5,057 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Mar 29, 2017 20:58:02 GMT
The play by the great William Shakespeare.
But the play is not so great, but why? You think that Henry VIII was our greatest king, his debuched lifestyle, anyone that disagreed with him was treasonable, his way of divorcing his wives, the divorce (like Brexit today) from the Catholic Church, which started a new religion, he was never timid from having a punch up neither with a continental neighbour either.
This play literally brought down the original Globe Theatre, this should have been Shakespeare's greatest play, but why wasn't it?
|
|
1,249 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by joem on Mar 29, 2017 21:54:54 GMT
Too much Fletcher maybe? I think Shakespeare must have been wary of using the meatier aspects of Henry's life - too close in time and showing him killing all those wives might have been seen as anti-monarchy and/or treasonable.
It was quite some time since the earlier histories, perhaps he was a bit rusty?
I wouldn't read too many parallels into the current situation. Henry never intended to start a new religion anyway, he just wanted control of the old one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2017 22:22:17 GMT
You don't really get any insight into Henry as a character, which you did with all the other History plays. I saw it at the Globe but it didn't do a lot for me except introduce me to a charming ensemble cast who were much better deployed in Anne Boleyn. Also it was fairly recent history at the time - although there was no longer any need to worry about offending Elizabeth I, it hardly smacks of "now she's gone we don't need to be cautious any more".
By "literally brought the house down", for anyone who is unaware, it was a cannon fired during a performance of this play that caused the fire that destroyed the Globe. So yes, literally brought the house down, but not in the good way implicit in the opening post.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Mar 30, 2017 5:26:38 GMT
I think one part of problem is the audience are relatively familiar with the history of Henry VIII but this play presents only a small inconsistent fragment of it and we can see that. I remember the first time I saw it thinking Anne Bullen ? Who's this then - Anne Boleyn or what ?
|
|
423 posts
|
Post by schuttep on Mar 30, 2017 10:03:32 GMT
Too much Fletcher maybe? I think Shakespeare must have been wary of using the meatier aspects of Henry's life - too close in time and showing him killing all those wives might have been seen as anti-monarchy and/or treasonable. It was quite some time since the earlier histories, perhaps he was a bit rusty? Henry VIII deals with his divorce from first wife Katherine of Aragon and his subsequent marriage to Anne Bullen (Boleyn). It ends with the birth of the future QE1. So few people in 1613 will have personal memory of his later wives (Henry VIII died in 1547 in an era when average life expectancy was 37). The play doesn't show the later wives at all. Not sure why people think this should have been his greatest play. Perhaps because the events were more recent than anything he'd written, Shakespeare ended up with a chronicle rather than a tightly crafted and plotted play. Although he was never a stickler for historical accuracy, he had arguably less leaway with this. It's been said - as it's a late play - that it's a play with farewell as its themes: farewell to the world, life, London, greatness. So it has rather a sad feel. |
|
1,249 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by joem on Mar 30, 2017 21:03:22 GMT
I am not sure how much I buy into the "farewell" theme of Shakspear's late plays. There are no solid grounds to believe he was anything other than healthy until he had his mortal illness. So no reason why he would have been writing farewells to the stage for years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 14:55:49 GMT
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Mar 31, 2017 16:08:20 GMT
I am not sure how much I buy into the "farewell" theme of Shakspear's late plays. There are no solid grounds to believe he was anything other than healthy until he had his mortal illness. So no reason why he would have been writing farewells to the stage for years. I know! Isn't it funny how we push this farewell stuff, The Tempest and so on. You might as well say King Lear is a farewell... Some people say that artists do have a sort of 'end' in later work, extra wisdom or a falling off ( I like your early work as in Woody Allen ) but with Willy I think he was just changing tack and having a rest with his hard earned back in his home town where he had the biggest house and was presumably the local lad made good. Who'd blame him for that? |
|
1,249 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by joem on Mar 31, 2017 18:28:55 GMT
Maybe he went back to Stratford because the RSC made him a better offer? Who knows.
|
|
5,057 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Mar 31, 2017 23:04:42 GMT
I am not sure how much I buy into the "farewell" theme of Shakspear's late plays. There are no solid grounds to believe he was anything other than healthy until he had his mortal illness. So no reason why he would have been writing farewells to the stage for years. I know! Isn't it funny how we push this farewell stuff, The Tempest and so on. You might as well say King Lear is a farewell... Some people say that artists do have a sort of 'end' in later work, extra wisdom or a falling off ( I like your early work as in Woody Allen ) but with Willy I think he was just changing tack and having a rest with his hard earned back in his home town where he had the biggest house and was presumably the local lad made good. Who'd blame him for that? Boom, there you have it. Hit the nail right on the head, with the word 'Wisdom' which Shakespeare was a great exponent of, the is where Henry VIII lacks and our greatest king should be full of wisdom. Also noted on here that Shakespeare didn't want to offend Henry VIII's daughter Elizabeth, so had to be extra cautious, he certainly would have been taken to the Tower, however when he wrote this it would have been under James I the first Stuart king, hence why his acting troupe was called the 'Kingsmen'. |
|
396 posts
|
Post by djp on Apr 2, 2017 3:45:58 GMT
I know! Isn't it funny how we push this farewell stuff, The Tempest and so on. You might as well say King Lear is a farewell... Some people say that artists do have a sort of 'end' in later work, extra wisdom or a falling off ( I like your early work as in Woody Allen ) but with Willy I think he was just changing tack and having a rest with his hard earned back in his home town where he had the biggest house and was presumably the local lad made good. Who'd blame him for that? Boom, there you have it. Hit the nail right on the head, with the word 'Wisdom' which Shakespeare was a great exponent of, the is where Henry VIII lacks and our greatest king should be full of wisdom. Also noted on here that Shakespeare didn't want to offend Henry VIII's daughter Elizabeth, so had to be extra cautious, he certainly would have been taken to the Tower, however when he wrote this it would have been under James I the first Stuart king, hence why his acting troupe was called the 'Kingsmen'. Still political dynamite though. Under Elizabeth you can't really portray the King much either way - her mother is involved, on one side , but her claim depends on her father, and what he did. And you then can't say much about Henry V111 without risking comparisons with James , or stirring up the religious discontent thats rising again after Elizabeth calmed it down/dealt with the catholic coup plotters. James's Court was also a warring mess, so there's a danger any character is seen as portraying someone current. Equally , you can't say much about Henry V11 either - because Elizabeth and James both owe their claim to the throne to his children. |
|
