Henry IV, Part 1 and 2
Visit to the Middle Temple
Interestingly enough, this is one place that wasn’t completely demolished in WWII. What a stunning building. It was, however, rebuilt after the Great Fire of 1666.
This place is important because it is where the court would invite acting troupes to come perform privately. In the great hall, there were two arched entries, no doubt used for entrances for the make-shift stage. On the opposite end of the hall, where the higher-ups would sit, was a long oak table, carved entirely out of a single tree. Unbelievable.
Side note: had the best pizza of my life today. Bacon, feta, spinach, cherry tomatoes, red onion, and mozzarella. I also learned how to get red wine out of cotton today. You can take me anywhere, really.
Henry IV, Part 1 and 2
Part 1 is by far a stronger show. It’s more unified. In this one, Falstaff is much more connected to the rest of the cast. Part 2 is definitely a show for an audience who loves Falstaff and wants to see more of him. This is evident because it’s FULL of soliloquies. It must have been Shakespeare’s intention, but Part 2 is just so jarring because it’s two families—the monarchy and the underworld—are so separated. It’s like watching two different plays at the same time, that occasionally interweave.
Additionally, I thought transitions in Part 1 moved fluidly and effectively. I didn’t think it felt “modernized” either, for the most part, which was interesting. One (more modern) moment in particular, which I thought was particularly effective, was the transition after the Hotspur and Lady Percy scene. She’s been hurt, and Hotspur (a horrendously general and indulgent actor, I’ll get to this later) has just left her. She simply stood center-center to regain her composure. The music started playing, and all the furniture for the next scene transitioned in, but all we could look at was the broken Lady Percy. It provided time for the transition, and a lovely silent acting moment for her. Moments like this were necessary in Part 2; while I thought the acting was excellent all around, it was a clunky show and hard to follow.
The actor who doubled as Hotspur in Part 1 and Pistol in Part 2 was so hit-or-miss. I absolutely hated him in Part 1. As I said, general and indulgent. The beauty of this character (one of my absolute favorites) is that he is a perfect foil to Prince Hal because instead of over-complicating who he is and what he wants to be, he uses his passion (and hot-headedness, hence the nickname) to whittle down his objectives. He acts on impulse, but it’s a pure, uncomplicated impulse. This is also why this scene between him and his wife Lady Percy should be absolutely electric…which it wasn’t. Instead, his entire character was like dealing with, as Anna said, a petulant child. He was so obnoxious. On the other hand, as Pistol, who truly is reckless, he was fantastic. I would not say this is poor casting, I would say it was either something Dominic Dromgoole overlooked (and if so, shame on him), or something an indulgent actor manipulated after the director left.
Also, I stood in the yard as a groundling for Part 1 and was way up in the top balcony in the corner bay for Part 2, where the royalty would sit. Couldn’t see a damn thing onstage, but the royalty was more concerned with being seen, which I guess would have made these seats perfect—I could see everyone in the audience who wasn’t directly below me.
No comments:
Post a Comment