Henry IV Part I

The BBC Television Shakespeare is a fascinating series for seeing so many talented actors and seeing the plays, familiar and not so familiar, adapted and performed relatively faithfully on the whole. Some are better than others, with not every performance in the series working and there could be issues with low budget production values and in some productions stage direction.

When it comes to the best productions of the BBC Television Shakespeare series, to me 'The First Part of King Henry the Fourth and The Life and Death of Henry Renamed Hotspur' is among the best. Have enjoyed to loved most though, but it was lovely to see one of Shakespeare's best mixes of comedy and drama done so beautifully and those not familiar with it will find it an education.

It is visually a solid production, while not elaborate or lavish the action feels opened up and not confined. The use of music was lovely, couldn't question any of the placements and it is lovely music in its own right.

On a stage direction level, it is one of the main reasons as to why 'The First Part of Henry the Fourth' is one of the series' best. It is always absorbing, and it is agreed that it mixes both comedy, which is very funny and often hilarious, and drama, which is poignant. Not only because the energy is never lost, it's never static (even the more action-oriented scenes), it is always tasteful with no pointless touches and that it never resorts to overblown excess that swamps everything else. It's also because of the subtleties and the details, big and small, where the characters are so well fleshed out motivations are clear and everything seems to happen for a reason and not randomly.

Jon Finch is very commanding in the title role, no signs of discomfort here. Another standout is Anthony Quayle having the time of his life as Falstaff while David Gwillim is movingly conflicted as Hal. Tim Pigott Smith is an amusing Hotspur.

Concluding, wonderful. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part 1 (1979) was directed for the BBC by David Giles. Like most of the BBC productions, the acting is solid and the text is respected.

Although the play's title would make you assume that King Henry was the central role, that's not correct. The real story of the play--and the movie--is the coming of age of Henry's son, Hal, the Prince of Wales. A major theme is the contrast of the Prince with his warlike contemporary, another Hal, called Hotspur. (In reality, Hotspur was much older than the prince, but Shakespeare's version is much more dramatic.) Also, of course, this is the play in which Shakespeare introduces the roguish fat knight, Sir John Falstaff.

David Gwillim as Hal, Tim Pigott-Smith as Hotspur, and Anthony Quayle as Falstaff are all excellent. Almost all of the BBC productions are shot indoors, but I think director Giles shot the battle scenes outdoors. As usual with the BBC, the supporting actors are good, as are the actors playing minor roles. Costumes are great, settings are minimal. (It worked for the Globe, and it works for the BBC.)

If you know the play well, you'll be happy with this version. If you don't know the play, Henry IV, Part 1 is a good history play with which to start. (It's not the first play in chronological time, but it's a great introduction to Shakespeare's history plays.)

The BBC films were made for TV, so they work well on the small screen. I saw one scene on a large scene in a classroom setting, and that also worked well.

When William Shakespeare's history play, "The History of Henrie IV" (later renamed "The History of Henry IV" Part 1 to distinguish it from its sequel) entered onto the literary stage towards the end of the 16th century, both figuratively and metaphorically, one of the most famous and popular of Shakespeare's characters made his debut: Sir John "Jack" Falstaff. As far as we know, Falstaff was an immediate sensation, attested by the numerous quarto editions printed prior to the so-called Shakespeare First Folio of his collected works which appeared in 1623. Sir John Falstaff, possibly loosely based on Sir John Oldcastle, a knight and friend of Henry V until he rebelled against the king, is an old knight whose "vassals" are a bunch of drunken lowlifes who congregate with him at his "court", a tavern far removed from real court life among the nobility. Although, one frequenter of the tavern and friend of Falstaff is Prince Hal, son of King Henry IV.

Three different groups of characters form the play "Henry IV Part 1". There is the king and his immediate group of advisers, a rogue group who have designs to overthrow the king, and Falstaff and his group of "courtiers" at his tavern. Prince Hal moves within the circles of two of the three groups, until, by play's end, all three groups converge in the climactic scene. While the play is named "King Henry IV Part 1", much of the stage-time is devoted to the relationship between Prince Hal and Sir John Falstaff. We never know why Prince Hal congregates with these drunkards, but we learn at play's beginning, he's been doing this for a long time.

The play begins circa 1400. It's been approximately one year since Henry of Bolinbroke, now King Henry IV (Jon Finch), deposed his inept and unresolved cousin, King Richard II in one of the most famous coups in English history. However, even after a year, there is still uncertainty in the court regarding King Henry, mainly among the nobles and barons that he has no legitimate claim to the throne. And there had been an outbreak near the Scottish and Wales border at the play's beginning, involving King Richard's chosen heir, Mortimer.

