Henry IV, Part One (2012)

henryiv1

*. This is the second part of the “Hollow Crown” tetralogy, and to repeat and amplify a point I made in my notes on the first part, Richard II, we’re even more aware of it being a movie rather than a play. As things get under way we’re not just having speeches broken up, but cutting back and forth between different scenes.
*. The Henry IV plays involve an odd mix of elements, elements that have shifted over the centuries. For a long time the first part in particular was Falstaff’s play, with Hotspur getting almost equal billing. In the twentieth century, with a rising interest in power politics and cynical statecraft, the story of Hal and his father took center stage. This shift was accompanied by more stagings of the “Henriad” tetralogy. I believe the first time this was done was in the 1860s. It’s quite common today.
*. With the rise of Hal, Hotspur and Falstaff have been diminished. Hotspur here is well played by Joe Armstrong, but he’s very much a one-note hothead, exasperating even his wife with his relentless man talk. The latter (Simon Russell Beale) is more ancient than vigorous, with a definite cast of ill health in his Bardolphian face and boiler gut. In his essay on the play, Northrop Frye mentions how Falstaff’s first appearance in Part Two, where he discusses his urine samples, signifies a closeness to the man that is uncomfortable. In this production we first meet Falstaff rising from bed and pissing into a pot and then looking skeptically into it. Before we even get properly started we’re feeling that uncomfortable closeness.
*. This isn’t a big problem, but with Falstaff there is always a balancing act between charm and disgust. Such an introduction definitely tips the scale one way.
*. It also sounds a note of “realism.” This is another tricky point. We feel it most sharply in the battle scenes that come at the end here. These are obviously influenced by Branagh’s Henry V, with their emphasis on blood and mud. But Shakespeare’s battles aren’t realistic. They include lots of time-outs for characters to discuss matters and engage in one-on-one confrontations. To make Shrewsbury more realistic or historically accurate necessarily involves streamlining a lot of this. No great loss, perhaps, with getting rid of the business of the counterfeit kings, but I was dismayed that Hotspur’s dying speech was almost entirely cut. I didn’t see any reason for that.
*. Of course almost every production of Shakespeare, on stage or screen, has to make some cuts. A “full text” version, like Branagh did with his Hamlet, is a rarity (especially for that play). As I’ve noted, I was really disappointed that Hotspur’s final lines were left out. Another scene involving an odd cut is the one in the tavern with Hal and Poins teaming up to mock the drawer Francis.
*. The Francis stuff isn’t very funny, and would be an easy cut for most productions to make. After it’s over Poins even asks Hal what the point of it was (“Come, what’s the issue?”). Hal responds with some enigmatic lines, with thematic significance, about being “now of all humours.” I don’t understand why they keep the practical joke on Francis but drop Poins’s question and Hal’s response, which provides its only justification.
*. In addition to the cuts, there are some interesting interpretations. The one that stands out the most to me is Hal’s rebuff of Falstaff in the little drama they stage where he plays his father the king, concluding with his line that he will banish Falstaff. Usually this is delivered with a suddenly steely determination, but here Tom Hiddleston almost breaks down, he finds the thought so upsetting.
*. This is a good production, well cast with solid performances throughout. In keeping with most modern versions, it’s darker than the kind of thing that Shakespeare’s own time might have seen, but this is only drawing out a darkness that’s always been there, even in the comic parts.

henryiv2

25 thoughts on “Henry IV, Part One (2012)

    1. Alex Good

      He’s pretty good in these two Henry IV movies. Didn’t like his Henry V.
      People say I look a bit like Tom Hiddleston. Can’t remember but I think Eddie might have been one of them.

      Reply
      1. Alex Good

        Olivier’s Henry V is great, but so is Branagh’s. I think Branagh’s imprinted itself on me when it came out. Went to see it three or four times, which is the only movies I’ve ever done that for. But more on that whenever I get around to posting my notes.

      1. tensecondsfromnow

        I think you’re living in a fantasy world. From all accounts, including your own, the guy from Hills Have Eyes is the only useful reference point in identifying you.

  1. tensecondsfromnow

    I think they ruined the Henry franchise when they started splitting up the films into two halves; a moneymaking scheme for sure, and very unsatisfying for the paying audience. How does this continue the story from Jaws 3? Is it a prequel? Any good kills?

    Reply
    1. Alex Good

      It’s the mark of a true maestro of film writing that I can move so smoothly between genres and change levels so gracefully. Sharks. Shakespeare. Not at all like these other movie blogs that go from Marvel superhero movies to generic action flicks to more Marvel superhero movies.

      Reply
      1. tensecondsfromnow

        Yes, it’s trickier when you actually have an audience to keep engaged, not a situation that your fetid ramblings are likely to cause.

        So John Cassevettes originally wrote this for Peter Falk and Elaine May?

      2. Alex Good Post author

        I look to educate and elevate my audience. No pandering to the masses here.
        The movie you’re thinking of is The Long Deep Blue Goodbye. Sequel to The Cheap Detective. Totally different.

      3. tensecondsfromnow

        I’m just saying one day it’s Jaws 1, 2, 3 and then it’s flipping William Cassavettes. There’s no rhyme or reason. It’s just a jumble. Not a new release in sight. Just what’s remaindered at the library. Just sayin’.

    1. Alex Good

      Not sure I’m a fan either, but he’s been good in some things. And Shakespeare wrote it in two parts! This wasn’t some franchise cash grab!

      Reply
      1. Alex Good Post author

        He was all about the money, but he was a part owner of the Globe. Still, he also cared about what was on the page and the stage. He could be both!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.