Henry IV, Part 2

On my first read through this play I felt it was messy and unfocused and little more than a rerun of Henry IV part 1. I think that was because Shakespeare had put the comedy element at the forefront. Rumour has it that Queen Elizabeth 1 was so taken with Shakespeare's character Falstaff in Henry IV part 1 that she let it be known that she would like to see another play with Falstaff in it. Shakespeare knew when he was on to a good thing and so wrote Henry IV part 2 where Falstaff is given an even bigger part in the play. I find that Elizabethan comedy is more difficult to follow and appreciate than when reading history or stories. Shakespeares syntax can be difficult, especially his arrangement of subjects and verbs in his sentences and show more along with the word play and references to topical situations; it takes some unpicking. It takes a good actor to reinterpret the sentences to give stress to the words that will convey meaning to the modern reader/playgoer. In the BBC production that I watched Anthony Quale did just that in playing Falstaff and suddenly the comedy was very funny: LOL stuff.

The play starts with the allegorical character Rumour who tells two different versions of the battle at Shrewsbury which was the culmination of the previous play and this introduction, starts one of the major themes of the new play: rumour and lies. Part 2 of Henry IV feels like a rerun of part 1. The northern Lords are again plotting the overthrow of King Henry IV meanwhile Falstaff back in the tavern at Eastcheap is trying to get credit to buy more fashionable clothes, while avoiding the attentions of the Lord Cheif Justice. The scenes pivot back and forth between Falstaff and his cronies and the rebellion brewing in the North. Prince Henry (Hal Harry) again takes to a disguise to fool Falstaff, this time he and Poins dress up as musicians to find out what Falstaff and his cronies are saying about him. It is not until Act 3 that King Henry appears; he is now ill and cannot sleep and feels that his kingdom is diseased with the number of rebellions that have to be suppressed. Falstaff meanwhile is travelling through Gloucestershire recruiting soldiers for the kings army and taking backhanders from those that can afford to buy themselves release from their duties. The rebels and the Kings army take up positions either side of Gaultree forest and the Duke of Westmoreland for the kings side tricks the rebels by falsely agreeing to rectify their grievances. The rebels disband their army and the leaders are promptly arrested as traitors. King Henry IV is terminally ill and is again worrying about the conduct of his heir Prince Henry. Falstaff's false reputation as the slayer of Hotspur in the previous play serves him in good stead on the battlefield as one of the rebels yields to him and Falstaff emerges again feeling he has secured his future. The final act deals with the death of Henry IV and the return again of Prince Henry as the prodigal son.

In this play the people that inhabit the taverns are given equal billing with the Nobles and Shakespeare brings them to life. The scenes where Falstaff is recruiting soldiers for the army with the help of the local justices are brilliant. Justice Shallow and Justice Silent remember Falstaff as a young man and Shallow goes into reveries about the fun they had at that time. Falstaff remembers it a little differently, but plays along to get his business done. The tavern scenes with the introduction of the swaggering Ancien Pistol are riotously depicted and Mistress Quickly and Doll Tearsheet as admirers of Falstaff come into their own. It all plays wonderfully well and although it is high comedy there is a feeling of it being true to life.

When I read through the play a second time It all made much more sense. The contrast between the Nobles speaking in high flown verse and the prose comedy of the hoi polloi makes this play seem well worked in Shakespeare's inimitable style. It may lack the adventure of the escapade at Gad's hill of the first play, but the introduction of the swaggering Ancien Pistol is good compensation. I'll have no swaggering in 'ere says Mistress Quickly as Falstaff eventually has to draw his sword to beat the swaggerer downstairs. The characters in this play are eight years on from part 1 and age is catching up with them. They are thinking of their own mortality and death is a subject that is never far away. The death of Henry IV takes place off stage but the scenes of his final illness are powerfully written. However the vitality of Falstaff is never in doubt although many of the characters refer to his infirmities, he is thinking of how he can use them to get a better pension from the king.

I think this play is a triumph. If it was in Shakespeares mind to write an enhanced comedy based around his character Falstaff then he was on the money with this and together with credible scenes of low life London and the counties he has made something original. There are also fine speeches from the noble characters on subjects such as sleep, disease, death, rumour and truth telling as well as the reaccommodation of Prince Henry and his elevation to King Henry V. 5 stars. show less

I can't consider these plays as solitary occasions. I'm all teary-eyed.

Who knew I could shed tears for poor old Falstaff, even now? I mean, sure, he's a fool and a rascal and incorrigible, but at the core of it, he and Hal were friends, weren't they?

And yet, even while I hate Hal a little for his decision, I love him all the more for it and everything else. Truly, he was the best king. Not only very aware of his audience, but always playing to every side, learning the craft of people and of hard decisions.

Then again, he's always known about hard decisions and all of this couldn't have been more studied and careful. Even his jests boast of tactical genius.

