亨利四世：第一部分

「I know you all and will awhile uphold the unyoked humour of your idleness. Yet herein will I imitate the sun, who doth permit the base contagious clouds to smother up his beauty from the world, that, when he please again to be himself, being wanted, he may be more wondered at, by breaking through the foul and ugly mists of vapours that did seem to strangle him. If all the year were playing holidays, to sport would be as tedious as to work. But when they seldom come, they wished for come, and nothing pleaseth but rare accidents. So, when this loose behaviour I throw off and pay the debt I never promised, by how much better than my word I am, by so much shall I falsify men's hopes. And like bright metal on a sullen ground, my reformation, glittering o'er my fault, shall show more goodly and attract more eyes than that which hath no foil to set it off. I'll so offend, to make offence a skill, redeeming time when men think least I will.」



「What need I be so forward with him that calls not on me? Well, 'tis no matter, honour pricks me on. Yea, but how if honour prick me off when I come on? How then? Can honour set to a leg? No. Or an arm? No. Or take away the grief of a wound? No. Honour hath no skill in surgery, then? No What is honour? A word. What is in that word honour? What is that honour? Air. A trim reckoning. Who hath it? He that died a'Wednesday. Doth he feel it? No. Doth he hear it? No. 'Tis insensible, then. Yea, to the dead. But will it not live with the living? No. Why? Detraction will not suffer it. Therefore I'll none of it. Honour is a mere scutcheon. And so ends my catechism.」



「Brave Percy. Fare thee well, great heart. Ill-weaved ambition, how much art thou shrunk. When that this body did contain a spirit a kingdom for it was too small a bound, and now, two paces of the vilest earth is room enough. Adieu.」

