@@dgunit01 Hal was his father's son - a hypocrite. He subsumed his individuality in the pageantry and office of his inheritance. "I am not a double man" - Falstaff, Henry IV, Part 1
@@edydon Hal more so than Bolingbroke. Bolingbroke was stripped of his inheritance, his father’s, John of Gaunt, estates, after he was banished. And while Richard the second was away on campaign in Ireland. He initially landed with the hopes of regaining his and his father’s titles, and estate, which Richard seized to fund the aforementioned wars in Ireland, and John of Gaunt’s estates were second only the kings himself in terms of profitability. He was right to be angry about his state. But he landed and was so popularly received that he saw the chance and usurped and deposed the unpopular, corrupt Richard. The difference is that he was not ever going to be king by birth. Whereas, Hal was born the crown prince and heir apparent. Hal’s fate was laid before him and he sought out the path of joining a band drunkards, with the forethought of a redemption arc. This is very schemy, but installing Falstaff, poins, bardolph, etc as dukes or earls or any position they were not fit to hold would be the kind of nepotism Richard the second committed. What was he to do forswear the crown for the sake of his friends? Even if he did genuinely care for them, the duties of a king come before the feelings of a man.
Its so beautiful and subtle how Falstaff understands and takes pride in his 'son' and how Henry shows a moment of weakness before turning away.. Is this not all a father can hope for?
Because Falstaff is Jesus...false shepherd who led the revolt of 70ad. Resulting in the destruction of the temple. Exiled to Britain in exchange for his star prophesy as Vespasian was a commoner and needed it to become emperor. The crusaders found this out and being heretical the legend of king Arthur was born...and did those feet in ancient times walk upon England's mountains green...
I disagree with the idea that it was planned. I think it is all about his reform and how he is forced to come to terms with himself and the fact he has to be someone else, and so takes this decision. I think that thinking he planned it in advance would take it away from the very transformation he underwent, it is as if he killed his old self to have a new one be born.
@@MateusVIII I actually agree with you. That's what so great about Shakespeare. His story is about being human, whether you're royal or a peasant. I've faced a lot of challenges these past 2 years, and it's changed my perspective on a lot of things. I've seen multiple versions of this play. Here, Hal is deliberately cold to put the final nail in the coffin and distance himself, but in say, The Hollow Crown you can hear his voice crack with emotion. It's so sad either way, but it had to be done in order for him to grow.
After nearly 40 years wait I have finally seen the whole of this film. There are two other scenes which in my view are up there with this one: John Gielgud as dying Henry IV giving his deathbed blessing to Hal, and Hal's fight with Hotspur (Norman Rodway) and what they say to each other after Hotspur is vanquished. Orson Welles was the greatest filmer of Shakespeare in history.
This is one of the great scenes in all drama: the pain of becoming an adult. How we must turn away from frivolity, dear, loving even, though it may be. We also know that Sir John never reformed himself. That must have broke Harry’s heart, though Henry would never allow himself to show it.
thats certainly one interpretation. id argue its an indictment of that very behavior you describe as a necessity. I agree its one of the greatest scenes in all of literature, but I think of Fallstaff of the real hero of the play not Harry
I think Henry knew Fallstaff would never reform himself, even if he hoped he would merely because of his desire to see his friend again he knew Fallstaf's nature well enough.
"Fly not to me with a fool born jest." Hal has the wherewithal to know that Falstaff's power is in his language, and that if he let's him speak, he might be convinced to let him in. Hal does the right thing for the State, but I'd rather pledge my life to Sir John than to Henry V.
This rejection was not intended to kill off Falstaff, Shakespeare planned him to appear in HENRY V, as you learn from what the Chorus says at the end of HENRY IV Part 2. Apparently the actor identified with the role left the Company before HENRY V was performed, so Falstaff only "appears" in an off-stage death scene.
That's the mystery and the majesty of Shakespeare's language. Because even as you're trying to decipher certain words and phrases as they are spoken, the feeling behind the language, and the emotions evoked in the listeners are very clear. I'm no Shakespeare expert, but it always seems clear to me what he's trying to get across, especially when it's done in a top-notch production like this one. Reading the text is a bit more difficult, but once you pick up on the rhythm of the words, it becomes much clearer.
This got me thinking whether the very end of Withnail & I is influenced by this scene. I mean, Shakespeare is alluded to in the dialogue, I just never thought it might be there in the plot structure.
0megs9, yes, Hal . . . oops, I mean King Henry is rather a jerk to his old friend, but I think England is better not having Falstaff as the king's adviser. Still, this is one of my favorite scenes from Shakespeare. So tragic yet so responsible,
It's a small detail, but Henry still at this point gave his old friend a chance. "Make less thy body hence and more thy grace. Leave gormandizing, know the grave dove gape for the thrice wider than for other men ... And as we hear you do reform yourselves we will, according to your strength and qualities, give you advance." Keeping company with a man such as Falstaff would be irresponsible for King Henry to do, but he held out hope that Falstaff could become a better man. That might have been right, because Falstaff's last words were to call out for God.
@@jamestown8398 What I think is so amazing about this bit of text is that it all could be read as joking and ribbing just like in the old tavern days, but concealed through the veil of royal manners and sadness at the inevitable reality of Hal's succession.
Prince Hal should never have been hanging out with the old reprobate in the first place. Hal always knew this and had to cut the cord. Falstaff is no good. We see this today with King Charles' handling of his lousy younger brother, who like Falstaff is guaranteed a soft landing.
Falstaff thought this was his insurance policy and ticket to 'retiring' (odd word since he never did a day of work in his life) to the courtly life until he got this rude awakening. I say good on him.
Shakespeare's the master of "on the one hand, on the other" type writing. It's hard not to feel for Falstaff here, but you're right; he was basically just going to use Hal for his connections, and if Hal wants to be a good king, he has to reject Falstaff.
So much more! It is not a simple betrayal of friendship, but a sacrifice. A moment if understanding that there were conditions so much higher than either of those two man, and it would be pointless to stand against it. You can see in the words of the King the pain but also the resolve. And as to Falstaff there is no anger, only sadness, but also understanding, a mixed of pride and sorrow. This scene is so much more than just a betrayal of friendship.
All this, and also the plain fact that while Falstaff is a good friend of good cheer, he would be a real cancer on the state if Hal took him with him. He’s shown throughout both plays to be shamelessly corrupt and dreams of how much more corrupt he can be with Hal as king. All things that someone could abide in a personal friend as a common man but not as a king.
Because rulership trumps friendship; as earlier in English history, the temporal duties of King Henry 2 came to conflict with the ecclesiastical duties of his quondam friend, now Archbishop of Canterbury adversary Thomas a Becket.
I knew both. Keith Baxter (doth he live?) and Orson Welles. Chimes at Midnight. The Magificent Ambersons still my favourite rose, Bud. F for Fake? Touch of Evil? Citizens being Cained and unAbel to fight ahem - back!?! Allegedly. Meh.
