The characters Hotspur, Falstaff, King Henry IV, and Prince Hal present their own understandings of honor which mirror their personalities and consciousness. In comparing and contrasting each of their translations, the character’s true being is better understood. First, honor in the eyes of the infamous Hotspur. The comparison that King Henry makes between Hotspur and Harry is the first of many such comparisons that occur as the balance of power and honor shifts between the two young men. King Henry believes that Hotspur is “the theme of honour’s tongue” but that “riot and dishonour stain the brow / Of my young Harry,” that is, Prince Harry. Hal and Hotspur are total opposites in some ways but when examined more closely one sees that their moral values are the same. They are both ambitious and determined to succeed but only one can prevail. At the beginning of the play Henry IV draws a clear contrast between Hotspur and his son, whose reputation is sullied by 'riot and dishonour'. The product which Hal eventually becomes is one shaped from the beginning on by Sir Jack. Falstaff carries a theoretical ideal of honor, Hotspur has a corrupted and perverted honor, and Hal tries to make honor workable. In doing this, he may acquire some of the appearances of external honor (III.ii), but these fripperies are fleeting. Contrast Falstaff's View Of Honour With The Views Of King Henry, Prince Hal And Hotspur Contrast Falstaff’s view of honour with the views of King Henry, Prince Hal and Hotspur The views of honour throughout the play are quite different in terms of different. 358 Words; 2 Pages; Compare And Contrast City And Countryside.
One of Shakespeare’s most moving love triangles isn’t romantic, it’s filial. The tension between Prince Hal and his two father figures — King Henry IV and Sir John Falstaff — fuels both parts of Shakespeare’s Henry IV and resonates strongly throughout Henry V, grounding these history plays in emotional richness. How these relationships are depicted onstage and onscreen (most recently, in Netflix’s The King) can frequently shift the emphasis (and with it, the audience’s sympathy) from one side or corner of the triangle to another.
The political is made personal in the very first scene of Henry IV, Part 1, when King Henry laments that the “gallant” and “blest” Hotspur so outshines the “riot and dishonor” of his own son that he wishes “it could be proved / That some night-tripping fairy had exchanged / In cradle-clothes our children where they lay.” But Hal’s only play-acting, or so he says at the end of scene two, in a soliloquy in which he confesses that he will “throw off” his “loose behavior,” “redeeming [himself] when men least think [he] will.” Whether his deception has a goal other than idle amusement, and whether he’s eager (or reluctant) to grow up and start behaving responsibly is very much open to interpretation. If the story of both parts of Henry IV is Hal’s journey from prince to king, there’s a greater emotional impact if Hal travels a great distance rather than just a short hop.
There’s more of the short hop with Tom Hiddleston’s Hal, for instance, in The Hollow Crown adaptation of Henry IV, Part 1; he feels very much like a tourist in Eastcheap. Falstaff is the only person who doesn’t openly defer to him, regarding Hal with an affection the prince doesn’t really seem to return and constantly reminding him about the many favors Hal will do for the fat rogue “when thou art king.” Hiddleston’s Hal never really forgets he’s the prince so there isn’t that sense of the future King of England’s immersion in this un-courtly underworld.
Daniel José Molina’s Hal, on the other hand, in the 2017 Oregon Shakespeare Festival production ofHenry IV Part 1, is fully committed to the disreputable Eastcheap lifestyle, reveling in the bad-boy behavior learned from Falstaff and even surpassing him (via the robbery in the woods) by teaching the master a few new tricks. Molina also played Hal in a separate production of Henry IV, Part 2, and his journey from callow youth to struggling noble King, when he ultimately rejects Falstaff, was profoundly moving.
Casting alone can also heavily skew our sympathies. The character of Henry IV doesn’t frequently engage us to the degree Hal and Falstaff do, but when you have Jeremy Irons playing him (as in The Hollow Crown), suddenly you’re on the side of monarchy. Further tilting the balance in favor of the king in this version is Simon Russell Beale’s Falstaff, who, while exquisitely heartfelt and soulful, is grotesque almost to a point where it’s hard to see whatever former glory the old knight might once have possessed.
There are, in fact, as many ways to play Falstaff as there are actors to play him. Orson Welles in Chimes At Midnight might be our most well-known image of the debauched knight and is certainly the central character in Welles’ famous passion project. Roger Allam, who played Falstaff for Shakespeare’s Globe in 2010, was wonderfully comic but young and vital enough to seem like Hal’s wayward older brother rather than the old relic he’s described as. The late G. Valmont Thomas, in the 2017 OSF production, was the most fully realized Falstaff I’ve ever seen: debauched and disreputable, certainly, but not so much that Hal’s attraction to him was unbelievable; absolutely formidable when he needed to be; and both hysterically funny and tremendously poignant when engaging his famous catechism about honor directly with the audience.
