Shakespeare's Henry Plays - A Comparative Study of Falstaff on Film
The Character of Sir John Falstaff is an integral part of any adaptation of Shakespeare's "Henry" plays. The treatment of this character effects the way the production will be taken by the audience as the treatment of Falstaff is directly related to the understanding of the character of Prince Hal (later Henry V). Kenneth Branagh's Henry V, the BBC versions of parts one and two of Henry IV, and Orson Welles' amalgamation Chimes at Midnight all show Falstaff in different lights, producing three different takes, not only on the character himself, but also on the interpretation of Prince Hal, and the entire workings of the production.
In the case of Kenneth Branagh's Henry V Falstaff is seen only in flashback. This version of Falstaff (portrayed by actor Robbie Coltrane) is displayed as the jovial and kind side of Falstaff with little of the nefarious nature that is seen in the texts of Henry IV parts one and two. Branagh as the screenwriter actually reassigns certain lines to achieve his end, including, but not limited to, the reassignment of some of Falstaff's lines to others, as well as the reassignment of lines from one scene to another, all to display Falstaff as a happy Santa Claus of a man all but devoid of evil intentions or Machiavelian deceit. The first of the myriad flashbacks in the film begins with the assignment of Falstaff's description of himself as "A goodly, portly man in faith," (1 Henry IV.II.iv.421) to Pistol. This shows that in Branagh's version Falstaff is as well respected by his comrades as he is by himself. This is somewhat in contrast to the way he is commonly illustrated, which is as a man who abuses deceit, but is not fooling ...
... middle of paper ...
...Falstaff as played by Welles. It is this multifaceted nature that has Hal attempt (in a scene paraphrased from the text of Henry V) to go back on his decision toward the end and grant Falstaff favor (albeit too late). Welles' Falstaff is the best example of the cross section of aspects that Falstaff has in the texts.
While certainly each portrayal of Falstaff is from it's own school of thought, ranging from the idea of Falstaff as the pure, kind friend, to that of Falstaff as the selfish villain, to that of Falstaff as the moderate, complex character, each effectively displays an accurate Falstaff with his own hold on Prince Hal. These three versions show that the treatment of Jack Falstaff, regardless of his prominence in each production, can change the interpretation of the actions of Henry V as well as the reasons behind his choices for many of his actions.
into the story of a seemingly misplaced girl in Vietnam. The role of Rat Kiley
As Jekyll reached adult hood, he found himself living a dual life. He had become more curious in discovering his other side. Jekyll insists, “Man is not truly one, but truly two” (125). This eventually led Jekyll into the scientific interests of separating his good and evil side, and he finds a chemical concoction that transforms him into a more wicked man, Edward Hyde. At first, Hyde was of pure impulse, but in the end, he became dominate and took control over Jekyll. Jekyll had never intended to hurt anyone, but he was aware that something could potentially go wrong. Jekyll presumes, “I knew well that I risked death, for any drug that so potently shook the very fortress of identity… utterly blot that immaterial tabernacle which I looked to it to change” (127-129). One could say this makes Jekyll equally as menacing as Hyde. Jekyll couldn’t control the imbalance between the two natures. Jekyll foolishly allowed his evil side to flourish and become stronger. This is shown when Jekyll has awoken to find that he has turned into Hyde without taking the solution. Jekyll says, “But the hand in which I now saw, clearly enough in the yellow light of a mid- London morning…It was the hand of Edward Hyde” (139).
Humans are addicted to judging others on their first impression. Humans will never read into the book, they just look at the cover. Many people, both fictional and nonfictional can not be judged until you study them. Someone who first appears to be only comic relief, could end up to be a very important character. Sir John Falstaff is but one of these people. Falstaff's righteousness hides under his vocalization. John Falstaff's character is hard to understand without analyzing his words. He loves to play games with his speech. Falstaff tricks his audience with complex words and phrases. Often John would win over his opponent by tricking them into saying things that they did not mean or getting them to think that he is not that bad. Falstaff said this in Part I act II scene IV. "... A question not to be asked. Shall the son of England prove a thief and take purses? A question to be asked. There is a thing, Harry, which thou hast often heard of, and it is known to many in our land by the name of pitch. This pitch, as ancient writers do report, doth defile; so doth the company thou keepest. For, Harry, now I do not speak to thee in drink, but in tears; not in pleasure, but in passion; not in words only, but in woes also; and yet there is a virtuous man whom I have often noted in thy company, but I know not his name." In this passage, the Prince and Fastaff trade places in speech and try to make the other look dumb. Fastaff later goes on to say that this wonderful person that the King is talking about. The way Falstaff does this proves him to be very keen. He proves that even though he may look dumb, he will still put up a good fight. Falstaff is very bold about his thoughts and opinions. He stands out because he is not afraid to think his own way. While most people agree, because of the other people around them, Falstaff chooses to make his own decisions and think for himself. This is proven when Falstaff and the prince switch places in a verbal fight. Every one else in the book thinks of the Prince as a perfect young man because he is the prince, however Falstaff is too smart for this, he points out that the prince is a thief.
The first influence that Shakespeare illustrates over Prince Hal is that of Falstaff, a fat old man who seems to spend his life in seedy taverns accruing massive amounts of debt. From his devious scheme to rob unknowing travelers at the beginning of the story to his diatribe on what honor is not, it is clear that Falstaff has a very distinct notion of his own personal honor, and he seems to be trying to project that same notion onto Hal; however, as Hal becomes closer to his father, Falstaff's honor becomes less appealing. Falstaff treats Hal and King Henry IV to his own personal code of honor-or lack thereof:
He is accepted for his faults and further appreciated for his humor. Once receptive to Falstaff’s follies, an underlying wisdom can be found. Shakespeare offers Falstaff as a guide to living beyond the confines of convention, out of all the order. Disguised in banter, Falstaff calls into question values of morality and nobility. His manner is harmless in both words and actions. Of all the loyalty and disloyalty that incites political turbulence in the play, Falstaff remains inert. He does not enact any cruel aggression in effort to achieve power. Nevertheless, Falstaff commits slight though significant transgressions against Prince Hal and aristocratic values. These transgressions begin in conversation and eventually result in Falstaff’s action on the
Toliver, Harold E. "Falstaff, The Prince, and the History Play." Sanderson, Henry the Fourth, Part 1. 169-193.
