Henry IV Part 1 (Series 2 Episode 1)

First transmitted 9th December 1979

David Gwillim chooses between two fathers in Anthony Quayle and Jon Finch

Cast: David Gwillim (Prince Henry), Jon Finch (Henry IV), Anthony Quayle (Sir John Falstaff), Tim Pigott-Smith (Hotspur), Michele Dotrice (Lady Percy), Clive Swift (Worcester), Bruce Purchase (Northumberland), Brenda Bruce (Mistress Quickly), Jack Galloway (Poins), Gordon Gostelow (Bardolph), Robert Brown (Sir Walter Blunt), David Buck (Earl of Westmoreland), Robert Morris (Edmund Mortimer), Richard Owens (Owen Glendower), John Cairney (Earl of Douglas), Rob Edwards (Prince John of Lancaster), Terence Wilton (Sir Richard Vernon), David Neal (Archbishop of York)

Director: David Giles

 

The second series of BBC Shakespeare kicked off with the main leg of a big commitment – the completion of the first half of the history cycle with the two parts of Henry IV and Henry V. I’ll be following the progress of these plays over the next few weeks. The cycle starts with Part 1 of Henry IV, which in my opinion is probably the best and most complete play among the history cycle. It has the clearest story arc, the best explored themes, clearest character development, contrasting personalities and not to mention some of the best jokes and speeches. It’s a top play and not performed enough.

 

The downside here is that these history productions – as we saw with Richard II – are the easiest to potentially lock into a traditional interpretation. With the focus on realism, and the plays set in precise periods (and even days) of history, the default BBC feeling at this time to go as safe as possible in interpretation and setting are most obvious here. David Giles’ work on Richard II showed he is good with actors, but very straight forward (even basic) in terms of interpretation.  So it shouldn’t be a surprise that design and artistic choices here don’t often look at the play from a fresh angle.

 

 Filmed entirely in a studio (and there are some very well done, convincing lighting effects to suggest different times of day for the battles, as well as some convincing battlefield sets) Giles’ focus is on telling the story, simply and clearly with the language being the prime focus. At some points this works very well – and in some key moments which I’ll look at later on, this allows him to shed some new light very effectively on one or two of the characters.

 

The downside of clarity being more prized over invention is most clear in A3 S2, the first scene Henry and Hal share together. The text is beautifully spoken (particularly by Finch) and it’s clear what the characters are thinking – but it’s not clear what they are feeling. The reactions in these scenes aren’t there – the physicality, the development of character in the delivery, the physicality of this as a confrontation just doesn’t exist. It’s strangely lifeless. Compare it with the dynamism and tension in the same confrontation in the more recent Hollow Crown version of this story. Or even the reacting and acting in Julius Caesar or Henry VIII earlier in the series. This scene is the most glaring example of a slight sterile quality in this production, so determined to stress to the viewer the importance of the words that the drama of Shakespeare is occasionally lost.

 

To watch these scenes in comparison check out this productions version here (at 8:30ish):

 

and The Hollow Crown version here

 

I defy you not to see the difference – it’s in the acting ‘off the ball’ – the reacting. The second is just so much more interesting to watch.

 

Filmic touches are kept to a minimum. Giles hasn’t got much to bring to the battle scenes, which are alternately unconvincing or aggressively overdone (the blood that chokes Hotspur during his death caused a huge amount of controversy at the time). A filmic tracking shot around the Boar’s Head pub in A1 S2 seems a wasted effort once the film starts, as everything is then set in the pub basement with one simple camera set-up. This is epidemic in a very stagy production, with the four or five sets increasingly seeming like a theatre location. There are moments where filmic touches work nicely (in particular Hotspur entering shot as a blur of motion mid letter in A2 S3: an effect which could never be created on stage) and allowing Quayle to break the fourth wall in A4 and A5 works very well – but these are exceptions rather than the rule.

 

Most of the interpretative ideas don’t add a huge amount. A motif of Henry IV as a twitchy, anxious man – forever scratching some mysterious ailment under his gloved hands – is a rather heavy handed way of stressing the guilt behind the gilt. The “anon, anon sir” sequence teasing Francis is cut from A2 S4, which can be a good opportunity to subtly explore Hal’s crueller side. The Hotspur and Lady Percy sequences do little to show other sides of Hotspur, or act as a contrast to, say, Mortimer or Henry’s relationships with women.

 

But that is enough of the negatives! It might be straight forward and lacking in ideas, but the ones it has it executes very well – and a strong story like the one of this play can carry itself forward very well by itself.

