Movie Essays - Shakespeare's Henry Plays - A Comparative Study of Falstaff on Film

1203 Words3 Pages

Shakespeare's Henry Plays - A Comparative Study of Falstaff on Film

The Character of Sir John Falstaff is an integral part of any adaptation of Shakespeare's "Henry" plays. The treatment of this character effects the way the production will be taken by the audience as the treatment of Falstaff is directly related to the understanding of the character of Prince Hal (later Henry V). Kenneth Branagh's Henry V, the BBC versions of parts one and two of Henry IV, and Orson Welles' amalgamation Chimes at Midnight all show Falstaff in different lights, producing three different takes, not only on the character himself, but also on the interpretation of Prince Hal, and the entire workings of the production.

In the case of Kenneth Branagh's Henry V Falstaff is seen only in flashback. This version of Falstaff (portrayed by actor Robbie Coltrane) is displayed as the jovial and kind side of Falstaff with little of the nefarious nature that is seen in the texts of Henry IV parts one and two. Branagh as the screenwriter actually reassigns certain lines to achieve his end, including, but not limited to, the reassignment of some of Falstaff's lines to others, as well as the reassignment of lines from one scene to another, all to display Falstaff as a happy Santa Claus of a man all but devoid of evil intentions or Machiavelian deceit. The first of the myriad flashbacks in the film begins with the assignment of Falstaff's description of himself as "A goodly, portly man in faith," (1 Henry IV.II.iv.421) to Pistol. This shows that in Branagh's version Falstaff is as well respected by his comrades as he is by himself. This is somewhat in contrast to the way he is commonly illustrated, which is as a man who abuses deceit, but is not fooling ...

... middle of paper ...

...Falstaff as played by Welles. It is this multifaceted nature that has Hal attempt (in a scene paraphrased from the text of Henry V) to go back on his decision toward the end and grant Falstaff favor (albeit too late). Welles' Falstaff is the best example of the cross section of aspects that Falstaff has in the texts.

While certainly each portrayal of Falstaff is from it's own school of thought, ranging from the idea of Falstaff as the pure, kind friend, to that of Falstaff as the selfish villain, to that of Falstaff as the moderate, complex character, each effectively displays an accurate Falstaff with his own hold on Prince Hal. These three versions show that the treatment of Jack Falstaff, regardless of his prominence in each production, can change the interpretation of the actions of Henry V as well as the reasons behind his choices for many of his actions.

Open Document