Talking history, which we're not. Talking living, which we're not. Talking characters, somethings flow well enough. Characters are expected to be unpolished examples of imagination, floating extremes. A point shown within Henry IV is the loose living of the king's son. We readers are told flat out by the "character son" that living so low in a fairly constant way is just a something he's doing to puff himself up later on when he actually becomes king. "The hung-over kid really turned himself around." The irony here is that transformation is just an illusion, an illusion of maturity. Of course he does step-up to the kingdom. Why wouldn't he? Early on it is obvious that in the reality (of the play) however, no development is going on within this character. He is not turning from juvenile booze-hound into a natural-born ruler. Preplanned manipulation is what's rocking Hal's inside. So once this body goes from being Prince Hal to King Henry V, what goes on? His younger days are of course abandoned; the conviction and depth of this change is shown by the new king's dispacement of his former drinking buddy (and fan favorite) Falstaff. This decision leads tothe character's crazed and lonesome demise. We hear this through word of mouth. The king has, in a sense, deprived the audience of Falstaff's (final) appearance.
Alright. He does away with old ties in a somewhat unnecessary (and unsatisfying) way. He's stepping on a few folks here, what what ruler hasn't? What's really important is how he acts when it comes to leading... Mmmm his lifestyle maybe "clean," but that dirty kind of manipulation is still at work. It's up for debate, the subject of what makes a king a GOOD king. What is assumed is that the king is working for his land, his people. If we assume this is the case then we need to ask if there is a limit to what a king does in order to better his kingdom. the question is: do we see this king's manipulation of situation (in order to get things done) part of his ability as an effective ruler, or is it just the dirty little slider in him coming out? And even if he is in it for himself, wouldn't any resulys which could be ultimately seen as a plus for the kingdom be accepting and appreciated?
Lack of respnsibility taken by the king (making sure Canterbuty realizes that HE is the one to fall if anything goes wrong, a scapegoat) rubs right against the self-inflation that V has worked for and achieved earlier in his life. He appears reborn with the acceptance of the crown; dedicated to his new life of leadership. By passing the blame for an invasion of France off on someone else, he will again appear be the one to seem clean and shinning if something should go wrong. "This man is the reason we lost so many for nothing, and even though I know him well enough, he won't escape the punishment his crime has resulted in." Making yourself out a hero in any situation isn't the mindset of a ruler, maybe a politician, but a king...
3 comments:
I feel Henry V did turn out to be a great king, but I have one problem with him; he stabbed all his childhood friends in the back, particularly Falstaff. We knew back in Henry IV that Hal would probably have to drop his friends, but Hal seems cruel in the way he does this. As we learned he doesn't even acknowledge Falstaff during his coronation which eventually leads to Falstaff's death. Whether these people were actually his friends or if he was just using them, in either case "it just aint right." The movie in particular brings this out through 2 very short flashback scenes of Young Hal. The movie makes one question Hal's character.
I wholeheartedly agree with your view of Harry's character: he doesn't really change over the course of the tetra-logy because the initial perception of him as a drunken youth was a fabrication he created to further his political career. I don't even see V as a character in and of himself: there really isn't anything very essential about him. With Richard I felt that his main characteristic was that he really believed in divine right and was going through a crisis when that tenet was threatened; with Bolingbroke I felt that his central trait was that he was constantly trying to legitimize his power; with V I feel that there is no fundamental aspect about him. He can transform into anything he wants as long as it benefits his political aims. There was a "real" Richard, there was a "real" Bolingbroke, but there is no "real" V.
This is a tough question, "Was King Henry V a good king or just a good politician and back-stabber"? Well, honestly from the play, I wasn't sure and I am still not that sure. From the movie version we watched however, I truly feel that King Henry V was a great king. From the play, I did get more of a vibe that Henry V was placing the blame on other people yet from the movie, I didn't get that vibe. Yes, Henry did drop his old friends and his old ways but in the film flashback, I feel like Henry gave his friends warning that this was going to happen when he was the King. I got this vibe when Henry said that he would hang a thief. I felt like Henry had to do what he had to do because he was now King. Plus in the movie he did not hang his friend for no reason, and he was upset and crying while this punishment was happening. Although I do not think that invading France was necessary, I took it as Henry did this because he knew it was a good political move for the future. We did say in class that Henry did have a plan for everything. In the play this makes him seem like an evil, evil man. In the movie however, I think it made him a smart and successful leader. And as for getting ride of Falstaff... People grow, mature and change...Falstaff didn't grow with Henry and had to "go" for Henry V to be as great as he was.
Post a Comment