Then there’s Tom Hanks as Falstaff in the 2017 Shakespeare Center of Los Angeles production of both parts of Henry IV performed as a single three-hour-and-fifteen-minute play. Even with charismatic theatre pros like Hamish Linklater as Hal and Joe Morton as the King, Hanks’ star power made this inevitably a production focused around Falstaff. One could argue this is supported by even the uncut text, but it’s especially true if that text has been edited from two plays into one, making Henry IV’s coming-of-age tale about a prince becoming a king essentially the tragedy of an old knight rejected by the boy he mentored.
The new Netflix production The King similarly combines both parts of Henry IV with Henry V into a single film, clocking in at 2 hours, 20 minutes. Timothée Chalamet’s Hal barely has time to develop a nuanced relationship with his father before King Henry (spoiler alert!) dies a half-hour in. Chalamet’s performance has been described as “emo” (which is helpfully defined in this delightful interview with Folger editor Paul Werstine that also fact-checks the film for both historical accuracy and fidelity to Shakespeare’s original text), but he traces a clear arc from teenage brooding to genuine suffering as the crown weighs heavier on him and the extent of the betrayal committed against him sinks in.
Joel Edgerton’s Falstaff is more youthful than usual and totally believable as a valiant and successful solder. He’s so capable, in fact, that Edgerton (with his co-author, director David Michôd) reconceives Sir John’s relationship with Hal so the knight becomes not only a trusted wartime councilor but also one of the tactical leaders at the Battle of Agincourt.
The film’s co-writers took it upon themselves to replace Shakespeare’s original language with more prosaic text (in which phrases like “regime change” clang anachronistically), and Edgerton did himself no favors with many Shakespeareans when he defended this decision by saying that “most intelligent people…feel stupid” when they “watch Shakespeare.” The irony is that even the less-heightened speech, when mumbled by Edgerton, is frequently impossible to understand without the help of subtitles.
Hal’s struggle with the responsibilities of power is front and center in The King. The personal legacy left to him is also clearly the political legacy left to England by Henry IV (a fact helpfully over-explained by the king of France in this adaptation). But without Shakespeare’s language, the film is reduced to endless shots of Hal brooding and cogitating, which is maybe not as engaging as the director thinks it is. (Hal doesn’t even get to keep his glorious St. Crispian’s Day speech, which is instead replaced by a joke — “You expect of me a speech?” — and intense repetitive screaming substituting for rhetoric and passion; not only is it hardly Shakespeare, it’s hardly Bill Pullman inIndependence Day.)
In The King, Prince Hal’s journey from prince to king and his relationships with two overpowering father figures isn’t as cathartic and emotionally fulfilling as it could be. Turns out, not only is Shakespeare a better poet, he’s a better dramatist.
Falstaff and Hal
- Importance of their relationship. Father figure Falstaff plays for Hall. Similarities between Falstaff and Henry (both father figures for Hall)
- Henry-rebellious. Falstaff-crafty way
- Falstaff/Henry, Self power- get it in different ways, Hall portrayed as a noble
- Saw how power destroyed Falstaff and his father--> did he learn from that?
- Act 1s 2- using Falstaff so when he becomes king- people will look up to him, following in footsteps
- Why would the people change their mind about Hall?
- Definition of rebellion: Hall- going against social norms, still apply to Henry?
SOME ONE ASKED A QUESTION.... WHY IS NO ONE ANSWERING IT??????
Why would the people change their mind about Hall?
- nothing to say yet that they will potentially change their mind
- Hall completely rejects Falstaff
- Act 1 s 2- glory is more great, if he was more noble when he became king it wouldn't be as special
- Change- maybe he really has and maybe the people will see the change and accept it.
- Is Hall really rebelling against his father? Act 1 s 2- tavern not to rebel but to understand people, get to know people, so in the future he can potentially meet the means of everyone
- Henry- insecure, Hall may be surrounded by insecurity
- Are you less likely to overthrow someone you like or one who is an overachiever?
- Is Hal just trying to be 'one of the people' so that people wont want to overthrow them? Is this the right thing?
- Can Hal be 'one of the people'?
ARE THE 'PEOPLE' GOING TO TAKE HENRY IV'S CROWN AWAY?
