henry iv finale.

Well, I finished reading Henry IV Part 1 on Saturday, and then I finished Chimes at Midnight on Sunday. Well, I didn't finish the entire film, but I watched as much of it as was relevant to only the first part of the play. Apparently Chimes at Midnight is a culmination of Henry IV, Part 1, Part 2 and the first bit of Henry V. As much as I would've like to watch how the story ended, I just got bored. And I'm not saying it was entirely the movie's fault, but had I read all three plays, I would have been more invested in finishing the movie.
So first, just some thoughts about the movie, then I'll move on to final thoughts on the play.

Chimes at Midnight.
As I watched the last half of the half of the movie that focuses on Part 1 of the play, I came to the realization that I pitied Hotspur more, mostly because he was so likeable and jovial. I didn't get this as much in the play, and so I mentioned this to my mom. She mentioned that the real-life Harry Percy was sort of like the "sweetheart" of England; he was the King's go-to man, and everyone adored him. So I looked up some history (wiki style) about the real-life Harry and found that he really did seem to be loved by many. Even King Henry IV was said to have cried at finding Hotspur to be dead. Which then leads to how he died, which, unlike the play, was not by the hand of Prince Hal, although it was during the same battle, as far as I can tell. Also, in the play Hotspur and Hal are supposed to be more of peers, when historically Hal was only sixteen when Hotspur rebelled against Henry IV, and when he died. Now all this real historical background led me to the sources at the back of our book. I know I should've checked it out earlier, but I didn't, so...
Anyway, wiki led me to a source that is not mentioned in our book, but it seems like sound evidence? But that source is said to have come from Hotspur's squire, a John Harding, who wrote about the Percy family and about the rebellion against King Henry IV. The authentication of this source led me to a genealogy site where Hotspur's descendants keep it updated. Here is the link, if you so desire. It's pretty cool. I would never have thought of checking on the ancestry of some of the historical figures of Shakespeare's plays!

Well, I sort of got of track with that, so let me continue on to my final words on the play version of Henry IV.

Okay, so I came across an article titled "Shakespeare's best history plays," and I actually found it to be pretty interesting. In brief, what I found to be most interesting was that the article says that Henry IV, Part 1 could have been the most widely produced play during Shakespeare's time. I wondered why it might have had such a wide following back then when now there are very few productions of it. Perhaps it is because the play is the epitome of a prodigal son returning. I can only assume that that was a popular theme at the time, so I have a few ideas on why that theme might not be so popular with our society now.
In literature, media, films, tv, the heroes and heroines are the anti-hero. Our society is bombarded with the idea that it's okay to do drugs, be immoral, and what have you, because even with those flaws you can still be the protagonist. It's as if our society doesn't want to see the protagonist to get out of a slump, because maybe it proves that no matter how imperfect you are, you can still do anything. But I think that it would be more impressive to see the protagonists of our modern literature to follow the path of the hero's journey, where they make mistakes and better themselves to reach the ultimate boon. But now, our society has made it so simple and we don't expect people to progress and become their better selves. So that's my very simple idea of why Henry IV isn't very known in our day. I'm sure there is more psychology on the matter, and I'm just blabbering on about my own ideas, but for now, that's what I have.

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.

o henry.

Well I began my reading of Henry the Fourth Part One. To get situated historically, I visited Wikipedia to get the brief rundown of the Plantagenet lineage. That helped a bit, and it will help to keep referencing back to short histories of the time of these monarchs. I also read the introduction before the play, and that really just set up what was to follow.

Since yesterday, I've only read the first two acts of the play, but that was enough for me to see a few differences from Hamlet. First off, the characters in Hamlet weren't nearly as confusing as in Henry IV. Because of the confusion and the who's-against-the-king thing in Henry I have made a little card with the characters' names and allegiances on them so I don't have to keep flipping back to the front page of the play. Secondly it seems that there are lengthier speeches for any given character in Henry. Perhaps in Hamlet no one had the patience to listen to long speeches, unless it was an individual offering a soliloquy to themselves. And lastly, this may not be so much a difference as me just noticing more, but I found myself having to refer more often to the footnotes during the dialogue between the two Carriers in act two scene one. Their speech patterns are by far very different from the more "sophisticated" usage of the royalty and upper-class characters of the play. If it weren't for the glosses, I'm afraid I wouldn't have the slightest clue of what they were talking about.
Well, so far so good.