Class & Edmund

Class & Edmund
One similarity between Richard II, Henry V, and King Lear is that they each blur the lines between the classes. In Richard II the usurped King laments the fact that he has been deposed and in King Lear the banished king begins to recognize the validity of the lower classes’ experiences, as can be seen when he says “Poor fool and knave, I have one part in my heart that’s sorry yet for thee,” at 3.2.70. Each of these leaders have lost the power they once had and are betrayed by those who had once been their subjects, their subordinates. In doing so they become enlightened, in a sense, because their range of experience is made larger. With Henry V, however, there is no actual change in his knowledge because he has already been associating with the lower classes. When he rallies his followers together by calling them a “band of brothers” and elevates the peasants rankings by telling them all those who fight with him will be nobles, it does not cause a crisis in his identity as it does with Richard (“And now know not what to call myself”) and Lear (“Yet he hath ever but slenderly known himself). Richard and Lear’s experience of downward social mobility destroys them: neither knows how to operate unless they are king. Henry’s experimentation with it empowers him: he is the one who initiates the upward “advancement” of others (while Richard and Lear fall) and his blurring of class distinctions allows him more power while simultaneously exempting him from the consequences of having that power (“no more is the King guilty of their damnation than he was before guilty of those impieties for which they are now visited” at 4.1.162.)
The character I find most interesting in Lear is Edmund: he drives forward the entire subplot of the play through his sheer force of will, which is in contrast to Lear, who sets the events in the plot in motion, but subsequently loses all control, very unlike Edmund; his psychology seems to be a mixture of feeling inferior because he is an illegitimate child whose father has no legal obligations to him and feeling superior to all those around him because he is smarter than they are (he keeps on making fun of his father’s superstitions) and can easily manipulate them; he’s an excellent example of performativity (like Hal) in that he performs his roles of “good son” and “good brother” well; and he is very rational and practical, traits that seem to be missing from all the other characters in the play (save maybe Goneril.) What interests me most, though, is how he resembles Shakespeare’s other ‘characters of manipulation,’ the Duke in MfM and Hal in Henry IV. All three of them have a lack of power (the Duke can’t really run his dukedom efficiently and Hal is thought to be foolish) and sacrifice others (Edgar, Angelo, Hotspur &Falstaff) in order to gain in. I’m not sure how an actor would play him: I watched the Ian McKellan version of the play and was surprised at how the actor playing him delivered his speech at 1.2. In my mind he was brooding and vengeful, but the actor made him flippant, arrogant, and even playful. I’m not sure which one seems more honest to the overall tone of the play.

Kenneth Branagh's Henry V and Falstaff

I REALLY enjoyed watching Kenneth Branagh's version of Henry V! There were so many things that I found fascinating in the production it was hard to pick just one to write a blog post about. What I thought was really interesting was how Branagh incorporated the character of Falstaff into the movie by using flashbacks to Henry/Harry’s past; when Henry used to hang out with the “wrong” crowd at pubs etc. I found this decision to incorporate Falstaff very interesting because although Falstaff is mentioned in the text of Henry V, he doesn’t have any actual lines in the play and appears nowhere on stage/in the stage directions etc. I think that by using these flashbacks this film sets up an extreme contrast between the man that Henry is now and the man that Henry used to be.

For example one of the flashbacks is to a scene of laughter and drinking in the bar and it depicts an interaction between Falstaff and Henry. In this scene when Falstaff and Henry see each other they embrace. To me this signifies that they must have been close or had some sort of bond in order to greet each other with an embrace. And later on in the scene Falstaff is reminding Henry that when he is king that he can banish all others but he must not banish Jack Falstaff. Yet in this scene the present Henry doesn’t say anything all that viewers hear is a voice of a later Henry saying “I know thee not old man”; which is a reference to Henry IV part two when now king, Henry denies ever knowing Falstaff. I think the way that this scene is dramatically set up is great and really plays up the transformation of Henry. I think that by having the voice of a later Henry saying “I know thee not old man” really shows how Henry no longer associates with his past less than “desirable” friends. What I also think this scene does wonderfully is to cause viewers to sympathize with Falstaff a little, because he and Henry were friends and then Henry completely forgot and disowned Falstaff as soon as he became king. I know at least when reading the plays I felt a little sympathy towards Falstaff, especially when reading Henry V because Falstaff is apparently dying because of Henry V. I initially thought that when reading the play because Falstaff was excluded it was the right decision because this play is about the life of Henry V etc. and that having Falstaff in the play would have distracted from how great of a king Henry had become. But, now after seeing this dramatic interpretation of it I think that if Falstaff was included in the play it would have been really interesting to see. In the end I really enjoyed seeing Branagh’s interpretation of Henry V and I think that by including Falstaff, Branagh really showcased the transformation of Henry from an immature young boy, who steals and associates with the “wrong” crowd, into a valiant and great King

Henry? Is That You?

Before I begin, I just have to say that I've always been a fan of Kenneth Branagh and I look forward to really diving into his interpretation of Henry V (the character, mostly). I've always said that Shakespeare has reincarnated himself into three people of the twentieth century: Branagh, Laurence Olivier, and Orson Welles (that last one may be controversial). It's one thing to play Hamlet for a little while on stage or in a movie, but these men seemingly lived and breathed Shakespeare. Honestly, I love Branagh and am excited to see the film (I've only ever seen the St. Crispin's Day speech, which was gorgeous by itself). Now, onto the blogging.

