Henry IV Part 1

May 29, 2019, Globe Theatre, London

Kicking off 2019’s programme by heading back to the Globe for a couple of history plays, starting with Henry IV Part 1.

Confusingly, the Henry IV plays are really about the coming of age of Henry V. And this first part, in particular, is about three men: Prince Hal, his on-screen rival Hotspur and the iconic Falstaff. This is what happens.

The plot

Henry IV is on the throne after deposing Richard II. But the peace is an uneasy one. He’s now flexing his country’s military muscles with the help of his supporters. The flashy young buck Hotspur has defeated the earl of Douglas and taken a load of prisoners. But Hotspur, who’s son of the earl of Northumberland, is not keen to surrender them to the king without something in return: a ransom for his brother-in-law Mortimer who’s been captured by the Welsh. The king won’t concede, though; he thinks Mortimer is a traitor. But he can’t help being impressed by Hotspur’s passion and activity – which contrasts with his own son, Prince Hal…

Prince Hal is next in line to the throne, but would rather spend his time messing around in pubs in east London with his friends like Falstaff, a dissolute and portly knight. One of his favourite pastimes is playing tricks on the fat fool. So, when Falstaff robs some travellers, Hal (in disguise) pinches the money back… oh, what a laugh!…

Having been thrown out of the court, the Percy family (a.k.a Northumberland, Hotspur and Hotspur’s uncle Worcester) are in a pickle. They see rebellion fomenting and know that they have to pick sides. They decide to join the rebels, and gather together in Wales with their allies and make plans to fight the king’s forces in Shrewsbury near the English border.

Back in London, Falstaff is wildly exaggerating the extent of the attack on him to save his embarrassment at losing the loot. More laughs! But news reaches the tavern of the rebellion, and in a memorable scene, Hal and Falstaff play-act as the king and his heir, poking fun at each other in the process. Hal must eventually stop rehearsing the meeting with his father, though, and actually show up in person, which he does the next day. He promises the king that he’ll reform his ways and use the battle with Hotspur to redeem himself. 

The two armies are preparing, but both have considerable challenges. Some of the rebels are sick or delayed. Falstaff, who’s in charge of forming a regiment in support of the king, has brought together a motley crew of beggars and prisoners. Fearing defeat, both sides are willing to discuss peace, but talks break down due to mutual mistrust.

Battle commences. After a number of clashes, finally Hal and Hotspur come face to face. Hal is victorious, killing his rival, but sneaky Falstaff decides to pretend it was him who struck the deadly blow. 

In any case, the rebels have lost this battle and forfeited their most enthusiastic leader in Hotspur. As the play ends, though, the king’s armies head off for their next battle. The war for the crown is not over yet…

“Compare and contrast…”

Henry IV Part 1 is one of the more well-studied history plays, and it’s easy to see why. There’s plenty of exam question fodder in comparing Hal and Hotspur, or exploring the complex relationship Hal has with his father, and Falstaff. 

But it’s not just its suitability for the A-level syllabus that make the play appealing. It has some intriguingly complex and conflicting characters, and thrives on contrasts – between the palace and the pub, the court and the battlefield. What’s interesting is that, despite these contrasting settings, it’s clear that one theme of the play is how similar and interlinked these supposedly polar opposite worlds actually are. 

The Globe production I saw was confident enough that Hotspur is the central figure to amend the play’s title to Henry IV Part 1, or Hotspur. And it’s true that, in this performance, Hotspur is the dominant force, prancing across the stage and spitting in people’s faces when he speaks. But Falstaff is, to my mind, equally important, and it’s this play that made Falstaff the fan favourite that sees him return in Part 2 (more of that in a bit) and get his own gig entirely in The Merry Wives of Windsor. And of course, it’s all about Hal too: his transformation from wild child to wunderkind. 

I’m afraid in the version I saw, none of the performers really pulled all this off. Hotspur had only one setting: full power. Falstaff was more louche than loveable and didn’t have enough stage presence. And Hal never appeared to be really enjoying being reckless. The BBC’s Hollow Crown TV adaptation was significantly better. 

This performance was cast gender-blind. All of the three main characters were played by women. That’s not the same as genders being swapped. Gender swapping is a common practice and  has been in a significant number of the performance I’ve seen recently, to great effect – for instance, in the Globe’s own A Midsummer Night’s Dream from 2016 where Helena (the girl) becomes Helenus (the boy). Gender swapping can add more layers to the plays, highlight our own prejudices or biases, and provide additional material for comedy. 

I have to admit to not being completely clear how I feel about gender-blind casting, though. It’s not that we’re asked to see Hotspur as a woman – the character is simply played without any gender significance at all. This may work in a history play or perhaps a tragedy where gender issues don’t necessarily take centre stage. It also clearly is more equitable towards female actors and balances the fact that many of the most prominent parts might only be open to men otherwise. But what about in the comedies, where exploration of gender is part of the plays’ fabric? I’m not sure whether gender-blind casting will work in those. I’ll have to see one to figure that out, though. 

Part 1 done. On to Part 2…