chimes at midnight.

 I began watching the film adaptation of Shakespeare's Henry IV "Chimes at Midnight." It was my intention to read along with the movie, as I had done with the Branagh version of Hamlet, but it proved to be much more difficult. The movie adaptation jumps from scene to scene, and even from act to act, but because I have read most of the play i was able to track down where the movie was in comparison. Also, speeches are cut very short, and I'm not sure how the screenwriter decided on what to leave out, because oftentimes it would just be a word or two, and it didn't seem to safe much more time by eliminating a brief phrase. But there are a few other observations that I'd like to point out.

The opening of the film has a narrator who gives a brief explanation of how Henry Bolingbroke became king. It places him to be more of a villain than I thought he would be. While reading the play, I pictured Bolingbroke to be a victim of mutiny, but after watching a good portion of the movie, I'm rather confused...

Also, in act 2 scene 3 when Hotspur is speaking with his wife, I had a totally different visualization of what was happening than what was portrayed in the movie. When I was reading the text, I pictured Hotspur as gruff and mean to his wife, but in the movie it was all in good fun.

So with just getting to the middle of the movie, I have realized how beneficial it truly is to sit down and watch a production of a play you are studying as oftentimes you can misinterpret characters' personalities and so forth.

 I can't wait to finish the film and the text this weekend, and to think of some better final analysis on the whole history play genre.