Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Shakespeare analysis and criticism
Fidele shakespeare analysis
Shakespeare critical analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Jean Renoir, a famous French film director, asked, “Is it possible to succeed without any act of betrayal?” King Henry IV Part Two by William Shakespeare displays a complex relationship between Prince Hal and Falstaff. The relationship between the two men progresses from companionship to alienation; in the end, Prince Hal betrays Falstaff. Shakespeare displays the intense and changing relationship between Prince Hal and Falstaff to highlight the destructive power of greed and how it forces the sacrifice of one relationship in order to gain another. Prince Hal and Falstaff share a close relationship from the beginning. The two men are drinking buddies, and they often visit taverns in Eastcheap together. After staging a robbery, the prince finds that Falstaff comes to him later to lie about the whole situation. Falstaff, not know Hal had planned the robbery, lies about the situation which gives Hal the opportunity to orchestrate his rise to power. On the surface it seems like Hal is just questioning Falstaff, but there is deeper meaning behind Hal’s actions because he now has an opportunity to drive a wedge in the relationship. The bond between the two characters …show more content…
falls apart because of Falstaff’s lack of integrity and Hal’s willingness to take advantage of Falstaff. With a personal excuse to divide the relationship, Hal can now take advantage of Falstaff in order to facilitate his rise to power. Hal uses Falstaff because he wants to become king, and in order to do that, he has to please his father by dissolving his relationship with Falstaff The corpulent Falstaff only showed loyalty to Hal for years because the prince was his benefactor. With a royal companion by his side, no one would question Falstaff, and if they did, mentioning his connection to the prince would always get Falstaff out of trouble. The prince’s name allowed for Falstaff to indulge in food, beer, and prostitutes; after Hal became king, Falstaff called for him from a crowd. Hal ignored Falstaff because he looked at the fraud’s life as window into his own future. The change in the relationship between the characters was caused by Falstaff’s lack of integrity and Hal’s underlying motives. Hal’s greed for power motivated him to banish Falstaff in order to secure the throne. The prince did not want to be looked down upon as Falstaff, so he used Falstaff’s lower position on the social ladder to help him rise to the power. To renounce his ties with Falstaff, the prince says, “I know thee not, old man” (Shakespeare 5.3.46). The dramatic change in the relationship shows Hal’s calculating nature; Hal knew the king was worried about the future of the throne because of Falstaff’s presence. The king was in search of a worthy successor in order to secure his legacy after his passing. The idea of killing Hal and giving the throne to a more deserving son was a realistic because having a strong successor would help enshrine the king’s legacy. Hal came to the realization that if his own father contemplated killing him, surely the common people of England would as a group. Examining Falstaff’s meaningless life, Hal realized his people would never obey his word if he continued to follow in Falstaff’s footsteps. This combined with Falstaff dishonesty about the robbery created a situation in which Hal could plan a dramatic alteration of his character. In front of hundreds of people, Hal banished Falstaff from coming within ten miles of him. This dramatic shift in Act V reveals that Hal had orchestrated the entire relationship. The prince purposely associated himself with Falstaff knowing he would one day rise to power. Once given the throne, his rejection of Falstaff would make him seem like a transformed figure, almost as if he was super-human. This would help to solidify his status in his kingdom because no one would challenge a seemingly ruthless monarch. The dynamic relationship between Hal and Falstaff demonstrates the cost of power in having to give up one relationship in order to gain another. The dissolution between Prince Hal and Falstaff’s relationship is driven by Hal’s desire to please the king in order to become his successor. As he lays on his deathbed, a worried King Henry IV says, “For when his headstrong riot hath no curb, When rage and hot blood are his counsellors” (Shakespeare 4.3.67-68). At the time the king worried because he assumes Hal is with Falstaff. The king is proved wrong as Hal soon appears, but great confusion arises when Hal puts on the crown thinking his father has died. In the end, the emotional scene reveals a true father-son bond between the king and the prince. Hal’s new transformation allows King Henry IV to die in peace, and it contrasts Falstaff’s former relationship with Hal as a father figure which consisted of beer and prostitutes. It becomes evident that Hal’s cold and calculating nature arose because he wanted power. The scene shows that the sleazy lifestyle Falstaff offered never compared to the power Hal could have being king. The prince ending his relationship with Falstaff symbolizes the greed for power. With his father’s new trust, the entire kingdom belonged to Hal. Falstaff, on the contrary, was essentially dead. He had no hope, and because of his lost connections, no one was likely to associate with him anymore. The relationship Falstaff had with Prince Hal composed of drinking and mischief; the death of King Henry IV led to Hal’s self-realization, and in the process, cemented greed as a theme in the play. The scene in which Hal banishes Falstaff is portrayed in the 1965 film Chimes at Midnight by Orson Welles.