- Why would the people change their mind about Hall?
- Who is rebelling against the King Henry IV? Who is Hal 'doing' this for?
- Why should we believe Hal?
Can we move past Act I scene 2?
Hal is hanging out in the Tavern is for himself?
Act II scene 4 - As soon as Hal feels that his future is threatened he 'changes' and goes to court and encourages 'the people' to the wars.
So, hanging out in the tavern is for the protection for his own throne.
Does Falstaff look upon Hal as a good friend?
Act II scene 4 Falstaff talking about Hal as his son and the 'sun' of England.
Important: In Act II scene 4 (after they finish listening to Falstaff lie about the robbery) What are Hal and Falstaff doing?
Falstaff and Hal are 'role playing'. Falstaff is 'playing' the King (Henry). This is supposed to help Hal rehearse the conversation he is going to have with his real father the next day.
Then they switch places and Hal calls Falstaff 'abominable misleader of youth'...
Falstaff's character is a vehicle to show Hal's character.
Is Falstaff's 'goal' to be loved by all? Is he a 'glutton' for attention? Is Falstaff trying to get some reassurance from Hal?
March 26, 2007
Henry and Falstaff as father figures - now a role-reversal - Hal is teaching lessons about power and how to use it. Falstaff is the monarch of the tavern, but people mess with his head (the robbery) so he doesn't have much power despite his authority. Henry struggles with his power because of the rebels and Hotspur interfering. Hal is the smartest - friendship with Falstaff is dishonest - using him to gain power. Act I scene 2 describes scheme to shock the people. Hal only cares about himself - puts someone like Falstaff in the war to make himself look better. Showing that being deceitful is one way to gain power.
Q: Hal is teaching them how to take control of the situations they are in? Hal is the most clever of all of them
Balance of power in Hal and Falstaff's relationship: Hal may need Falstaff to keep people on his side. Falstaff made need Hal even more than Hal needs him - trying to ride his coat tails into power, get an appointment to some position.
Falstaff is using Hal which is why he puts up with so much from Hal (making a fool of him) - trying to get some benefit of being friends with Hal.
Falstaff is jealous of Hal.
Q: Evidence that Falstaff is a father figure? We found the opposite - a father figure wouldn't encourage a son to rob people. During the role play Falstaff talks about how good he is while talking down about the other people in the tavern. More of a relationship where they are using each other which is what brings them together.
Definition of father figure - someone watches your actions and learns how to (or not to) act. Not saying that someone is a father figure because someone else aspires to be like them.
ARE A FATHER FIGURE AND A ROLE MODEL THE SAME THING?
Hal has the power in the relationship because he knows Falstaff's motives. Act II, scene 4 (role play) - Falstaff misunderstands their relationship. Also, when Falstaff tells Hal that now that he has stolen he can't hang thieves when he is king and Hal tells Falstaff he will hang when Hal is king.
Falstaff is desperate to become part of Hal's world. Hal knows better than to let Falstaff have that place. Whether they are play acting or having a real conversation Hal always shoots down Falstaff.
Hal has seen who Falstaff is so he knows better than to give Falstaff power. People know more about Falstaff's character than they do about Hal's.
Q: Don't you think Falstaff would want to hide that he is making a power play? Also, Hal tells Falstaff the truth, but Falstaff thinks he's joking. Can someone be a father-figure if the child has control of the parent?
A father figure doesn't always show the child the right thing, no fathers are the same thing. Someone can fill the role of father and not be a great guy and teach the right lessons.
Compare And Contrast Hal And Hotspur Pictures
PDCBFTM (Please Don't Come Back from the Moon) - a father figure is something you either aspire to be or aspire not to be. When the fathers leave they are devastated - and it seemed that they didn't want to grow up to be like their fathers, but in the end Nick leaves like his father and Michael is trying not to.
WHAT KIND OF POWER IS BEING TALKED ABOUT IN MOON BESIDES POLITICAL?
Falstaff chooses to oversee, befriend Hal; Hal chose to turn to Falstaff, but he couldn't have done that without Falstaff letting him tag along.
Role Playing, Act II, scene 4: Falstaff does compliment Hal, despite the ridiculing. Henry and Hal don't have much of an emotional connection, Falstaff tries to give that to Hal. Trying to Praise Hal because he needs it.
Hotspur and Mortimer are like Hal and Falstaff. Hotspur is using Mortimer's pursuit of power for his own benefit. Falstaff is trying to use Hal's rise to power the same way, but Hal isn't letting him. Hotspur is helping Mortimer (since he is in prison and can't help himself) to get power in the end.
