![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I've been re-reading a lot of Shakespeare lately, picking up the Arden 3rd series - critical editions of his works which come out about 3 per year (the third series is a little over halfway through his works, it's been going since the 1990s. This is a big undertaking). And being reminded that there are a few plays that are problem plays.
No, not the traditional 'problem plays' where they're unclassifiable or have questionable authorship. I mean plays that are very hard to perform now in any way, shape or form the way they were performed in Shakespeare's day.
Two are obvious - The Taming of the Shrew and The Merchant of Venice. Two slightly less so - Much Ado About Nothing and Henry IV, Part 1.
The last is the most interesting to me, being the only one that doesn't revolve around 'modern sensibilities make this character appalling'. Falstaff was likely always meant to be the larger than life, witty yet ultimately cowardly knight, and there's no issue making him this way in modern times.
No, the issue is History vs. Comedy. Henry IV Part 1 is pretty much the funniest of the Histories, by quite a large degree. And it was Falstaff's play for a long while. It was even CALLED Falstaff by almost all Shakespeare contemporaries. If there was anyone competing for attention, it was Hotspur, the honor-minded young rebel. Hal was sort of an afterthought.
But in the twentieth century, we began to get far more of the histories being performed in groups. Richard II through Henry V, Henry VI through Richard III, or all 8 in one giant beast. And when performed like that, the focus has to become Hal by definition. I mean, he's Henry V.
So what we tend to see today is Hal, taking after his initial monologue, merely tolerating Falstaff, using him in order to achieve his objectives (look, he used to be a reprobate, but now he's so awesome!). This works fine - well, fine-ish - When you put the Henrys together, as Henry IV Part 2 has Falstaff being cast out. But on its own, it makes it very hard to get a good Hal/Falstaff relationship. There's always that sense of waiting for the other shoe to drop.
It also makes it hard to play up Falstaff's comedy. Henry IV Part 1 is a funny play (by Shakespeare comedy standards - I know several people who argue Shakespeare comedies are all no longer funny at all today). The comedy is what helps to counterbalance the state matters with Henry IV and Hotspur. And I feel too many directors try to play up the history and play down the comedy, leaving the Falstaff role curiously gloomy. A lot of recent Falstaffs play up the melancholy.
Falstaff is a great character. For years, he was thought, more than Hamlet or Lear, to be THE Shakespeare character. He was so popular that the Queen asked Shakespeare to write another play with him (The Merry Wives of Windsor). And Henry IV Part 1 is his best play. I think if you lessen the comedy you do Shakespeare a disservice. Moreover I think playing up the comedy, and making Falstaff and Hal better friends, also helps to heighten the drama when Falstaff is cut off in Part 2.
This is getting long, isn't it? I'll go into Much Ado next. ("Kill Claudio!" "Why should I, Beatrice, when the audeince out there is perfectly willing to do it?")
No, not the traditional 'problem plays' where they're unclassifiable or have questionable authorship. I mean plays that are very hard to perform now in any way, shape or form the way they were performed in Shakespeare's day.
Two are obvious - The Taming of the Shrew and The Merchant of Venice. Two slightly less so - Much Ado About Nothing and Henry IV, Part 1.
The last is the most interesting to me, being the only one that doesn't revolve around 'modern sensibilities make this character appalling'. Falstaff was likely always meant to be the larger than life, witty yet ultimately cowardly knight, and there's no issue making him this way in modern times.
No, the issue is History vs. Comedy. Henry IV Part 1 is pretty much the funniest of the Histories, by quite a large degree. And it was Falstaff's play for a long while. It was even CALLED Falstaff by almost all Shakespeare contemporaries. If there was anyone competing for attention, it was Hotspur, the honor-minded young rebel. Hal was sort of an afterthought.
But in the twentieth century, we began to get far more of the histories being performed in groups. Richard II through Henry V, Henry VI through Richard III, or all 8 in one giant beast. And when performed like that, the focus has to become Hal by definition. I mean, he's Henry V.
So what we tend to see today is Hal, taking after his initial monologue, merely tolerating Falstaff, using him in order to achieve his objectives (look, he used to be a reprobate, but now he's so awesome!). This works fine - well, fine-ish - When you put the Henrys together, as Henry IV Part 2 has Falstaff being cast out. But on its own, it makes it very hard to get a good Hal/Falstaff relationship. There's always that sense of waiting for the other shoe to drop.
It also makes it hard to play up Falstaff's comedy. Henry IV Part 1 is a funny play (by Shakespeare comedy standards - I know several people who argue Shakespeare comedies are all no longer funny at all today). The comedy is what helps to counterbalance the state matters with Henry IV and Hotspur. And I feel too many directors try to play up the history and play down the comedy, leaving the Falstaff role curiously gloomy. A lot of recent Falstaffs play up the melancholy.
Falstaff is a great character. For years, he was thought, more than Hamlet or Lear, to be THE Shakespeare character. He was so popular that the Queen asked Shakespeare to write another play with him (The Merry Wives of Windsor). And Henry IV Part 1 is his best play. I think if you lessen the comedy you do Shakespeare a disservice. Moreover I think playing up the comedy, and making Falstaff and Hal better friends, also helps to heighten the drama when Falstaff is cut off in Part 2.
This is getting long, isn't it? I'll go into Much Ado next. ("Kill Claudio!" "Why should I, Beatrice, when the audeince out there is perfectly willing to do it?")
Tags:
