HENRY V eventually moving to Broadway?

[curtain_call]

Posted: 11/20/13 at 7:27pm

I really enjoyed Jude Law's HAMLET a few years ago. Does anyone think his upcoming HENRY V will make it to Broadway in 2014 after its West End run?

[EponineThenardier]

Posted: 11/20/13 at 9:03pm

Or better yet, have Tom Hiddleston reprise the role on stage

[musicman_bwayfan]

Posted: 11/20/13 at 11:43pm

When I saw Cat on a Hot Tin Roof in late January, I was sitting in the center orchestra and Jude Law and his date were sitting next to me. We got to talking at the intermissions and he was saying to me that he really hopes that they will transfer to Broadway. There was no mention of a date, but he wants it to happen sooner vs. later. He loves being on stage and he said he's preferred working on Broadway rather than in West End shows because he found the energy, vibe, theatre crowds, and fellow actors to be more sophisticated and exciting in New York.

[mamaleh]

Posted: 11/21/13 at 11:06am

Isn't fortysomething Law a little long in the tooth for Henry, who became king at 27 years of age? I suppose makeup and hair could help, though.

[willep]

Posted: 11/21/13 at 12:00pm

I feel like age is ignored in Shakespeare...I mean look at Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, etc...you never see them age appropriate in major productions.

[curtain_call]

Posted: 11/21/13 at 12:22pm

musicman, I hope you're right. I've always been impressed with Law's stage work. I'm sure it'll be a successful production in London. It wraps in February, so if it moves to NYC, I assume it would start in April or May.

Guess we'll see what happens.

[eperkins]

Posted: 11/21/13 at 1:47pm

"Isn't fortysomething Law a little long in the tooth for Henry..."

Not at all. He was wonderfully youthful on stage as Hamlet. And Hamlet should really be a teenager (the play makes no sense with Hamlet being 30 as the grave digger scene indicates).

[lotiloti]

Posted: 11/21/13 at 1:53pm

he said he's preferred working on Broadway rather than in West End shows because he found the energy, vibe, theatre crowds, and fellow actors to be more sophisticated and exciting in New York.


UTTER BOLLOCKS !

[newintown]

Posted: 11/21/13 at 2:07pm

Not to start a new argument, but Hamlet really is 30. There are several places in the script that back that up, including the mousetrap play/allegory which Hamlet writes that specifically states the King and Queen were married 30 years; also the fact that Yorick (whom Hamlet knew) has been dead for 23 years (in addition to the gravedigger's own recollection that Hamlet was born 30 years prior).

It wasn't unheard of for gentry and aristocrats to stay at university for many years at the time. It's only in recent centuries we've come to associate the word "student" with "youth." In fact, I'm sure we all know graduate students in their 30s and 40s.

Hamlet's weaknesses and vacillations are more interesting and frustrating in a grown man than in a boy, I think.

Updated On: 11/21/13 at 02:07 PM

[eperkins]

Posted: 11/21/13 at 2:23pm

Newintown, I'll happily agree to disagree about Hamlet's age. There is a great deal of scholarly debate about Hamlet's age. I'm one of the ones who believe Hamlet to be much younger than 30. For me, the play makes no sense at all if Hamlet is 30. Lots of sense if he is 16 or 17.

[The Glenbuck Laird]

Posted: 11/21/13 at 3:24pm

I'll let you know how good it is. I'm going to see it this Saturday. I have high hopes for this play which is the fifth play in Michael Grandage's residence at the Noel Coward Theatre during 2014.

Previous four plays in the run have been stinkers. Grandage has got to get one score on the board this year.

[curtain_call]

Posted: 11/21/13 at 3:37pm

Excellent. I look forward to your review.

[wonkit]

Posted: 11/21/13 at 8:11pm

eperkins - you may prefer to see a younger performer as Hamlet but newintown is right. The gravedigger says Yorick has been dead 23 years and Hamlet has a very clear memory of being carried on Yorick's shoulder as a child, so one assumes Hamlet is at least in his late 20's. And the gravedigger says he came to his profession the day Hamlet was born and he has been a gravedigger for 30 years. It makes much more sense to have a mature Hamlet who expected to be king when his father died: when Claudius becomes king by marrying Gertrude, he steps between Hamlet and the throne, much more frustrating to someone who could handle the job now than to a youngster who could just wait until Claudius (or Gertrude) dies.

[HorseTears]

Posted: 11/22/13 at 3:19am

musicman_bwayfan - that's so great that you got to chat with Jude law at intermission, but you left out the most important information, for Pete's sake. What did he smell like?

[AlfredColo]

Posted: 11/22/13 at 6:18am

please no I want to see it in London

[curtain_call]

Posted: 11/22/13 at 12:08pm

Huh? How would Henry V possibly moving to Broadway prevent you from seeing it in London?

[eperkins]

Posted: 11/22/13 at 3:31pm

Wonkit, you may also know that in Q1 the gravedigger scene was different, suggesting that Hamlet was just 16 or 17. May scholars think that the change from Q1 to Q2 was nothing more than a typo in the part referring to Hamlet's age, referring to "sixeteen" and "sexton". The players scene is harder to explain, but many scholars believe that it was to explain the fact that Burbage was of the "right" age to play Hamlet. But that was a later addition. Also, the text of the play clearly indicates that Hamlet is a very young man, and he is referred to in that way repeatedly in the beginning of the play. As the play goes on he appears to be described older. This is a problem for many scholars, not just me.

