The Bill / Shakespeare Project [dot] com: Recent Comments

Comment on Opera

Kevin Landis — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:23:44 GMT

This is easy to explain: The play is fun to watch.

When I started taking Shakespeare seriously, I dismissed this play, along with The Comedy of Errors and the Henry VI plays because they weren't "deep." As time went by, I discovered the obvious truth that Shakespeare can be entertaining as well as deep.

I haven't seen any performance of Merry Wives, but when I listen to it, I find myself laughing at the prospect of a big, fat, absurd man trying to fit into a basket full of smelly cloths. I've seen performances of The Comedy and enjoyed them all. The Henry VI plays are full of great scenes, and they've got more scheming than the best of today's melodramas.

The critiques need to get a life and have a little fun.

Comment on Podcast 68: The Second Part of Henry the Fourth: Wrap-Up

Kevin Landis — Sun, 30 Jan 2011 19:29:13 GMT

First, thanks for the credit.

I just finished listening to the Henriad (the Arkangel CDs are really good for long drives), and am more firmly convinced that Part 2 is there too justify Hal's turning away from his tavern pals. I also think Shakespeare has a broader purpose.

Just about everybody in the play is old, humorless, corrupt, or decrepit, or some combination. Just compare "old and valiant" Jack Falstaff in Part 1 to "I am old" Falstaff in Part 2. Even England seems old and worn out. I think this is all there to fulfill Hal's prophecy in Part 1 that he will imitate the sun: "Being wanted, he may be more wondered at//By breaking through the foul and ugly mists//Of vapors that did seem to strangle him."

I was relieved when I finished Part 2, and guess what? Part 2 works great in setting up Henry V. As a stand alone play, however, Part 2 doesn't make the grade.

Comment on Falstaff

bill-w — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 21:39:23 GMT

That's really smart.

You're absolutely right about the turn of "comedy" by the tavern dwellers, and their respective fates in Henry the Fifth.

You're onto something, most definitely... my only problem with it is that while it works if you take the totality of the "Henriad" into account, it makes for a horrible dramatic structure for The Second Part of Henry the Fourth.

Is this one of those cases where we have a play that just can't stand on its own (like the Second and Third Parts of Henry the Sixth)?

Comment on Falstaff

Kevin Landis — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 19:27:20 GMT

For me, the reason Hal pretty much drops out of the middle of the play, and why Falstaff takes over, is to firmly establish the justification for Hal rejecting his past. In Part 1, Falstaff is a lot of fun (in a delinquent sort of way), but in Part 2, I find him somewhat mean spirited and nasty. I'm not amused by his antics the way I was in Part 1. The same is true for the rest of the tavern gang. They're not loveable reprobates in Part 2 like they were in Part 1.

In Henry V, we see the fate of the tavern gang. They all end up dead (by hanging or disease)or disgraced. Only Falstaf's page (who is killed at Agincourt and mourned by Hal) ends up with a good reputation. And he sees the gang for what they are, and tells us in a long passage during the siege of Harfluer.

For me Part 2 is clearly a transitional play between Part 1 and Henry V.

Comment on Love and Marriage, Part Two

bill-w — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 04:14:20 GMT

It makes for a great directorial decision... their relationship (their final moments) hinge on how you play it...

Man, I'm going to have to look at that thou and you thing again in that scene...

Comment on Our Monthly Visit to Bawdyville (for shizzle... or is that for "pizzle"?)

bill-w — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 04:12:39 GMT

Nice.... that is way too funny...

Comment on Act Two: Our Titular King is Still Missing in Action

Kevin Landis — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 06:33:02 GMT

The reason, I think, that Lady Percy convinces her father-in-law to go to Scotland instead of joining the rebels is revenge. The crafty sick Northumberland and his army could have joined Hotspur, or he could have sent his army to fight under Hotspur's command, or it could have been commanded by some other nobleman, but instead he abandoned his son.

Lady Percy wants him to go to Scotland because this will destroy his reputation. Which it does. The rebels don't seem at all surprised that Northumberland failed them too.

Comment on Love and Marriage, Part Two

Kevin Landis — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 06:22:33 GMT

Hotspur and Lady Percy definitely love each other, but I would have to say that he doesn’t deserve her. He is just unbelievably unaware of how rude he is.

When she tries to find the cause of his anxiety in Act II Scene 3, his response is playful, but he completely misses the strength and justice of her concern, and ultimately rides off without confiding in her. Just compare this scene to a similar one in Julius Caesar, where Portia confronts Brutus. Lady Percy and Portia are great women and very much alike. Brutus knows it, while Hotspur can’t see it (or at least can’t show her that he sees it).

We see the damage that Hotspur’s response caused in Act III Scene 1, when at a meeting of the conspirators, Hotspur tries to entice Lady Percy to bed two hours before he leaves for battle. The question I have at the end of the scene is does Lady Percy join her husband. The stage directions have Hotspur leave the stage alone, then, after a few more lines of text, the rest of the people in the scene exit. Does she exit by the same door as Hotspur (apparently joining him off stage) or does she leave by another exit (still a little mad about his treatment of her in the morning)? I think she is still mad and doesn’t join him in bed.

By the way, this little exchange is another good example of Shakespeare’s use of you/thou and verse/prose to convey emotion and relationship.

Comment on Our Monthly Visit to Bawdyville (for shizzle... or is that for "pizzle"?)

Kevin Landis — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 06:04:43 GMT

Here are two you missed in the scene with Hotspur and Lady Percy.

Hotspur: "I had rather hear Lady, my brach, howl in Irish." (III.2.234-235)

and later, "Come, Kate, I'll have your song too." (III.2.244)

Lady Percy must be great in bed.

Here is one involving Falstaff and Hal before the robbery.

Falstaff can't find his horse, which has been hidden by Hal, and he says, "What a plague mean ye to colt me thus?" (II.2.34-35) In this passage, to colt means to trick.

Hal responds, "Thou liest, thou art not colted, thou art uncolted." (II.2.36-37)

Every reference says the pun on colt means that Falstaff doesn't have his horse anymore. They all are wrong, even Arden. The pun means that Falstaff has lost his balls. He has been gelded (by age or sack). There are only two ways a horse can be uncolted. It must mature into a stallion or it is gelded, and since I can't imagine Falstaff as a stallion, he must be a gelding.

Comment on Casting Ideas

bill-w — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:32:06 GMT

LOVE Fillion... I was late to the whole Firefly/Serenity party, but my guilty pleasure is Castle (of course, that may be because of Stana Katic... uh, I mean their chemistry... of course).

Bale is awesome... though he may be too intense for Hotspur (wow, I never imagined ever writing THOSE words).

Ogden Stiers is INSPIRED! How perfect is that (I may just have to steal that one for my cast!)