Henry IV pts 1 & 2 @ BAM

I had a Shakespeare mini-marathon this past Saturday, seeing both parts of Henry IV on the same day. It was long (almost 6.5 hours in total), but really, really well-acted. I have some scattered thoughts, some about the plays in general and some about this production.

• Is Henry IV the most schizophrenic of Shakespeare's plays or perhaps of any play by a major author? I feel like a was watching five different plays sewn together. My friend told me felt like he had whiplash as Falstaff's story separated from the main plot and then gradually overtook the evening.
• For Henry IV needing two plays written about him, he barely appears or is the subject of either piece. I know Gypsy takes a backseat to Rose in her own musical, but at least Louise gets a few set pieces to show off and is given an emotional arc to play. Henry IV is pushed past the benches on the sideline and into the locker room. Prince Hal is the one given the big arc, going from lazy good-for-nothing to cold-hearted king. Falstaff is given the biggest emotional beat of all at the end of the two plays, but he is fairly unchanging as a character throughout.
• My favorite scene was when Falstaff first meets up with Justice Shallow. It felt like we had stumbled into a completely new play- and so late in the evening too- but it was delightful and touching.
• I very much enjoyed Matthew Needham as Hotspur. His anger was played for laughs rather than menace or fear (is this how it is normally played?), but Needham pulled the tricky task off and his scene at the top of act two of part 1 was a highlight for me as well. I liked the dynamic with his wife when they refused to have a mushy goodbye before he went off to battle.
• The battle sequence went on forever and kept being broken up by Falstaff shenanigans. I think it made it difficult to sustain the tension of the fight, although I understand not wanting to cut any of Falstaff's lines as some of the things he spoke here were his most quotable musings (e.g. the better part of valor is discretion).
• Antony Sher does very well with his portrayal of Falstaff and I would love to see some of this other Shakespearean performances. I feel like his interpretation will be burned in my mind for a while and I feel sorry for the next actor who will have to compete with the memory!
• Alex Hassell also did strong work as Prince Hal and I look forward to seeing where he takes things in Henry V. I feel like there's a TV show somewhere in the crazy early adventures of Prince Hal and Falstaff.

Overall, a very worthwhile production. Would love to hear other thoughts.

I would love to see the whole series, but as I don't live in the NYC area and the performances are not on a daily basis, which one play would you recommend, based on the acting and production? The NYTimes suggested Henry IV Part I -- would that be a good choice/compromise?

Thanks so much for the input. Hope you enjoy Richard II and Henry V as well!

I saw Richard II tonight and it was absolutely fantastic. Very much looking forward to the other three in the next two days.

I am seeing them all except Part II sadly (couldn't fit it into my schedule)

Saw Richard II today and really enjoyed it. Henry IV actually had a big role to play in this story. It's just as much about Richard's fall as Henry's rise.

So having not seen Henry IV yet I guess I could see it focusing more on how Henry V his son eventually became king where I assume Henry V would focus on the end of Henry V's reign.



Edit: okay having read a brief synopsis of Henry V I guess I am wrong about it being about his downfall. This is why you shouldn't make assumptions.

Updated On: 4/17/16 at 08:13 PM