Privacy Policy

 

Director
Nicholas Hytner

Designer
Mark Thompson

Sound Designer
Paul Groothuis

Music/
Soundscore
Max Ringham
Ben Ringham
Andrew Rutland

Musicians
The InKlein Quartet

King Henry IV/
Bolingbroke
David Bradley

Harry (Hal)/
Prince of Wales
Matthew Macfadyen

Prince John of Lancaster
Samuel Roukin

Humphrey,
Duke of Gloucester
Thomas Arnold

Thomas
Duke of Clarence
Rupert Ward-Lewis

Earl of Westmorland
Elliot Levey

Henry Percy,
Earl of Northumberland
Jeffrey Kissoon

Harry Percy (Hotspur)
David Harewood

Thomas Percy,
Earl of Worcester
Ian Gelder

Lady Percy (Kate)
Naomi Frederick

Servant to the Percys
Michelle Dockery

Edmund Mortimer
Alistair Petrie

Owen Glendower
Robert Blythe

Lady Mortimer
Eve Myles

Earl of Douglas
Rupert Ward-Lewis

Sir Richard Vernon
Harry Peacock

Richard Scroop
John Carlisle

Sir Michael
Thomas Arnold

Sir John Falstaff
Michael Gambon

Ned Poins
Adrian Scarborough

Mistress Quickly
Susan Brown

Bardolph
Roger Sloman

Peto
Andrew Westfield

Gadshill
Thomas Arnold

Francis
Darren Hart

Vintner
Robert Blythe

Sheriff
Robert Lister
 
National Theatre
13 July - 31 August 2005
Nicholas Hytner's production of Henry IV parts 1 and 2, stems from a previous collaboration with Michael Gambon which prompted an idea of Gambon as Falstaff: "So it all started off with Michael. Though I suspect that every production of Henry IV should start there, because if you don't know who's going to play Falstaff there's no point in doing them." There's a vote of confidence in our greatest national playwright! No point in performing Henry IV without a famous Falstaff to draw the crowds? One might as well state plainly that the only point in doing Shakespeare these days is if popularity can be guaranteed.
      With or without a big-name Falstaff, Henry IV was always going to prove popular with the core National audience. It is one of those plays that parents and grandparents cleverly calculate on: lots of battle scenes to keep the kids engaged, and an example in Hal for young public-school boys. In terms of early exposure to Shakespeare, the Henry plays are up there with Romeo and Juliet. Perhaps this is why Hytner's production is so lazy. It has nothing to do other than deliver a chivalrous rogue in Hal, a loveable rogue in Falstaff, and plenty of sword fighting in between. It suffers fundamentally from a lack of imagination allied to a lack of budget.
      The budget cuts are clear in Mark Thompson's set-design. The wooden platform extending from the centre-back of the stage into foreground is efficient, and signals to the audience that the majority of exits and entrances will come from there. In due course this proves to be the case. A few birch trees on either side give the impression of a muted, steely-grey country-side ravaged by war, and two strips of projection screen on right and left allow for black and white projections of clouds, trees or buildings according to the scene. It could have been used as a minimalist set to great effect. At certain moments we are asked to imaginatively fill-in parts of the scenery, so why not be consistent and disguise holes in the budget with holes that (one could claim) have artistic credibility? Instead, scene changes rely on two descending poles from which are hung an arras and a chandelier. By the time the third arras descends in exactly the same place it is all too obvious that corners have been cut.
      Of course, the £10 Travelex season is a great thing and its concomitant impact on a production's budget is a small price to pay for getting people into the theatre who could not ordinarily afford to be there. What is lamentable, however, is the failure to use the stronger elements of the set design, instead of obscuring them behind curtains and props. It is symptomatic of an unwillingness to take risks. That same unwillingness was evident in the fast scene changes. It was as if the audience might get bored if we were left to ponder on the emotional import of any one scene for too long. Every line and scene was delivered at a gallop, so that the subtleties of the relationship between Hal and Falstaff were never dwelt on for long enough. The pace had to be kept up for the TV generation.
       Similarly, a lack of risk-taking applied to the staging, which was all too obvious. When the rebels are captured they are marched in from the back of the stage, pushed onto their knees in a line of three, and their head-scarves are whipped off. Behind them, the victors deliver their lines, and the tableau remains unchanged - all too familiar - until they are marched off. Much of the staging seems to be that way simply because it has worked before, and no attention is paid to getting anything new from the situations and lines. When Hal is being dressed-down by his father, for example, Henry IV (played by David Bradley) stands behind, lecturing him. Much could have been made by MacFadyen's Hal of Bradley's tortuous delivery, which makes anyone who hears it want to go to sleep immediately. But nothing arises spontaneously from the situation. All the laughs are Shakespeare's. Only a few incidentals are added to give vigour to the lines, such as Falstaff pissing against a tree to the lines "unbuttoning thyself after dinner". When those little interpretations are given they are on the whole the most obvious response of any actor to the line. Falstaff's hand gestures to the line "for it was so dark, Hal, that thou couldst not see thy hand". Similarly, the fluttering gesture he gives to the word "instinct" is repeated interminably. There is nothing fresh about this production.
      That said, it is solid. Particular praise must go to Terry King, the fight director, for choreographed battle-scenes in which, quite literally, sparks flew. Actors were clearly comfortable enough with the rhythms of the fight to give it their all. Further praise should go to Matthew Macfadyen for his convincing Hal. His acting is subtle, as is natural for a TV actor, though whether the delicacy of his quivering underlip, raised eyebrows and blinking eyes can carry to the back of the theatre is another question. It was certainly wonderful to see Eve Myles (Mortimer's wife) and Naomi Frederick (Hotspur's wife) paired up on stage again, after their remarkable performance together in The Tamer Tamed at Stratford. Naomi Frederick has an irrepressible style which marks her out as a promising comic actress, and she is perfectly cast as the impatient Kate.
      The only innovation in this production was the introduction of music, perhaps for the benefit of a generation so used to the techniques of cinema. At certain crucial moments the strings (InKlein Quartet) built up to create tension, but musically it was nothing too exciting, simply what was required. And that is what made this a lazy production. It did only as much as it needed to for those in the audience whose first experience of a Shakespeare history play this was. It satisfies those who wanted the younger generation to have that experience, but it has no ambitions to be a memorable production. It settles for a short shelf-life, knowing that it will soon be reproduced for another generation. What then, it seems to say, is the point in making anything memorable other than who played Falstaff?
Laura Keynes

National Theatre
Full text