On the year of 2008, Olympic Game has been hold by England. For the sake of spreading England unique culture, which will also be beneficial to cross-cultural communication, BBC TV station has directed a series of film called Hollow Crown, which are some adapted works from Shakespeare’s history plays including RichardⅡ, HenryⅣ and HenryⅤ. To be honest, Henry Ⅳ is one of the greatest films I have ever watched.
Henry IV is a story about a king who stole the crown from his cousin, and is tormented by his guilt. Also, it's growing story about his son, a feckless young prince, who is always exposed to some blackguardly ruffians. However, when he suddenly is conscious of his father’s weighty responsibility and his massive burden, the prince, who seems to be cynicism, is forced to grow up and face his destiny. Then, on succeeding to the throne, the new young king takes his country to war, realizing he must assume his responsibility to strengthen national defense and fight against invaders. Eventually he becomes the greatest warrior king in English history.
In deep meaning, it's also an adventurous story of people facing an uncertain future, and of a country searching for a new sense of patriotic identity.
In this film, what deeply impresses me most is not father and son, but friendship and betrayal. In fact, this movie does not put emphasis on the relationship between HenryⅣ and his son HenryⅣ,but do stand out what happens between the young prince Hal and his so-called loyal friend Jack Falstaff. To some extend, the friendship and betrayal is the most dramatic aspect, running through the whole movie.
Jack Falstaff, as the leader of some ruffians, is almost paternal relationship with Hal, the young prince. Generally speaking, Falstaff is too much of a pretty crook, who is a congenital liar, congenital drunk as well as thief. However, Falstaff sets his affection on Hal, and the emotion shed by his eye really convince audiences that they own true friendship, conveying a message that even he is a ragtag, the prince still cherish their relationship.
However, that is totally wrong. Why Shakespeare is a most renowned writer, because everything that is Shakespearean is ambiguous. And in the most ambiguous but dramatically important scenes, Hal's split loyalties between Falstaff and his father of are central to both plays.①
Falstaff brings out the wayward and irresponsible side of Hal. However, the other side of the young prince's personality lies in this prince’s inherent essence. Although Hal seems like a terrible shit and he does some dreadful things, but in his inner world, he is a very upright person, he is also an ambitious and sophisticated politician.
I know you all, and will awhile uphold the unyoked humor of your idleness.
Yet herein will I imitate the sun, who doth permit the base contagious clouds to smother up his beauty from the world.
That, when he please again be himself, being wanted, he may be more wondered at, by breaking through the foul and ugly mists of vapours that did seem to strangle him.③
The words from Hal’s mouth show his ambition, appearing in the beginning of the film, give us a warning.
So how could the writer, Shakespeare copes with this difficult problem? Why Shakespeare is being Shakespeare, because he solves it through a play within a play.
Prof.Jonathan Bate(Worcester College Oxford) claims that:
This fantastic scene, to my mind. Come on, I'll say it the greatest scene Shakespeare ever wrote.
This fantastic scene where they act out Prince Hal returning to court, being interviewed by his father.
It's an amazing piece of theatre, where you have Falstaff and Hal playing the parts of King Henry IV and Hal.②
In this play within play, Hal and Falstaff have an interesting pub game, they need to play the parts of King Henry IV and Hal, imitating a conversation between father and son.
As first, Falstaff play the role of Hal’s father, the present king, in the course of communication, Falstaff doesn't tell Hal to pull his royal socks up. Rather, he instructs the young prince to spend more time with a splendid fellow called Falstaff. Falstaff regards that he is a loyal and true friend around Hal. And sometimes, indeed, he is, at least many audience thinks so, including me.
Then, they change the position, Hal do an impression of his father, and Falstaff plays him. At the beginning, Hal pretends to be his father, being angry to interrogate his son, Falstaff, why he would play with a local ruffian. Later, Hal's perspective begins to change. He claims that his son Hal must banish his fat friend, Falstaff.
Then Falstaff say the most impressive words from his bottom of heart:
Banish plump Jack, and banish all the world.③
The emotion from their eye contacts reveals that they are all touched by these sincere sentences. Especially Hal, he moves to tears, totally smothering his tears from his eyes.
However, the Hal say these words:
I do.③
Again, he supplies another sentences:
I will.③
That is really strange.
When Hal says “I do.”, he is within the context of the play within the play, as the acting the part, in his father’s tone. But then, in that instant pause, and the shift of the verb tense “I will” disclosures that he is speaking not within the play within the play, but as himself.
He is giving Falstaff warning that the moment will come, when he becomes a real king, he need to banish Falstaff.
What happens to Hal, why he needs to say these serious words?
It is believed that if you know the play well, if you love the play and the adapted movie, you cannot watch it with a dry eye.
So at the end of that game, there is a chilling premonition, and that what appears in the ending of this movie.
Gold save the king.③
With these cheerful sentences, Hal is crowned in Westminster Abbey, and eventually becomes the king. Then in the parade, Falstaff deliberately happens to meet his heart, Hal. Falstaff want to claim kinship and let the king give him some advantages. However, the king changes his voice, he is strict with this fat man, saying the follow sentence:
My lord Chief Justice, speak to that vain man
I know thee not, old man. Fall to thy prayers. How ill white hairs become a fool and jester.
I have long dreamed of such a kind of man so surfeit-swelled, so old and so profane. But, being awake, I do despise my dream.
Make less thy body hence and more thy grace, leave gormandizing.
Know the grave doth gape for thee thrice wider than for other men. Reply not to me with a fool-born jest!
Presume not that I am the thing I was.
For God doth know, so shall the world perceive, that I have turned away my former self. So will I those that kept me company When thou dost hear I am as I have been, approach me and thou shalt be as thou wast, the tutor and the feeder of my riots.
Till then I banish thee, on pain of death
As I have done the rest of my misleaders, not to come near our person by ten mile. For competence of live I will allow you, the lack of means enforce you not to evil.
And, as we hear you do reform yourselves, we will, according to your strengths and qualities, give you advancement.④
That’s a very long monologue, but when Hal says these words. It is really powerful and awful. Does he totally forget the time Falstaff around him, like his father to care of him? Does he never remember the happy ages he enjoy his youth, not worrying his duty to take charge of a country?
So why he does that?
Hal is not to do this having a mater plan, he just has an idea of how he wants his life to go, he is aware of his responsibility, who knows the fun will have to end one day.
Therefore, both these acts speak volumes. Hal gets rid of formal himself,
And I think that is the most dramatic aspect of the whole movie. Making you so convincing that Falstaff and Hal is a pair of close friend, but the end reveals that they break down their relationship in this way. So amazing, is not it?
 But the ending has its own premonition and reliable explanation. The most ambiguous part seems not so ambiguous, thanks to our greatest writer, Shakespeare.
Like the so-called “O. Henry-style ending”, disclosure when the movie ends the people of the psychological situation changes unexpectedly, or the fate of the hero suddenly reversed, giving audiences an unexpected result, but also be associated with real life, resulting in a unique artistic charm.