I was rather shocked by this Harry when comparing him to the Prince Hal we came to know and love in 1 Henry IV. The speeches he gives are just gorgeous (did I say that already?), particularly the one he gives after fooling the soldiers and is left alone in IV.1 (which I saw as VERY reminiscent of, ironically, Richard II's speech when he was imprisoned in the castle) and, of course, the St. Crispin's Speech in IV.3. As I read these speeches (and felt an overwhelming sense of English pride, despite myself being both English and obviously French), I couldn't help but lose track of the character. Is this what a perfect redemption looks like? Was Harry really such a lovely and eloquent person underneath all of that debauchery? Is it even possible to make such a one-eighty and be the same person? I honestly find it hard to believe that this is the same Hal. I understand he's older and now he has quite a bit of responsibility on his hands, but it seems to me that Shakespeare has either overinflated the virtue of Harry as King, or exaggerated his vices as Prince. Then again, this could be all apart of Shakespeare's plan to show the "like father, like son" aspect of the Henrys. This shining individual that Harry has become shows his near-perfect acting ability he inherited from his father, who was also presented as a near-perfect individual. Henry IV's kindness towards peasants and support from the people disgusted Richard II, who, until his death, saw royalty as far above the common swill that was a subject. Harry, too gained support from the people by living with them in the taverns, while at the same time building up a rather sour reputation so he could prove himself by renouncing the tavern life upon becoming king. This way, Harry gains the support of the people as king tenfold when compared to his father. He even goes so far as to banish Falstaff, who dies of a broken heart. It's this conniving nature that runs through the Henrys, seen first in the father's outward desire to cleanse the land and help and love the people, then seen in the son's outward fall from grace and rise to redemption. Once again, the Henrys rely on their subjects being very stupid and it works for them.

Another part of this play that had me thrown off was the final scene between Harry and Catherine. Since when was this a love story? The whole scene felt like an afterthought. I will admit that Catherine's English lessons provided some foreshadowing, but it still seemed like a very strange scene to end the play with. Once again, here's Harry as the suave, pure man, sweeping Catherine off her feet. It's one of those moments when the character could just jump off the page and yell, "I'm acting!" but Harry's too good at what he does for that. This scene seems to be symbolic of unity of the two countries, expressed through the purity of love and marriage, but it almost creeps up on you at the end, especially since it comes after a rather ridiculous scene depicting three morons arguing over leeks (and the unfortunate death of Pistol's wife through syphilis, which is still a rather unsavory sentiment).

Of course, one must not overlook the humorous undertones of this scene. This reminds me of the scene between Mortimer and his wife in 1 Henry IV, in which neither one could understand the other. That scene was meant to show the foolishness of the rebels, but now this scene at the end of Henry V is very much in conflict with itself: Harry is pure, suave, and uniting the countries, but he's also trying to sweet-talk a woman that barely understands him. Was this scene purely meant for laughs so the play could end one a happy tone? Well, the epilogue certainly kills the mood with its foreboding message of the loss of a kingdom. Perhaps this comedic scene depiction of a language barrier is foreshadowing to Henry VI's loss of France: England and France cannot be together because they will never understand each other. Quite eloquent, if you ask me.

"If we are marked to die, we are enough to do our country loss; and if we live, the fewer men, the greater share of honor." -Henry V

-Sarah Bras

Prince Harry

Prince Harry is quite the interesting character. While his father, King Henry IV, thinks ill of him and even wishes Hotspur to be his son instead of Harry, the reader learns at the end of Act 1 Scene 2 that this is all a part of Harry’s plan.

Harry associates himself with the ruffians of London, the highwaymen and thieves playing along with their antics and gaining a bad reputation for himself – one his father greatly disapproves of, but Harry sees it differently. According to Harry, if he has a bad reputation beforehand then when it is his time to shine his drastic change will stun everyone and make him seem even better than he is. He states, “my reformation, glitt’ring o’er my fault,/ shall show more goodly and attract more eyes / than that which hath no foil to set if off” (lines 191-3) which means that when he reveals himself to be a great person/leader everyone would be so amazed at his turn around that they would appreciate him more than if he performed these same tactics as an ordinary, upstanding man from the beginning. Like the idea, also mentioned in his speech, that if there are always holidays, having fun would become tedious because it’s all you do. I find this both very intelligent and interesting. While this is a great idea, it makes me wonder about politics. When we elect a president, I feel like we look at EVERYTHING that person has done throughout their life and condemn them for the bad, but here, Harry would be rewarded for getting passed his bad side. Perhaps that’s because the people have no choice or electing vote?

It’s also amusing how King Henry IV mentions preferring Hotspur because he is the more upstanding man when he is the one plotting; meanwhile his son is pretending to be a lowlife while plotting on how to make a better leader.

I also wonder if Harry is Henry V or not. I recall watching the film with Kenneth Branagh and thinking that Henry V is this great guy and leader (though it was so long ago I can’t remember if that’s true) and comparing him to Harry seems rather unlikely because of his deceiving plans, but does that make him really smart or sneaky? Maybe because I couldn’t see the character I watched doing something as vile as hanging around highwaymen, but I could be wrong! I’m interested to see where that goes.

There are many characters in this play but I feel as if Prince Harry’s role takes on many aspects of it. He is both smart and fun (so far). When his highwaymen friends set up the theft that they want Harry to join in, he is at first hesitant but when one of them turns it into a game against each other, he decides to join. It is as if he knows just how far he can go and what he can get away with.