The director has the drama right, but he has lost the comedy - and that is the shame. In fact, the audience is supposed to enjoy most of these characters, and be saddened by the necessity Hal feels to reject Falstaff and all the world, and the inevitability of Hotspur's defeat. I would not normally presume on Big Bill's intentions, but I am sure he meant Falstaff to be likable, charming, for the audience to be on his side - and Hotspur, too, for that matter. Shakespeare wrote some awfully good jokes for Falstaff, but you'd never know it in this version. The staging of Falstaff and Prince Hal is even worse. But the director has unaccountably chosen to treat this interchange as a marital quarrel, as if Kate would actually threaten to break her husband's little finger. I have never read the dialog between Hotspur and Kate as anything other than play - and indeed, one of Hotspur's better traits is this very modern relationship he maintains with his wife. (His fury in the initial confrontation with Henry IV is so exaggerated that it can be played comically). The playfulness lies not only in the relationship between Prince Hal and Falstaff, but also Hotspur and his wife, and even some of his political speeches.
But my lord! What a dour, dismal concept! This play is one of the most playful Shakespeare ever wrote. The House of Lancaster and House of York bought thought they have right to rule England. Fought over control of the English throne in the mid-to-late fifteenth century, the battle was a civil war between supporters of two rival cadet branches of the royal House of Plantagenet.
There's no question of the production values here, and Hiddleston is excellent. The War of the Roses is one of the bloodiest civil wars in history.
0 kommentar(er)