The Freudian model of id, ego and superego can be mapped onto characters in the play. The id is represented by Falstaff and Hotspur, figures of unrestrained appetite and uninhibited reaction. The superego is symbolized by King Henry as a judgmental, restrictive father, the basis for an ego-ideal based on an interjected paternal image. The King's rebukes sound early in the play and are echoed in Prince Hal's famous soliloquy, "I know you all . . . ," in Act One (1.2.195-217), a soliloquy that presents self-rebuke as self-justification, promising future reformation and reconciliation with the father. The ego is embodied by Prince Hal, the gradually heroic son who learns to mediate among the demands of impulse, restraint, and his various social
Shakespeare, William. The Life of King Henry the Fifth. New York: Unicorn Publishers Inc, 1950. Pg. 173-295.
This theory of "natural" inferiority rationalized for many white Americans the stealing of Indian lands. Indians, another “racially inferior” group, were initially viewed as naturally white. They explained they were tan because of exposure to the sun. Many felt that they were good human material, and the problem was not race but culture, that the Indians were primitive but they could be civilized. Whites sought to civilize Indians though English education and Christian religion, turning hunters into farmers and businessmen. They tried to assimilate them into American culture. The "civilization" process and way of life began to be seen as the only way for Indians to live in peace with whites.
Hal is the Prince of Wales and heir to the British throne was able to manipulate both the nobles and the court in order to satisfy his needs. Firstly, his ability to speak confidently between the lower class and upper class allowed him to gain authority of many things. In the beginning of the play, Poins tells Hal and Falstaff there is a robbery planned for...
Though Hyde is pure evil, Jekyll is not pure goodness; he is still the same old conflicted mix of both good and evil. To cover his tracks, Jekyll rented a room for Hyde, opened a bank account in his name, and explained to his household servants that Hyde was to be allowed to freely come and go through the house. Hyde was even made Jekyll’s sole heir. At first, Jekyll delights in having his alter ego. Through Hyde, he can live out his fantasies of doing whatever he pleases, with no consequences, seeing as how he has but to drink the potion to make Hyde disappear. No accountability for Hyde’s
Shakespeare’s use of chiasmus in I Henry IV lends a very interesting twist to the plot. And what’s even more compelling is that within the play itself, Hal is using chiasmus as well when he intends to rise from his drunken, thieving status to the justified Prince of Wales. Shakespeare’s use of chiasmus works marvelously in persuading the reader to view Hal as honorable in the end. This should remind us all that we can always move up from where we currently are, and become all the more virtuous by doing so.
In William Shakespeare’s 1 Henry IV, Falstaff and King Henry IV share father-figure relationships with Henry “Hal,” Prince of Wales. The former, a drunk and cavalier knight, acts as a surrogate father to the prince, while the latter, a determined and distanced monarch, is his blood. Yet, who is the better father-figure to Hal? Although Falstaff and Prince Henry share a strong, quasi father-son relationship, the former’s manifestation of the tavern atmosphere, venality and dishonor are obstacles to the Prince’s goals; King Henry IV, on the other hand, is the better father-figure because he motivates his son to realize his ambitions, and embodies the setting of the court and the monarchy in which the Prince belongs and will one day inherit.
We are introduced to the back door right at the beginning of the book. The door is said to be – ' equipped with neither bell or knocker, was blistered and distained.'; Along with the introduction of the door is the introduction of Mr. Hyde. Mr. Hyde's appearance is described as 'something displeasing, something downright detestable.'; So right from the beginning, we are aware of Mr. Hyde's connection with this mysterious door. Mr. Enfield's story on page 2 gives a good understanding of the shady character of Mr. Hyde. A quote from the book that best describes this is ' The next thing was to get the money; and where do you think he carried us but to that place with the door? – whipped out a key, went in , and presently came back with the matter of ten pounds in gold and a cheque for the balance on Coutts's, drawn payable to bearer, and signed with a name that I can't mention.'; But as the story progresses we learn that the house belongs to Dr. Jekyll. The fact that Dr. Jekyll is only seen in the front of the house, which is well furnished and respectable, brings about the contrasting features of the house. This is also a good time to note that this contradiction of the two sides of the house signifies that Dr. Jekyll is obviously hid...
Camus writes in a simple, direct, and uncomplicated style. The choice of language serves well to convey the thoughts of Meursault. The story is told in the first person and traces the development of the narrator's attitude toward himself and the rest of the world. Through this sort of simple grammatical structure, Camus gives the reader the opportunity to become part of the awareness of Meursault. In Part I, what Meursault decides to mention are just concrete facts. He describes objects and people, but makes no attempt to analyze them. Since he makes no effort to analyze things around him, that job is given to the reader. The reader therefore creates his own meaning for Meursault's actions. When he is forced to confront his past and reflect on his experiences, he attempts to understand the reasons for existence. At first, Meursault makes references to his inability to understand what's happening around him, but often what he tells us seems the result of his own indifference or detachment. He is frequently inattentive to his surroundings. His mind wanders in the middle of conversations. Rarely does he make judgments or express opinions about what he or other characters are doing. Meursault walks through life largely unaware of the effect of his actions on others.