Falstaff as big brother instead of father.
Hotspur actually has power - he is tough. He has achieved a certain level of power so he can ask Mortimer for things. Falstaff is trying to get stuff from Hal, but he really doesn't have any leverage.
Compare And Contrast Hal And Hotspur
Falstaff thinks he has power over Hal and Falstaff thinks he is winning Hal over, but he really isn't, because Hal banishes him in the end. They are trying to out-manipulate each other and Hal is the smarter one. Falstaff thinks he is getting somewhere - doesn't realize he isn't.
WHAT OTHER ASPECTS OF POWER ARE AT PLAY HERE?
Moon - even though the fathers were gone they still had power, they were able to influence what went on in the city in their absence. The lack of dialogue between Henry and Hal is important - Henry's lack of presence affects Hal quest for power.
Moon - the boys are trying to be unlike their fathers. It's the opposite in the play - Hal has the power of the father's over Falstaff. Falstaff is trying to impress Hal.
Trying to be unlike their fathers is still power, still influence over their decisions.
Moon - when the fathers left, the sons grew up too fast. Like Hal, no father figure, doing everything alone, figure it all out for himself.
Father figures have influence over sons - do we have any proof that Falstaff has any influence on Hal? Is he just a friend and entertainment or does he actually influence Hal?
Do kids become their parents? If so, is Henry IV's rule foreshadowing of what Hal will be like when he becomes king?
March 27, 2007
Q: Does Henry have power over Hal? Where did it start? Why did Henry assert power over Hal? How has Hal gotten away with his behavior?
Maybe he didn't get away with it - Henry said he wished Hal was more like Hotspur. His father is punishing him by gradually losing respect for him. Now Hal wants to earn that respect back because he is preparing for his ascension to the throne.
Even if Hal seems to be more 'kingly,' do you think Henry is really going to believe in his change?
Hal is trying to take control and own up to what his father wants from him.
Hal isn't actually changing - he just wants Henry to think he is.
Can't he just be playing his father the way he was playing Falstaff? He likes to play games - what's to say that because he says he's going to change he really means it or can?
Henry's vs. Hal's approach to building power. People rarely saw Henry saw when they did it was with awe and respect.
Why doesn't Hal study the Court?
Zinn (woo hoo!) - the establishment needs the loyalty of a huge cross-section of the people in order to perpetuate it.
Western - remember how the Kings of France, by the end, had almost no connection to any of the people and how mistreated the vast majority of the people were. Do you think Hal is making a connection with the people so he can be in more control than his father was?
Until now Henry has seemed indifferent - this is the first conversation we have seen between them. If someone doesn't have an opinion about him and when they finally do it is negative it could push him in the wrong direction.
Not getting the support from his father that he wanted - so even though what Henry said was negative, at least he was getting some attention, fatherly advice from his real father means he doesn't need to get advice from Falstaff.
Hal doesn't go back to the Tavern after the conversation with Henry and make fun of his father (like after the robbery) - he goes out and starts giving orders so we can believe that he is changing.
Everything Hal does is really deliberate - he shows he is with the people by hanging out in the Tavern. He is different with Henry to show that he can be king - he is creating two pillars of power, building ground support.
In Act II when Hal says he is going to behave more like himself, is he really the person who hangs out in the tavern or is he really like a king?
Hal knows he needs to fight to prove himself - he wants to fight Hotspur because of Henry's feelings about Hotspur.
Hal behaves deliberately - he is being as bad as he can so he looks even better when he takes over. He knows he is prince and reminds Falstaff that he is prince no matter where he hangs out. Henry's people are turning against each other - they will kill each other and won't have been a part of it, then he can take over. He is conniving - he doesn't want anything to get in the way of his being king.
He knows he can get the people in the tavern on his side so he doesn't need to fight with the nobles.
After the conversation with his father he thinks he can do anything...
Q: What is the rationale for hiding his plan from his father?
He doesn't want his father to tell him no, be good all the time. He doesn't care about getting the support of his father. His behavior indicates that he doesn't want his father's help.
Their ways of getting power are really different so Hal knows that his father would disagree with his plan.
Henry claims that he was rare and special as a replacement for Richard and that's how he won people's loyalty.
How does Falstaff maintain his status in the Tavern?
Sarah F: Types of Power: position (royalty, etc.), knowledge or expertise, character or ethics, rewards, punishment, gender, powerlessness, charisma or personal power, lack of interest or desire, craziness (irrational behavior)
Charisma can be a source of power - Falstaff is charismatic - he manipulates people into hanging out with him, paying his tavern bill, hiding him from the sheriff...even though he doesn't live up to his responsibilities as a knight, he has lost his money, etc. People are still drawn to him.
