亨利四世：第一部分

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

Hollow Crown这个帝王三部曲里，读原著时我最喜欢的就是《亨利四世》，《理查二世》有极为华丽的辞藻和精心雕琢的大段独白，把语言的魔力发挥到了极致，《亨利五世》有君王气势雄浑大气磅礴的战前宣言，读来汪洋恣肆酣畅淋漓，但我最爱的还是《亨利四世》里Prince Hal成长的故事。从终日流连酒肆与市井之徒厮混的浪子到独撑寰宇的英武帝王，Hal的成长历程动人心魄，想到他失去了的，割舍掉的，又难免扼腕叹息。

《亨利四世》改编电影的难度要小于《理查二世》，从两片的对比来看，前者的完成度也确实更高一些。《理查二世》导演的个人风格过于明显，加上原剧本身人物刻画重点集中，使得片子更像是小本展现个人惊人才华的舞台。《亨利四世》高度还原原著，叙事结构严谨中有创新，深入刻画了多个人物丰满的形象，其中Falstaff无疑是极为浓墨重彩的一笔。Simon Russell Beale的表演令人赞叹，把那个既狂妄又懦弱，自私虚伪却又惹人开怀的大胖子演得活灵活现。Hal对Falstaff的感情很复杂，一方面他排斥生父亨利四世父权的威仪，尽力逃避宫廷权谋倾轧，所以对于和父亲完全相反，颓废荒唐活泼有趣的Falstaff不自禁地亲近向往；一方面Hal本性高贵，他也不齿于Falstaff虚伪懦弱的一面，况且Hal深知胡天胡帝的日子总有尽头，表面堕落心中清明的他自己也有意无意间树立了一道心理防线，不能放任自己对Falstaff的感情过于深厚。抖森把Hal这种复杂而纠结的心理表现得深入且细腻，他和Simon Russell Beale联手奉献了本片最令人拍案叫绝的两场精彩表演之一——小酒馆里的戏中戏即兴剧。对父王惟妙惟肖的模仿，面对Falstaff的恳求犹豫不忍，终于回绝，细微的表情和眼神拿捏得精准微妙。

另一场精彩对戏是Prince Hal Summoned to Court一幕。铁叔老戏骨了不用说，把一位君王面对叛臣四起的焦虑忧心、对继承人不肖的愤恨和一位父亲对荒唐儿子的恼火无奈疼爱完美糅合在一起，举手投足眉间眼角浑身是戏啊！！！（NC粉自重﹁_﹁） 抖森面对前辈的精湛演技也不怯场，被掌掴后的惊愧羞愤，面对父亲对自己的失望和心灰意冷，从一闪而过的受伤眼神，到心痛再到坚定决绝的誓言，抖森的把握非常到位。

Northumberland阵营中，Percy的选角很棒，活脱脱就是我想象中的那个勇武但少策谋的霹雳火。他夫人让大小姐来演有点出乎我意料，不过效果出奇地好，两人的对戏花火四溅张力十足。

战争场面略过不谈，BBC你是有多缺经费啊！内战就是这种两个村打群架级别的场面么抹泪！இдஇ
      
在战役末尾有个最令我心碎的片段——当Hal以为Falstaff战死时他是真心伤痛哀悼，而Falstaff却用厚颜无耻的谎言抢夺Hal杀死Percy的功绩，致使Hal对他彻底失望灰心，舍弃对他的感情。这里Hal先是完全怔住了，一脸难以置信的表情，最后用一个无奈的生硬笑容最后一次纵容了Falstaff的谎言，他的眼神里完全没有笑意，此后也再未正眼看过Falstaff一眼。
Falstaff这个角色真是让人爱恨交加又无可奈何，前一幕他可以诙谐逗趣引人发笑，转过身又暴露出虚伪无耻的一面让你恨得牙根痒痒。我在读原著时从来不能肯定他到底是怎样看待Hal，到底对他有没有真诚的感情。有时候我觉得这个大胖子并不像看上去那样脑满肠肥终日昏昏，他精明世故看得比谁都清楚，因此对Hal或许真就没什么感情可言，即使有，也都被他自己压制掉了。
而Hal，尽管开篇他就有一番“众人皆醉我独醒”的独白，表明这些放浪形骸的行径都是自己刻意为之的韬光养晦之策，但他毕竟年轻心热，排斥父亲的同时潜意识里必然仍旧渴望有个父辈的Figure相伴，Falstaff正好填补了这个位置，和他形成一对终日嬉游寻欢作乐的市井“父子”。他对Falstaff绝对有真挚的情分在，因此此处的“决裂”也格外令人叹息。

总体来讲我爱这部《亨利四世》胜于《理查二世》，剧情更丰满，布局更严谨，冲突更细密，群像刻画更是到位得多，各位演员的表现都无可挑剔。抖森的表演张弛有度，细腻而深沉，在众多老戏骨的映衬下也不露怯，应该是得益于他本人良好的戏剧素养和对莎剧的热爱。不过本片中抖森的演技倾向于“求稳”，没有小本的理查二世给我的惊才绝艳的震撼感，当然这也和剧本和角色气质有关，希望抖森在《亨利五世》中诠释那位英武的军神能够大放异彩，虽然作为肯尼叔叔NC粉的我私心觉得这真的是个非常艰巨的挑战。不过从爵爷到肯爹，一代代杰出演员在演绎这个角色时似乎暗中有个默契的轨迹，即逐渐淡化他的战神光环，每一次新的演绎都比前辈更侧重于挖掘亨利五世人性化的层面，我也很期待抖森的亨五能有新的突破，一切就看导演怎么安排了。

读莎翁的时候总是问题重重，一会儿翻翻字典，一会儿查查资料，时间过了许久一两页都不曾读完。因为总是遇到古英语词汇这个“拦路虎”，导致我经常感到头晕脑胀，想着看看剧集轻松一下。

《空王冠》系列的主演自不必说，清一色的英伦古典男神，里面大段大段的台词让我总有一种想背下来的冲动。虽然《亨利四世》有上下两集，但主角还是“抖森”演的威尔士王子，也就是未来的亨利五世喔～

本片10分32秒---11分58秒的这段台词，配上“抖森”充满磁性的声线，我重复看了不下10遍。
“I know you all and will awhile uphold the unyolked humour of your idleness.Yet herein 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 now how much better than my would I am by so much shall I satisfy men's hopes.And like bright metal on a sullen ground,my reformation gilittering o'er my fault.Shall now 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.
我知道你们是什么样的人，虽然暂且和你们一起鬼混，但其实我在效法太阳，容忍蔽日的浮云遮盖它的美貌。然而一旦它冲破污秽丑恶的迷雾，重展威严的时候，人们因对它渴望已久，而会格外惊奇赞叹。要是一年到头都吃喝玩乐，那也只会变得与劳作一样索然无趣，正因为机会难得，所以一旦浪子回了头，做出出人意料之举，让世人看到我并非那么不堪，则会远远超出他们对我的期望。就像放在灰暗地上的耀眼的金属，我的改头换面，会如瑕不掩瑜，比那些向来优秀的人更显卓越非凡、引人瞩目。叛逆不羁只是我的手段，在人们对我绝望透顶时再彻底洗心革面。”

这样充满大智慧的亨利五世果然成为了一代英主，所以这段内心独白可以说是上半部分的点睛之笔呐～

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。