Edmund Mortimer, brother of Henry Percy Hotspur, is being held ransom by a Welsh traitor, Owen Glendower. Hotspur insists Mortimer fought valiantly against the rebels, but the king, based on his own intelligence, doesn't believe Mortimer to be as loyal and brave as Hotspur propagates and refuses to pay the ransom for Mortimer's release. The Percy's also hold in their charge prisoners from the rebellion, and the king wants them turned over to him, but they refuse to comply because of Edmund Mortimer. This compels Hotspur and other members of the Percy family, notably his uncle Thomas Percy, to raise an army and rebel against the king. The Percy's had backed Henry during the coup allowing him to become king.

On another front is Prince Hal (David Gwillim) who has been commiserating with Sir John Falstaff (Anthony Quayle) and his congregation of drunkards at a tavern, presumably in the seedier side of London. Most of the cronies are far older than Prince Hal, save one, Poins, who appears not only to be the same age as Hal but probably more intelligent than the others. Poins convinces Hal to play a trick on Falstaff and his drunkards. Through conniving, they convince Falstaff that he and some of the other bar-flies should rob money from some wealthy traveling tradesmen/travelers. Unbeknownst to them, Hal and Poins in turn plan to rob the money from Falstaff and friends, knowing that when they return to the tavern, Falstaff will boast that they were set upon by 20 to 30 vagabonds. Their predictions prove right, but Falstaff exceeds expectations, claiming he was set upon by 100 vagabonds who he fought off valiantly!

Eventually, a messenger is sent to the tavern summoning Hal back to the court at the king's behest. In a brilliant scene, Falstaff and Hal re-enact Hal's return to the king, with Falstaff playing the king and Hal himself, then reversing the roles. However, when Hal does confront his father back at the castle, neither of the play-acting scenes mirrors the confrontation. The king, in perhaps the most famous scolding in Shakespeare, reprimands his son for commiserating with the barflies at the tavern, reminding him he is to be king one day, and his behaviors shame him and his noble-royal family. He reminds Hal that they have serious matters to attend to, notably to confront Hotspur and the rebellion. Even though Hotspur's behavior has turned treasonous, the king admires Hotspur's military resolve, not convinced Prince Hal has the same metal.

This is a wonderful production of perhaps William Shakespeare's best fusion of drama and comedy in a play. Jon Finch makes a compelling King Henry IV, his resonant voice echoes the words of Shakespeare of the late 16th century portraying a medieval king of the early 15th century. David Gwillim makes a good Prince Hal, who must juggle his desire to hang out with Falstaff and friends and yet do his duty as prince to the king. However, Anthony Quayle nearly steals the show as Sir John Falstaff. Quayle makes the lines of Falstaff his own, the old knight constantly telling stories of passed exploits in which the details are just a little bit bloated. In an interesting turn, when Prince Hal rhetorically puts Falstaff in a corner after the old knight claimed he was set upon by 100 vagabonds, and Hal admits it was only he and Poins, Falstaff in true Shakespeare fashion comes up with a quick-witted response!

You need to remember that these were all filmed for the BBC/Time-Life Shakespeare plays; the budget did not allow high production values. Still, (disagreeing with the other comment) Jon Finch's Henry IV is a highlight. Twisted up, obsessive, but still with something regal, the performance seems better every time I watch. Finch was Polanski's Macbeth. It is Tim Piggott-Smith who does Hotspur (not Purchase, who does Old Percy) in a fine performance. Quayle's Falstaff is spitty and reptilian, and Gwillim's Hal nuanced. One of the gems of the series. The histories are some of the gems of Shakespeare, too often ignored in the US. You must know Falstaff, and this is as good an intro as any. Review the characters in advance, and you'll be fine.

A literal interpretation of this history play. It is interesting to watch the words become action, especially in the case of H. Percy, played with impatience and gusto by Bruce Purchase (he looks like a young and wild Ben Cross). If you've read the play, his performance is worth the view. Price Hal is done well, as is blustery, mumbling Falstaff; but the king, I thought, was played with very little artistry. It's a shame that his opening speech sets the tone for the play, because it sounds like it's being read rather than acted. It makes the whole production seem a little stiff.

DVD: The sound is terrible in some places, and it's difficult to get all of the dialogue. Subtitles were not available, which I think would have added to the production.