room. In the traditional production Hamlet notices a rat and cries “A rat, a rat!” Whilst taking out his rapier and slaying the hidden listener from behind the curtain. In this production, instead of seeing the hidden listener, Polonius cries for help when Gertude does, giving away his secret place and whilst he does this, Hamlet fires a revolver to the mirror. The replacement of modern weapons means that the shot of the bullet causes a break on the glass, which is an aesthetically important visual and sound effect.

Overall the performance was excellent and three years on, I still remember the effect it had on myself and the audience. I recommend all to go see it.

Titus Andronicus

Today's presentations from your fellow students:

Titus

by Flora Anderson

Titus is Julie Taymor's 1999 adaptation of Titus Andronicus, the first feature film version of the play. Taymor is interested in physical theatre and masks, as well as puppetry. This comes through in the scene after Lavinia is raped, in which she is stylised into a tree, with twigs and sticks in her severed arms. She stands on a rotten tree stump, fitting in with the ruined and barren trees around her. In the previous scene the forest is lush and healthy, and this change after Lavinia has been 'deflowered' (sorry), seems to reflect the damage inflicted by the twisted sexuality emphasised in the film. We can see this, almost dangerous, sexuality strongly related to human influence. Saturnine's court is an overly decadent, extremely architecturally  aware space in contrast to the outside world. Bodies are draped naked around a swimming pool, indulging in the excess of the court, only for it to lead to violence when the court is attacked by Titus' army. 

The fact that the film was made in 1999 affects its approach to violence. The young Lucius appears at the beginning of the film in a scene which starts off as a seemingly innocent game turning into a violent outbreak in his kitchen. In many of the goriest scenes there is a shot of the young 20th century boy looking on, which questions our approach to violence, what does it say about our own tastes, and how we are affected by the violence in our own modern culture. This would not have been such a strong issue in contemporary Shakespearean times, as violence was much further integrated in the policy of the country e.g. public hangings. Chiron and Demetrius are strongly linked to our contemporary culture, playing arcade games and dressing in 90s fashion. I think this shows a very interested  approach to the nature of violence in our modern society in relation to Titus Andronicus, which is acutely relevant to many of the issues, such as American gun culture, that we think about today. 

Titus

by Alba Arnau Prado

I chose to watch the film adaptation Titus for Shakespeare’s play Titus Andronicus. Titus was directed by Julie Taymor and released in 1999. Some of the main actors are Anthony Hopkins as the main character Titus, Laura Fraser as his daughter Lavinia, Jessica Lange as Tamora and Harry Lennix as Aaron. The approach Taymor decided to take is to mix some elements from the play’s Rome and some elements more modern, so the result is that sometimes we see chariots and sometimes cars, some people are dressed very modernly - some resembling rock stars - and some others with armor. In the DVD commentary, Taymor explained her choice by saying that this mixture of past and present time represented the timeless of violence.

It is worth saying that this bizarre setting gives her the freedom to be very literal about some parts of the original play and these parts don’t look weird or out of place. The script is almost word for word Shakespeare’s play and few changes are done on the chronological order of the plot. Also, every time the play indicates the characters have to be ‘aloft’ they are in the film.

However, it’s in Lavinia when we find the more literal parts. It starts in the beginning when she has a little vase with her tears for her brother that she pours to the floor before her father’s feet. Then in the scene after her rape, when her uncle Marcus finds her, she is presented with twigs instead of hands in her arms as the monologue says: ‘Speak, gentle niece, what stern ungentle hands| Hath lopped and hewed and made thy body bare| Of her two branches, those sweet ornaments|’ (Titus Andronicus, William Shakespeare (1995: The Arden Shakespeare) p.188). It goes on with her opening her mouth and a flow of blood comes out as it is, too, described: ‘Alas, a crimson river of warm blood,| Like to a bubbling fountain stirred with wind| Doth rise and fall between thy rosed lips!’ (1995: 188). This gives credibility to the dialogue, which does not seem out of place or forced because it is describing exactly what is happening in the scene.

Nonetheless, there are other times that are not so directly related to Lavinia that also reflect this take on literality. In the moment when the hand and the heads are returned to Titus, in the film they make an actual mockery of it with music and dance.