Not only did I not post my February Shakespeare entry on time, I didn't even finish reading the play until a few days into March. This is unacceptable, but at least I'm still keeping up with the reading-one-every-month thing, which is good. I'll try to be more on time this month.
I chose to read "Henry V," a history, and was quite impressed by it. While I found all the history plays so far to be dreadfully boring, this one turned out to be a lot of fun to read--very brief and entertaining. I was curious to learn more about Hal--my favorite character from the two Henry IV plays--as he becomes king in this one. The reckless young man that he was had turned out to be a valiant king, very decisive and persistent, both in the ways of war and love. The play chronicles the events of the Battle of Agincourt, and ends with his courtship of Princess Katherine of France.
It seems to me, perhaps because of my knowledge of and affection for the character from the Henry IV plays, that Hal, now known as King Henry, isn't completely a mature man that he appears to be. Within the kingly guise there still exists the young man who had needed his father's approval and tried to prove his mettle. The scene in which the disguised Henry is arguing with common soldiers, for example, shows his playfulness often seen in his youth.
I still didn't care for the comical moments that were supposed to offer a relief in the serious play, but here, due to their brevity, they didn't bother me so much. Falstaff, the major comic figure in the prequels, didn't make an appearance here, but his absence is strongly felt. It is a wonder why Shakespeare chooses to leave him out, although it is clear that his importance is very much on the Bard's mind. During the few times that Falstaff is mentioned, it is in relations to Henry's reckless behaviors in his youth. When his death is announced, it recalls the memory of the scene in "Henry IV Part II" in which Henry coldheartedly denies his friendship. I had hoped for a scene wherein Henry reflects on his past friendship with Falstaff or responds to the news of his death, but that never happened. Instead, the few mentions of the character are sufficient to recreate Falstaff as a tragic figure that haunts the story throughout. Being fond of the young Henry, I constantly felt the presence of his past self as well as his estranged friendship with Falstaff. I believe it was out of duty that he disowned his old friend, and that, while believing he was doing the right thing, he still felt the absence of his friend and his past, much like Charles Kane and Rosebud.
The play isn't as well constructed and dramatized as many others, but there is a certain pleasure new to me that derives from following Hal as he gets older. It makes reading these history plays a more meaningful experience than it would otherwise have been. Unfortunately, Hal will no longer make an appearance, as "Henry VI Part I" begins with his funeral. I want to recommend this play, because it is the first History that I actually enjoy, but I fear it wouldn't mean anything to those who haven't read the prequels. Therefore I will leave you with this: sometimes it takes efforts to reach a certain kind of pleasure. Read the plays, or do as you will.
No comments:
Post a Comment