Review: The Globe’s 2019 production of Henry IV: Part 1

Admittedly, I had high expectations for Henry IV: Part 1 and so perhaps for that reason it came up so short for me. We were going to see it at the Globe and we had already watched two extremely excellent Shakespeare productions at the Royal Shakespeare Company and the Bridge Theatre. While these factors might have elevated my expectations, I think regardless, the Globe Theatre’s production of Henry IV: Part 1 was objectively subpar.

Changing genders in a play can be an extraordinary way to explore and create entirely new dynamics for characters and their relationships. Unfortunately, this play did none of those things, nor did it in any apparent way even attempt to. The genderbent leads, Prince Hal, Hotspur, and Falstaff were simply played as men. Giving women lead roles traditionally played by men and playing it the same as one might with men cast in the roles isn’t inherently bad, but it’s certainly a missed opportunity as far as doing something more interesting with the roles goes. The leads were not the only characters to be cast as the opposite gender– two others were Mistress Quickly and Glendower’s daughter, otherwise known as the Welsh Lady. Both times, this gender change is only played for laughs rather than anything meaningful for the production. Mistress Quickly was dressed up enough as a woman that the actor appeared feminine, but not so much that the audience would not recognize that the actor was indeed a man in order to spark laughter from the audience, which sort of worked. Later in the play, Mistress Quickly speaks a line about being a true woman with a knowing look at the audience who, of course, knows she is being portrayed by a he. To me, this had negative and dangerous implications. The Welsh woman being portrayed by a man without any attempt to cover the fact the actor playing the role was male was another cheap gag at gender that was not actually very funny at all.

Something else I really disliked about this production was the portrayal of Hotspur and Lady Kate. What makes their relationship interesting to see on stage is their quick-witted, playful jabs at one another and shared passion. Once again, this production did not do any of this. Instead, Lady Kate was simply clingy and desperate for her husband’s love while he had only disdain and mockery to offer her. Nothing about this was enjoyable to watch; instead, it was just a bit sad and made Hotspur come across as less likable.

Another smaller issue I had was with the fact that Hotspur’s uncle was portrayed by a man who looked to be in his early twenties while Hotspur’s actress had to be at the very least in her thirties. The actors in the production were not necessarily bad, but the overall direction they seemed to have been given and the way the play was staged was just not great. While the play could have been serious and made its audience legitimately care about the outcome of a literal war, it relied too heavily on humor, often cheap humor, to entertain and overall was of a much lower quality than what one would expect from a renowned Shakespeare theatre.

In Act 5 Scene 3 of Shakespeare’s Henry IV Part One, King Henry IV has implemented a battle strategy in which there are numerous decoy kings impersonating him on the battlefield in order to confuse and frustrate his enemy. It works, as Douglas kills Blunt who was disguised as the king and believes he has triumphed, only for Hotspur to tell him “No, I know this face full well/A gallant knight he was; his name was Blunt,/Semblably furnished like the king himself” (Shakespeare 5.3.20-22).  This occurs several more times offstage and in the following scene, Douglas exclaims “Another king! They grow like Hydra’s heads” (Shakespeare 5.4.25). While there is no number of how many King Henrys are in the fray, based on that statement it is likely a lot.

This strategy King Henry executes also connects directly to both the idea of theatre and throne, and while successful on the battlefield, could lead the audience to some potentially questionable notions about royalty and what it truly means to be king. The decision to insert numerous decoy-kings into the battleground is not something that could have been predicted because sumptuary laws were in place during the time in which the play took place as well as the time it was written and being performed. Therefore, doing so was technically illegal. In general, the theatre was the only place in which somebody of a lower station might dress up as though they were from any higher class, much less royalty itself. In the middle of a war though, King Henry has staged his own sort of theatrical production with several other soldiers playing the role of him. If we are to look at words alone, sometimes the place of battle during war is even called a “theater.” Thus, in a meta-fashion, Shakespeare has staged a performance with a man playing King Henry IV, and the king has staged one of his own and cast other soldiers as him, sumptuary laws broken twice over.