Reference:
①,② From: BBC Documentary: Shakespeare Uncovered_Jeremy Irons on the Henrys.
③ From: The movie: Henry IV
④ From: The Book: Henry IV

刚开始的看的时候，以为都是写君王的故事，所以期待宫斗、阴谋是很正常的，结果大失所望。老外怎么这样敷衍啊，Hal这鲜肉样就一代明君了？说好的英明神武呢？几乎木有啥宫斗情节，更别提好莱坞大片中的千军万马大乱斗了，也木有什么欲迎还拒的黄袍加身，篡位也交代得极为简单（这好像上一集的情节了）。反正跟嬛嬛比简直弱！ 爆！ 了！连《冰与火之歌》里面的人物都比这复杂好么。

全剧看完，还记得什么了呢？只有那个胖得像酒桶的Falstaff，唾沫淋漓，艳压全场。还有那个场景，Falstaff听闻一起打混的小王子Hal顺承大位，连滚带爬飞奔回来沾光，然后就被君王无情地拒绝了。此时，说实话，因为Falstaff就是个丑角，小人。比较接近Sir John Falstaff福爵爷形象的其实是韦爵爷，但人家韦爵爷虽然也贪财好色且奸猾，但人家的闪光点是重情重义好不好。而这Falstaff除了插科打诨，逗人发笑之外，一点正面都木有。所以即使感受到他的失望，心里更多认同是Hal的理智，我们接受了不少这种教育嘛，要么你狠，要么你有好手腕。

然后，我就看了Simon Schama's Shakespeare。这是讲解莎剧如何成为经典的。主要是分析了很多当时的时代背景，比如莎剧之前只有奇迹剧可看，比如语言本身变得重要，比如英国正在成形，需要语言和形象的自我认同等等。这些都还很正常嘛。

然后看到一个论断，俺就震惊了。在莎爷心中，这个胖胖的Falstaff乃是英格兰的象征。你能忍受把“我们的大中国”写成一个油腔滑调的大胖子么？但据说Falstaff当时还相当受欢迎，是人民群众喜闻乐见的艺术形象，在Falstaff被拒绝一蹶不振之后，当时的女王还要求莎爷给加戏，还观众一个生龙活虎的Falstaff。

为啥呢？莎爷的戏里其实给了每个阶层和角色生动的表现，无论贩夫走卒或是王公大臣。当时有两个英格兰，一个是夏天的英格兰，小酒馆中的生活，平民阶层的生活，汁液淋漓，充满欢乐。一个是冬天的英格兰，森严，乏味，贵族阶层的生活。而Falstaff就是活力四射的那一个，那些的风趣幽默的话语就是莎翁旅行表演中各地小酒馆，旅店日常的再现，真实，亲切，带给人们欢乐。而他的食欲其实是生命力的象征。而Hal对Falstaff的拒绝其实是一种自我阉割，成为亨利五世的Hal从此再没有了之前在小酒馆的欢乐。估计这也是当时的女王心底不能说的秘密吧。

从这一点上看这也许就是东西两出戏之间的区别。甄嬛中极力表现了人性的扭曲，人在针尖密布的地上行走，虽然把一众花样的姑娘变成了一块块老姜，但以君主制为辩护，以生存为正义给了这种扭曲的合法性。而之所以风行，深得人心，因为它是对于普通人的生活而言是政治正确的，我们早就接受了这样的教训：心思缜密，偏执狂才能生存，成功即正义。而莎剧中这并不是重点，他生动的语言（虽然这点可能感受并不直接），鲜活的人物和时代风貌。不矫饰，不避讳，也不标榜，写君王的理性至上，更写出了普遍的人性，完整的人性。

这也许是莎剧这样听起来像老咸菜的经典却一直鲜嫩多汁的原因吧。



部分观点引用自Simon Schama's Shakespeare，理解莎剧的绝佳伴侣。