Similar in many ways to Part 1 – there’s trouble in the kingdom (this time from Hotspur’s dad, Northumberland), people praise Hotspur, Henry IV has doubts, Hal gallivants with Falstaff, the king’s enemies worry about what they’re doing, Falstaff does something comical, a noble tries to talk the rebels into peace, the royal family win at the end, with Hal becoming part of the establishment.
But it’s a lot more deeper, shaded, and complex than Part 1 – almost as if Shakespeare had it re-written down the track. (Theres a quantum leap with every new instalment in this series - Richard II to Henry IV Part 1 to Part 2.) Hal’s journey isn’t as big in Part One – he doesn’t have as many bad ways to give up (he’s already established his bravery), he doesn’t kick arse (his brother is the one who smart talks the rebels). So the supporting cast have more of a chance to shine. Characters like the Chief Justice, Mowbray, Bardolph are really fleshed out – Prince’s mate Poins, the idiotic Ancient Pistol, the saucy Doll. Even Falstaff has more flesh – okay bad pun I admit, but a lot more people in the play are aware of Falstaff than in Part 1 – princes and so on. He must have been such a hit; the focus is more on him, even if he doesn’t actually do that much.
The structure is less pure than Part 1, which built neatly to the Battle of Shrewsbury. There is a song, less action, more soliloquies; Northfolk set up as big character then dismissed; there’s No real sense of friendship between Hal and Flastaff so final change doesn’t have same impact. But it’s still full of stunningly rich characters and moments. You wonder if Shakespeare didn’t wish he could have told simply the one story – Part 1, up to the Battle of Shrewsbury, with Hals maturity being the centerpiece – incorporating all the stuff from Part Two throughout it. (For instance, Henry IV’s sleep monologue could easily slip in Part 1.) Okay, I'm script editing Shakespeare... I'll stop now.
No comments:
Post a Comment