While banishing Falstaff, the actor who plays Hal is overcome with slight guilt for his actions. His voice softens as he offers Falstaff a little money to live off of. Falstaff’s lack of integrity and honesty combined with Hal’s cold and calculating mindset leads to a relationship which falls apart. The broken bond shows a pragmatic, realistic side of life in which one thing must always be given up in order to gain another. Hal had to give up Falstaff in order to please his father so he could gain the throne. The desire to have power and influence is responsible for the demise of Falstaff and Hal’s relationship. Living in a world where everyone is trying to reach the top, who can really be
trusted?
As soon as the king leaves, Falstaff immediately proclaims his unashamed cowardice, asking Hal to protect him in battle. The prince retorts with an insult to Falstaff’s enormous size, and abruptly bids him farewell. Gone are the jests that would accompany a conversation between these two at the beginning of the play, and Hal’s reactions to Falstaff now represent his moving away from the tavern world, and that he now belongs to the court world. Falstaff is extremely honest about his feelings towards the whole affair, bluntly stating that he wishes it all were over, exposing his strong reluctance to fight and interest in self-preservation. Again the prince offers only a rude retort before his ...
Prince Hal is initially portrayed as being incapable of princely responsibilities in light of his drinking, robbery and trickery. Yet, Shakespeare reveals that Hal is in fact only constructing this false impression for the purpose of deceit. Prince Hal’s manipulative nature is evident in his first soliloquy, when he professes his intention to “imitate the sun” and “break through the foul and ugly mists”. The ‘sun’ Prince Hal seeks to ‘imitate’ can in this case be understood as his true capacity, as opposed to the false impression of his incapacity, which is symbolised by the ‘foul and ugly mists’. The differentiation of Hal’s capacity into two categories of that which is false and that which is true reveals the duplicity of his character. Moreover, Hal is further shown to be manipulative in the same soliloquy by explaining his tactic of using the “foil” of a lowly reputation against his true capacity to “attract more eyes” and “show more goodly”. The diction of “eyes” symbolically represents public deception, concluding political actions are based on strategy. It is through representation and textual form that we obtain insight into this
In Act 1, Scene 2, Hal and Falstaff are dinking at the bar. We get the
one's eyes as time passes, but because it reigns the ebb and flow of the tides.
rebellion within the tavern setting as he becomes an adult with the political prowess to
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.
Falstaff who seems to be Hal’s role model while in the Tavern, is putting forth a great deal of effort to have Hal conform into the lowlife that he himself has made himself out to be. Falstaff teaches Hal how to lie, cheat, and steal, but Hal seems to have a mind of his own. He tells his father that at any given moment he can change his character and be what his father wants him to be. Henry declines to believe these statements.
The consequences of the Hal and Hotspur's choice in father-figures are indeed what leads the play to its final outcome. Hal, who sides with his father and not Falstaff, becomes a noble prince and redeems himself in the eyes of his father. Hotspur, on the other hand, sides with Worcester, and their collective tempers lead them to make the rash decision to revolt. Their tempers are also responsible for other poor decisions that evade the chance of truce, resulting in the inevitable failure of the rebellion. Indeed, all could have been prevented if Hotspur sided with his father, rather than his uncle, and Hal would have become a desolate criminal had he followed Falstaff.
Machiavelli states that "it is necessary for a prince, who wishes to maintain himself, to learn how not to be good, and use this knowledge and not use it, according to the necessity of the case." Machiavelli's ideas both compare and contrast to the methods used by Hamlet. Hamlet's desire to drive the king mad and eventually kill him, is what he thinks he must do in order to set things right. Hamlet struggles to maintain his position as prince. Perhaps he lacks the essential qualities of a prince outlined by Machiavelli.