 

The main area where Giles does do something interesting – and it will be fascinating to see how this plays out in the next two films – is the interpretation of Prince Hal.  Gwillim has neither the air of a charismatic playboy or the subtle cunning of a manipulator. Watching the start of this play it’s impossible to imagine this guy scaling the walls of Harfleur. Gwillim instead plays him like some minor prankster in one of the comedies. He doesn’t even seem to be a leader among his friends and defers to Poins at key points. It’s almost as if he is being taken advantage of by his friends.

 

Just like with Derek Jacobi in Richard II, this gives Gwillim the scope to change and develop during the production. We can see the beginnings of his growth as a leader and how – in the confrontations with Falstaff, his father and Hotspur – he begins to find in himself the qualities of adulthood he will need to succeed as King. It’s the only thing in this production I don’t feel I’ve seen before and the only thing which seems like a unique look at the text.

 

A lot of work has also gone into exploring the character of Hotspur who – if anything – takes on the charisma, playboy nature and wild-child qualities that Prince Henry is often given. Pigott-Smith is terrific in this. He’s a whirling dervish of energy, constantly in motion with the attention span of a child. His charisma changes plain stupidity and lack of thought into honest bluntness and manly courage. He has the macho physicality of a school rugby star and his reaction to praise for Prince Henry seems more like the envy of a competitive jock than the reasoning of a military leader. It’s in the text, but the contrast between Hotspur and Henry has rarely been so well drawn out, without it being whacked over our heads. This is the most Hotspur-centric production of the play I’ve seen. And you wouldn’t believe the same actor played Angelo in Measure for Measure two films ago.

 

The main figure I haven’t mentioned yet is, of course, Falstaff. What I liked a lot about Anthony Quayle’s terrific performance here is that he is not easily pigeon holed as a particular character. At times Falstaff is warm and delightful, gleefully enjoying being the centre of the attention, having a Prince to hang out with – a blustering NCO-type full of wit and confidence, enjoying his intellectual superiority to those around him. At others he becomes a weak figure – a court jester, debasing himself to abuse Henry, eager to entertain when playing Henry IV but eventually having to defend himself for real against Hal’s increasingly vicious accusations. And sometimes he is almost cruel, uncaring about the fate of his men. During the battle sequences his speeches on honour and fate are beautifully done – dry, witty, a touch of humanity, a large portion of humour. It might take a while to get going (A2 S4 is the first scene that really works) but it’s worth it. I’m interested to see where it goes in Part 2, the more Falsaff-centric play. And it should be noted this was probably one of the first times Falstaff would have been seen as a slightly dishevelled, possibly creepy, morally compromised liar – a trope that is far more popular today (again compare and contrast with Simon Russell Beale in The Hollow Crown).

 

For the rest of the cast, Clive Swift does an excellent job with a bitter, ever-watchful Worcester, frustrated by his limited influence and exasperated by Hotspur. Robert Brown is excellent as Blunt and Jack Galloway is a wide-boy Poins. Only Jon Finch’s Henry IV doesn’t really work for me – it’s too exact and mannered a performance, there doesn’t seem to be much character there behind the lines.

 

I’ve been hard on this Henry IV as I feel it exhibits both the good and the bad of this series. I wish a more inventive director – Herbert Wise or Alvin Rakoff – had been allowed to have a go at these productions rather than David Giles. This is a step up from Richard II in terms of character development and textual analysis, but it is still an overwhelmingly safe production of the text. I keep waiting for it to really spring to life and surprise the viewer but it never quite does – with any foreknowledge of the play you can anticipate how certain scenes will be performed.

 

But don’t misunderstand me – this is still very good stuff. Much better than you might expect (and I expected). And it captures – in Quayle and Pigott-Smith in particular – some excellent performances while also setting the ground work for what could be a fascinating reinterpretation of a famous part by David Gwillim. The reverence for its source material is the constant issue here – it affects cuts, ideas and filming styles. It’s an issue for the whole series, treating the plays as monuments to be crafted on screen rather than as drama or film, like a televisual Mount Rushmore. Which means, in a way, this film shows both the best and the worst of the project.

 

Conclusion

Some interesting ideas creep through what is overall a very safe interpretation of the play. Solid, unimaginative direction showpieces a trio of interesting and radical performances in an entertaining production of a really great play. It’s not the most inventive production you’ll ever see, but there is more than enough of merit here to make you want to see it.

NEXT TIME: Onto Part 2 as Anthony Quayle hears the chimes of midnight and David Gwillim regenerates into Henry V.