I, the Man in the Moon ...

"...it is a tale of the man in the moon "

Another of those - sounds familiar.

No way Shakespeare was in this - it was performed by 'the boys' - but, you know what - I'd bet rather a lot he knew it.

That prologue - for what is a 'court performance' - is there in 'The Dream'.

More evidence of Shakespeare's involvement in court affairs? Maybe. And maybe the later play throws light on this play of Lyly, MA: Did the courtiers interrupt the silly prologue - the whole performance in fact? Intriguing.

Also intriguing is this little snippet:

his person -- ah, sweet ... [I.2.60]
person! -- shall he deck with such rich robes as he shall
forget it is his own person; his sharp wit -- ah, wit too sharp,
that hath cut off all my joys! -- shall he use in flattering
of my face and devising sonnets in my favor. The prime
of his youth and pride of his time shall be spent in melan-
choly passions, careless behavior, untamed thoughts, and
unbridled affections.

Is there a better description of so many of Shakespeare's early lovers? I am tempted to say of teenage Shakespeare himself if Sonnet 145 is anything to go by, but will refrain.

Performed around 1588. - Two Gentlemen of Verona has a similar first performance date if the earliest given for it is right. What are the connections?

There is an exploration of 'what is love' - there is man spurning woman - and women's revenge ... there is a wittiness in the dialogue.

But it is more a feel - a lightness and an expectation set up as to what such a play is about.

The business of boys and serving men also strikes a chord.

Apart from the direct links to 'A Midsummer Night's Dream', there also seem links to several other plays and characters - Falstaff is here in prototype (Sir Tophas) - but it is the Falstaff of Merry Wives rather than the Henry plays ... and elements of this Falstaff seem to have transmogrified into Pistol, and Armondo (Love's Labours Lost).

More than anything else though is a sense of elegance here - this is a 'court' play.



Technorati Tags: Shakespeare, Lyly, Endimion

Sins of the Flesh

(or, Size Matters)

Three sets of notes on Falstaff from the Play Shakespeare discussion forum.

Something I thought about watching the BBC Henry IV (i) was the saying – ‘every fat man has a thin man trying to get out’ – all the talk about size and tons of flesh is less a comment on diet than one on sins.
Quayle was ‘obvious’ in his fatness – made a thing of it in the way fat actors playing the part can’t. It's another, 'All the world's a stage ...' joke.

The BBC’s Merry Wives cast a ‘fat’ Falstaff – and the movement of the body is different. It wasn’t just a matter of the ‘quality’ of the writing (a question of different purposes anyway); it wasn’t quality of performance – it was flesh!

Falstaff’s flesh is metaphorical. You just know when you see the thin actor padded out he will take it off at the end – just as in the Elizabethan religious view, on ‘The Day of Judgement’, the thin good deeds of the man Falstaff will be pulled from the fat sins and weighed against each other in balance.



And:

Who acted Falstaff?

I re-viewed the BBC video and have come to the conclusion it is unlikely Hal was played by Burbage - it is just too small a part.

There are two Big roles - Henry IV and Falstaff.

Anthony Quayle in the BBC played Falstaff really finely - he brought out an intelligence and humanity that isn't often seen when the character is played for laughs - and it did make me question the idea it was a role for Kempe - Bardolf, yes, but Falstaff?

The other thing that popped into my head was the idea of Falstaff's domination of the play - often said to be accidental.

The production managed to balance the two 'father figures' and both dominate Hal - it is almost as if Shakespeare deliberately hides the prince behind these.


Just idle ramblings.

And one more:

The size of the part is one thing that makes me wonder – but that worries me less than the ‘acting’.

Falstaff is funny to watch – in a bitter, black, English humour way – but the acting requires those skills you’d associate with the really big characters – it’s a part ‘that’ll take some acting in the performing of it’ (in the almost immortal words of Bottom). It is not a ‘funny’ – there are several of them around Falstaff – and they last into Henry V – shotten herring (or the hangover after the (k)night before).

It is much deeper than the Twelfth Night drunk, Toby – although there are comparisons to be made.

The other niggle is, as I said in the original post, the idea of the function of Falstaff – he’s there for a didactic purpose, not just entertainment. He balances the King – he makes us question the role models the young prince has – and the role play in the tavern adds another dimension to the comparison.

In part 1 there is also the mirror held up to Hotspur – especially in the honour speech – but he too has his advisers – and I tend to link Falstaff more to them than to Hotspur himself.

Would the Elizabethan theatre use a comedian for this (and they very well might – which should make us rush to inspect all the ‘comedian’ roles)?

The doubling/tripling of parts, the linkages this makes in the minds of the audience and the ‘star’ system all add a dimension to the Elizabethan performances which is (as For -Soothsayer mentions) lost on us.

And if Burbage did play Falstaff – and went on to play Henry V – ohhhh what a tangled knot of implication there! (And what layer of joke in ‘the king hath killed him’ – and he lies in Arthur’s bosom).

I’ll repeat – all idle speculation.