The Shakespearean play of Hamlet captures the audience with many suspenseful and devastating themes including betrayal. Some of the most loved characters get betrayed by who they thought loved them most. The things these characters do to the people they love are wrong, hurtful and disappointing. These examples lead to the destruction of many characters physically and emotionally. The characters in the play who committed the act of betrayal end up paying for what they have done in the form of death, either from nature, their selfishness, disloyalty and madness. The act of betrayal truly captures and displays the play of Hamlet as a sad tragedy.
Gifted with the darkest attributes intertwined in his imperfect characteristics, Shakespeare’s Richard III displays his anti-hero traits afflicted with thorns of villains: “Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous / By drunken prophecies, libels, and dreams” (I.i.32-33). Richard possesses the idealism and ambition of a heroic figure that is destined to great achievements and power; however, as one who believes that “the end justifies the means”, Richard rejects moral value and tradition as he is willing to do anything to accomplish his goal to the crown. The society, even his family and closest friends, repudiate him as a deformed outcast. Nevertheless, he cheers for himself as the champion and irredeemable villain by turning entirely to revenge of taking self-served power. By distinguishing virtue ethics to take revenge on the human society that alienates him and centering his life on self-advancement towards kingship, Richard is the literary archetype of an anti-hero.
Hal is a cold, calculating Machiavellian ruler. According to Machiavelli’s popular theory, being a successful leader has nothing to do with being a nice person or doing the right thing. Instead, it’s about being inventive, manipulative, crafty, and willful. Hal is an intelligent character who put all those attributes to work when he articulated a grand plan to fool everyone around him in order to gain power. One critic claims that traditionally there are two common ways to interpret Prince Hal's development. The first is to see it as a celebration of a great king in training who grows in his responsibility and develops into a mature political leader. The second view sees Prince Hal as a cold Machiavel who uses his friends as means to a political end, without much regard for their feelings. (Johnston 1).
He is happy being a drunkard and someone who indulges what he wants. But he also realizes that it is not the type of life that a prince, or a king, should associate himself with, which leads him to his pleading—another reason the scene is prophetic. He pleads with Henry about his morality, much like he will do later in the play and in Henry IV: Part II. Though the play extempore is supposed to prepare Henry for his encounter with his father. Falstaff realizes it may be a good time to practice the inevitable encounter that he will have with Hal once he becomes king. This argument can be further developed when one realizes that it was Falstaff that called for the play extempore, not Hal. Falstaff knew he wanted a trial run before Hal’s kingship, so he gave himself one. However, Hal’s only reaction to Falstaff’s final speech is his line, “I do, I will” (2.4. 465). Some may take this as his answer to Falstaff that he will pardon him, and continue to be his friend. But the argument could be made that Hal is saying that line more to himself than to Falstaff. He is saying that he will do what’s necessary to be a good king. That he does have what it takes to leave a life he enjoys for a life of
Genuine people are few and far in between. Honesty is always hidden under the mystery of corruption. Wherever you go, people seem to put on mask and hide who they truly are become hidden from the outside world. Their motives are unknown but they have a deep, dark necessity to act and play a different role when they are in the presence of others. However, this doesn’t pertain to just people in the real world, it also occurs in the world of Shakespeare. The audience quickly finds that just like in their everyday life, fictional characters can also play a different role to achieve what they truly desire. Consequently, these characters develop a sense of dishonesty throughout the story and this dishonesty eventually leads to the destruction of their plans. Just like a weak foundation of a building, a weak personality will eventually crumple in ruin. In order to capture the recurring theme of dishonesty, William Shakespeare uses the death of King Hamlet to force a façade of security and responsibility on the major characters in his play, Hamlet.
In conclusion, although for most of the play we see only Horatio expressing his changed feelings toward Hamlet, in the final moments of his life Hamlet can no longer hide his transformed heartfelt love for Horatio and shows this when he begs him to stay alive and go on without him. To Horatio, this is the purest act of love he could’ve received from Hamlet and chooses to abide by his words. As for Shakespeare’s character relationships, the repetitive theme of forbidden love allows for the reader to seize the opportunity and create a world of possibilities consisting of different correlations between numerous characters.