For me, the play makes a great deal of sense if Hamlet is very young. Much less sense if he is 30. A 30 year old would not be away at college - especially a popular prince. A 30 year old would have been the logical successor to the throne - Hamlet (the younger) would not have permitted his uncle to take a throne rightfully should have come to him. And being popular, it would have been very difficult for Claudius to cease the throne in his stead. If Hamlet is only a teenager, it would make more sense that his uncle could take the throne - with Hamlet at a loss of what to do about it, even if he should have been the next king. All of Hamlet's actions and NON actions can be explained by youth. By a 30 year old? Seriously? No.

I would be happy to go on, if anyone cares to. But first re-read the play with careful consideration of the action, and before you put too much stock in what the gravedigger says, remember that he is but a fool, not given much credit even by Hamlet himself.

[wonkit]

Posted: 11/22/13 at 4:19pm

If all of Hamlet's actions are merely the follies of youth, it hardly makes the play very tragic. The point is that he is old enough to know better and to have the maturity to do the things he should and it is that fact that makes his inaction so intriguing. And one did not go to university to get a degree as we do now - it was common for Shakespearean characters (and Elizabethan counterparts) to study their lives away if they had the financial means to do so. Witness Prospero's loss of his kingdom to his devious brother because Prospero was so enamored of studying magic. Finally, Claudius did not seize the throne at all. By marrying the queen, he ascended to reigning kingship, which makes his marriage with Gertrude not only sexually incestuous but politically ambitious. And gives Hamlet (senior and younger) even more cause to be angry as Hamlet was old enough to succeed had Gertrude not remarried. (Gertrude is also considered by Hamlet to be "old" enough to be past have a sexual hunger, so there is always the suggestion that she is no longer young enough to be prime marrying material and that she was seduced by Claudius for political reasons.) Much of Q1 is thought to have been partial script or unedited recollections. I appreciate your position but simply cannot agree with it, given the indications throughout the text that Hamlet is not a green boy but someone expected to reign like his counterpart Fortinbras. And, as I said at the start, if it is all follies of a teenager, it hardly has the same dramatic effect.

[eperkins]

Posted: 11/22/13 at 5:19pm

Wonkit, I did not say that Hamlet was all about the "follies of youth." Those are your words and obviously quite incorrect. I said the play makes more sense when Hamlet is young - a teenager. It makes little sense with Hamlet being a mature man of 30. And as I said, Shakespeare clearly identifies Hamlet as a young man. And it was very far from usual for a prince to actually be studying - with friends of his own age - at a University at the age of 30. Either in Elizabethan times or earlier. That fact that they may spend their time "studying" is quite another matter. But continuously at University? Absolutely not. Omit the two speeches that speak to Hamlet's age and tell me there is absolutely ANYTHING left in the play that would make you think he was 30 years old. Take my advice, re-read Hamlet.

[wonkit]

Posted: 11/22/13 at 5:44pm

I have been reading HAMLET for fifty years. And if you remove the very language that tells you someone's age (ignore that man behind the curtain??), you can make it up any way you choose. SO how does Shakespeare "clearly" identify Hamlet as a young man if I have to ignore all references to his age? He is referred to as "young" Hamlet to distinguish him from his father, King Hamlet, not to describe his age.

My earlier point was that a 16 year old playing Hamlet allows the audience to attribute his action/inaction to his youth, as they would naturally do since everyone else in the play except possibly Ophelia would be older than he. WHat could a director or actor do to prevent such attribution? And be careful that you don't confuse "later" editions with "better" editions. There truly is no edition without flaws, only editorial and/or stylistic preferences.


Added:
And (having gone back to the text as you suggested) the typo of "sexton" and "sixteen" that you propose makes no sense since the line of the First Clown is "I have been sexton here, man and boy, thirty years."


Updated On: 11/22/13 at 05:44 PM

[AwesomeDanny]

Posted: 11/22/13 at 7:43pm

Actually, the unedited first folio says "I haue bin sixeteene heere, man and Boy thirty yeares." In other words, "I have been a gravedigger for sixteen years, I am thirty now." Most modern editions change "sixeteene" to "sexton" (for no apparent reason, changing the meaning of the line completely). But in the unedited F1, this would mean the gravedigger is 30 and Hamlet is 16.

[wonkit]

Posted: 11/22/13 at 8:14pm

I cannot get to your interpretation of that sentence from the words in the unedited form. But thank you for the quote from F1. Reminds me of Middle English in that form!

[eperkins]

Posted: 11/22/13 at 8:47pm

Wonkit: just google "Hamlet's Age" and you will see all kinds of debate on Hamlet's age. This is considered to be one of the big "problems" with the play. The actual age of Hamlet as 30 does not exist in Q1, and as Danny points out, Q1 says he is 16-ish. So who changed it? Shakespeare? Another writer? No one knows! There's the rub!

[wonkit]

Posted: 11/23/13 at 10:21am

I guess the next logical question is: who are the youngest and oldest actors that you have seen as Hamlet, and did the production address the age issue? (I have to go dig through some Playbills and journals myself to figure that out.)

eperkins and danny - thank you both for one of the most intriguing discussions I have had on BWW in ages!

[Dollypop]

Posted: 11/23/13 at 2:00pm

I just read through this thread and really enjoyed it! Thanks to all for being so enlightening!