Fanboy? Yeah. I am. Of a character. lol

Still, it was a rather heart-wrenching show more scene with the prince and his father at the end. *sniffle*

Sorry. I just love these plays so much. show less

Just a killer play. Pistol cracks, Doll Tearsheet simpers, Shallow blusters, and Prince John connives. To be fair, it wouldn't be possible for Part 2 to be so successful at what it does if it didn't follow Part 1 (as contrasted with something like Henry V or Merry Wives, which repeat many characters but stand alone), and it has less of a "structure" than it has a "way to tie up the loose ends of the previous play". But, in my opinion, it is still massively underappreciated and does a lot of interesting and exciting things, including containing one of the saddest lines in Shakespeare: "I know thee not, old man." If Part 1 is almost a Comedy, Part 2 seems to me like the Shakespeare History that comes closest to his Problem Play mold, show more which I love. Falstaff's boisterous energy drops down sometimes to more of a pessimistic Pandar or Parolles, Quickly & Doll capture the spirit of Overdone, and Henry, Hal, and the Lord Chief Justice all deal in the Measure-ish themes of strictness and hypocrisy. You may leave the play liking some characters a bit less, but in a way that makes you appreciate their story more. And who doesn't love Rumour, painted full of tongues?

The only arena where this play doesn't quite live up to its successor is the rebellion plot. In addition to undercutting the end of Part 1 by stringing the insurrection along (yes I know this is based on real historical events, but come on, it's the Shakespeare version), and repeating many points (Northumberland chickens out AGAIN, Falstaff makes money off his measly soldiers and wins undue fame AGAIN), I miss the verve and impetuosity brought by Hotspur. Instead of being able to genuinely root for the rebels, the attitude I'm left is more "oh, just give up already." Prince John's doublecross is genuinely surprising and great, though. Truly his father's son.

In general, I really love this play, and think it the potential to make many a moving production. It's not one I'd feel devastated to cut down for performance (in fact I think it would benefit in many places), but it contains some great language and some stellar scenes, and overall is I think, vital reading/hearing/viewing for the fans of Part 1, Henry V, really any of the histories, or Shakespeare in general. show less

This play is not as enjoyable as its predecessor, largely because the remaining rebels to be mopped up are foolish weasels, not the roaring lion that Hotspur was. There remains the tension between father and son, which ends in a moving deathbed reconciliation and the prince's coming-of-age as king. More interesting is the career of Sir John Falstaff in the countryside, as we are allowed to see how a man of some shrewdness and no honor survives and profits while the kingdom is in an uproar, and the introduction of Justice Shallow, who so wants to be the Elizabethan equivalent of "cool." The play ends with the new king forbidding the evil old man his presence. This is a necessity, especially considering the old fool's plans for graft and show more glory, but it is a sad necessity. show less

This is the third of the "Wars of the Roses" history plays, falling between Henry IV part 1 and Henry V. It's probably also the least well-known of them, with its rather downbeat story showing the process by which the dashing Prince Hal turns himself into the calculating (but still charismatic) statesman Henry V. The whole structure of the play builds up to Henry's rejection of his former friend and drinking companion Falstaff, in one of the most celebrated put-down speeches in literature: "I know thee not, old man ... Leave gormandizing; know the grave doth gape / For thee thrice wider than for other men." (Act V, Sc.5).

Though the mood is a bit sombre, there are plenty of funny moments. But above all, it's a play about the process of show more growing up and taking responsibility. In an odd way, it made me think about the cult BBC comedy Absolutely Fabulous — Edina is pathetic and absurd because she is a Prince Hal who never rejected her particular Falstaff, Patsy.

[it would be presumptuous to attempt to "review" Shakespeare, and there's not much point reviewing the specific edition, as LT mixes them all in together anyway, but at least this play will no longer be the most-owned book in my list without any reviews at all!] show less

Even after watching the Hollow Crown I couldn't bring myself to really get engaged with the characters in this play. I guess the story is about the changing monarchy and the lack of stability in the English Crown, but absolutely none of the characters are sympathetic. Even the dashing rogue Prince Hal is eventually gutted by his sense of duty, and it's not even a willing acceptance and rising to the occasion so much as a resignation and betrayal of his friends. Though they don't seem much like actual friends, because they do little in the way of encouraging his better character, speak ill of him behind his back, and plan to ride his coattails straight into a lordship... Maybe the last play in this set will elevate Henry V to a better show more kingship, but my bet is on him further weakening the Crown by foolish military action in preparation for the Yorkist/Tudor rebellions. show less

I thought this was noticeably inferior to Part I. The comedy grated on me more in this half and I just found it more irritating - what on earth is Act II, Scene IV all about, for example? The politics wasn't so much to the fore. King Henry's death scene was quite moving - he really does not rate his son at all, and indeed this pair of plays could be said to be rather unfair on the reputation of the future king Henry V.