Henry V

[magid]

Last night I saw ASP's Henry V. I've seen it a couple of times now (on the Common and at MIT), so I'm familiar enough with the plot to be able to pay attention to the details.

I remain surprised at how much outside-the-story narrative there is, telling us of shifts of locale or time. It feels very amateurish, still. And it is obviously following another play, since the death of Falstaff makes no sense in the play if one doesn't know about the previous play in the cycle (there never is a really good explanation of why Hal changes when he ascends to the throne; there have been dissolute monarchs before, after all). Similarly, the assassination plot is given as an already-known thing; we just get the sentencing. It feels like there should be more there, or it shouldn't be in the story at all. The other part of the play I find strange is how many scenes are in French. I wonder what someone who knows no French at all thinks of those parts.

This production was fairly spare: only five actors, in the small space that is the Basement of the Garage, with that huge pillar in the middle of the stage. It was done in the round, partly to accommodate the pillar. The ceiling is also low, so the lights are much closer to the action than usual, which I tend to dislike (I have a hard time when I can see lightbulbs; they are always too bright). Still, the smallness made it more immediate, which helped with having fewer people on stage. There were enough costume differences to make it clear who people were, whether king or prelate, noble or commoner, English or French. And I was impressed by the range of accents people used. I particularly liked Seth Powers' Henry, who was much less flat than the Henry I remembered. I think this was the first time I noticed his prayer repenting his father's usurption of Richard, which made him much more sympathetic to me (having read Josephine Tey's Daughter of Time well before I knew much else about him, I have always been fond of Richard). And his responsibilities weigh on him, not lightly carried.

The battle scenes were the ones that had the most possibility of seeming wrong without more people (the audience is easily drafted into being court nobles or standing armies to be addressed), but with lighting, music, and an interesting use of odd iron implements clanged together, it worked.

As usual, ASP manages to bring more layers into the play than I knew of. Definitely worth seeing.
(If you go, be warned that the space can be a bit chilly.)

Comments

[docorion.livejournal.com]

Well, in Henry IV part 1, Hal explains how he's just biding his time until he is king, hanging with the rascals, so he'll shine more brightly being foiled by the rascals he's left behind. But that does seem to require having seen that play before Henry V.

[magid.livejournal.com]

I've never seen Henry IV part 1. And that does seem rather calculating of him.

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

Yes. Exactly. It is calculating. As is Falstaff's rubbing his hands in glee at the prospect of Harry being King in Henry IV Part II.

Shakespere repeatedly raises the question of the morality of kings. Is it moral for a king to behave in a certain way that would be immoral for someone else, because the welfare of the kingdom depends upon the king?

[magid.livejournal.com]

I've never seen either part of Henry IV. Obviously, not ideal, given that Henry V seems to be the last in the series.