Falstaff is deceitful, like Hal.
He is a good liar, he knows how to play to the crowd and deflect attention from his deceit - 'buy us all beer with the money from the robbery'
He knows how to manipulate situations to his advantage - the robbery
He has intellectual power - he is quick, he knows how people function. He surrounds himself with people he can manipulate - only Hal is as quick.
Q: Does Henry think his power is legitimate? God is punishing him by making Hal his son because he didn't deserve the crown.
Act III, Scene 2, he says how much the people like him so that makes him feel legitimate
Desperate parent, shaking his head asking what he has done to deserve a son who acts like Hal. I was what the people wanted, I have helped them, so what is going on with my son, why is he acting like this? So...how well does Henry know Hal? Falstaff seems to know him so much better. Hal has learned from Falstaff how to talk his way out of any situation.
Henry sees his own son as a traitor which is what prompts Hal to change his behavior.
Q: How much of the relationship between Hal and Falstaff is genuine? How much of it is Hal's calculating manipulation?
Falstaff has realized his position doesn't have real power over Hal.
Hal sees Falstaff's weakness in this scene.
Since it was Hal's flashback - if he wanted to show Falstaff's weakness why would he show Falstaff's popularity?
What choices has Branagh made here - in this scene? What is going on in this scene? What is the purpose of this exchange? Who else is in the scene?
How does the scene open?
Who does Falstaff get to leave the room? How?
- sure, he calls Bardolf 'ugly' - but is that it?
How does he receive Hal when he enters?
- He 'run's over' and hugs him.
How does Falstaff say his lines to Hal?
- He whispers them because Falstaff needs Hal more than Hal needs Falstaff
Why does Falstaff move Hal away from the crowd?
Why doesn't Hal actually speak his lines?
- makes Falstaff more 'sensitive'
Are they really just using each other?
Is Hal's plan not working? His plan to seem bad so that when he turns good he will seem that much better.
Does the fact that Hal is going to be king change other people's behavior when they are around Hal?
If you were a random person in the tavern - who didn't know these people - how would you describe them?
Put yourself in Hal's position - he is just a little older than you - Hal knows that he is going to become king (he is NOT looking to overthrow his dad, he will become king when his father dies).
If you see this 'tavern' period as 'practice' to become king then what is Hal trying to learn how to do?
Why would he need to 'practice'?
Why would he 'practice' in the tavern and not in the court? Who is 'practicing' in the court?
Read passage from one of the sources: Falstaff is flawed but appreciated for his wit, believes he will gain from the new king.
Hal is learning how to deal with people in bad situations and turn the situation to his benefit especially when he has to go back and deal with the court.
Hal is learning how to command respect - when Falstaff talks to the Tavern people he stands and they sit so he has power over them. When Hal comes in Hal and Falstaff are on equal footing
FOR THE NEXT 20 MINUTES NO ONE CAN SAY THE WORD 'POWER.' YOU CAN'T SAY 'CONTROL,' EITHER!
Falstaff sees Hal as a son. Hal knows that he has control in the Tavern and he likes it
The people in the Tavern already see Hal as superior, in the Court he is around people who are important, the people in the Tavern have no rank so he can impose on them and they will automatically accept him.
Could he be going to the Tavern because he likes them better than than the possibly corrupt people in the Court.
He needs to practice because this is a replica of a situation when he is king - when he walks into a room people will stop and listen, he can't yet do this in the court because Henry is still in charge.
He's not acting superior to anyone in the court so he isn't practicing - maybe he wants to be seen as a normal person
There is a scene where he feels like he has connected with Mistress Quickly - he knows her, she isn't just the barmaid
Hal has two worlds - the corrupt Court and the Tavern; in the Tavern there is no corruption or plotting against the leaders
There is no corruption in the Tavern because there is no standard for behavior - you can't misbehave. Corruption comes from bad behavior
More truth comes out in the Tavern because they are drunk and not exercising full judgment
People are in the tavern because they choose to be there
Corruption in the Court comes from people wanting Henry off of the throne, Mortimer in charge - the nobles get what they want: money and land
In the tavern there is nothing at stake so he can practice being king - no one has anything to lose, not trying to keep or gain land
In the court you have to be polite to someone's face and the corruption is behind people's back - in the Tavern anyone can challenge anyone and everything is out in the open