While doing this keeps Henry IV safer on the battlefield than he likely would have been otherwise, the idea that anyone could dress in kingly attire and thus in the minds of those around him, become a king, is perhaps the very reason these sumptuary laws existed. This scene demonstrates that when Blunt and numerous others assume the identity of the king and are truly believed to be the king until they are unmasked. Therefore, if somebody in Elizabethan England acquired the attire befitting a member of a higher class, they could become a part of that class with nobody the wiser. This fluidity in something that those of greater affluence and stature would like to be concrete and unchangeable arguably demonstrates the fickleness of being a member of the nobility. While it was often argued at this time that those of wealth and status had such because of divine right by God, this seems to present an alternative. They have these things because the society they have constructed says they should have these things and should somebody ingratiate themselves into said class with those things that qualify those already there, such as clothing, they could contradict this belief entirely. The play demonstrates in other scenes that this only goes one way– at least for royalty. Prince Hal may hang around with tavern folk, but it is rare anybody around him truly forgets he is the prince. Still, were he disguised while doing so rather than making himself known as the prince, perhaps he would be believed to be just another tavern-goer.

autisticandroids:

[does a gay little war crime that pisses you off]

We know it’s you Hal

21 July 1403

It was on this day in British history, 21 July 1403, that King Henry IV prevailed at the Battle of Shrewsbury. The Lancastrian army defeated rebel forces led by Henry “Hotspur” Percy of Northumberland. It was the first time that English archers fought one another on English soil, and is seen as a demonstration of the deadly effectiveness of the English longbow.

janeeyreofmanderley:

shredsandpatches:

percyhotspur:

maluoliowithin:

shakespearefangirling:

maluoliowithin:

How many Shakespeare characters canonically had dogs I need to know.

I know Hotspur, and then Theseus had a bunch of hunting dogs that were really fancy hunting dogs and then one of the Mechanicals had a dog too. Maybe. I think it was Starveling (Moonshine) in the play but it could have belonged to any of them. 

From there I don’t really remember. I feel like someone had one in Lear?

Beatrice has a dog! “I had rather hear my dog bark at a crow than a man swear he loves me.”

This is good

Hotspur and Beatrice bond over rather hearing their dogs bark than people be annoying.

Also historically Richard II had a greyhound named Mathe.

Don’t forget the most famous Shakespeare dog, and the only one who appears onstage – Launce’s dog Crab from Two Gentlemen of Verona.

Benvolio had a dog, Mercutio Claims Benvolio argued with a man who coughed and woke his dog.

Massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Day

him: what are you thinking about?

me: in henry iv part 1 act 2 scene 4 in hal and falstaff’s play acting in tavern as the king and the prince, the very last exchange before they are interrupted are falstaff’s “banish not him” speech to which hal responds “i do. i will.” and if they were truly staying within the confines of their make believe game the more logical order would be “i will. i do.” but the reversal places the “i do” in the game and the “i will” as a foreshadowing and no i will not stop crying

Let’s continue on the great Shakespearean Selfie remastering project…

And here’s the original:

Have to admit I found drawing a six-pack on stick-figure Antonio to be HILARIOUS.

Today’s play page update features not one, not two, but THREE Henries! I have to confess, these are six of my favorite plays (ok, not Henry IV, part 2, as much as I love the deathbed reconciliation scene.)Olivier’s film of Henry V was my gateway into Shakespeare nerd-dom, seeing an RSC tour of all three Henry VIs andRichard III cemented my allegiance to the history plays, and the title of my webcomic COMES DIRECTLY FROM HENRY IV, PART 1.

Give me that sweet, sweet Plantagenet in-fighting, thank you.

21.10.21

It hasn’t even been two weeks yet, and somehow I have a trillion notes?? How is this possible? In other news, analysing Henry IV part 1 makes it a much more interesting play, gotta love the references to castration, am I right? Have some notes I made on Donna Zuckerberg’s book “Not All Dead White Men”.