April 20, 1998

In the director's notes section of the Orlando-UCF Shakespeare Festival playbill, director Russell Treyz admits to some trepidation whenever approaching one of the bard's History Plays - "Will my History teacher suddenly leap up in the front row and begin grilling me on the details of the English Monarchy?" As an audience member, I must admit that I too am usually wrought with similar dread, albeit to a much lesser degree than a director must be. Should I buy Cliff Notes? I knew I shouldn't have sold my Western Civ II textbook at that garage sale. Is this guy that guy's brother? Who is the walrus? Why do there have to be so many damn Richards, Henrys, and Edwards, anyway? Why couldn't they throw in a Ned or a Pete or a Keanu every once in a while? As it turns out, Treyz needn't have worried, and neither should I have, for that matter. While this interpretation of Henry IV, Part 1 sticks to the standard historical period and setting one would expect from a Shakespeare Festival (unlike the inspired burst of creativity that informs A Midsummer Night's Dream), it is nonetheless an admirably well-crafted show. Russell Treyz succeeds in making a play of Shakespeare's oft-feared variety entertaining and accessible to a contemporary audience.

In a nutshell, Henry IV is about a faction of various nobles plotting to rebel against the newly-crowned King Henry (or, the artist formerly known as Bolingbroke), as he has not returned them the favors they have shown in helping him usurp the throne from Richard II. King Henry is also concerned about his son, Prince Hal, who shirks his princely duties in favor of living a life of drunken debauchery with Sir John Falstaff and the rest of the thieving rogues at the Boar's Head tavern.

The acting is quite good overall, most notably in the case of Ron Schneider as Falstaff. This character, like Bottom in Midsummer, is another great crowd pleaser of the Shakespearean universe, and seems pre-destined for closer inspection and attention, even on the page. Schneider breathes even more wonderful life into the character, and exudes robust vitality and bawdy fun whether expounding at length his grossly exaggerated tales of heroism or simply snoozing off a hangover upstage. With his rich booming voice, thick grey beard, and jolly girth, it seems a role Schneider was born to play. As Prince Hal, Tom Huston diplays nice emotional range and finds the right subtle shadings of humanity to make the character real. Robert Lee Martini deftly plays Henry with the regal demeanor befitting a king iandi the vulnerability of an ordinary man. Also noteworthy is Michael Nichols, as Hotspur, one of the rebelling nobles, whose lust for life and genuine bravado serve as an interesting equal-but-opposite counterpoint to the energetic buffoonery of Falstaff.

The costumes - designed by Nancy Leary - in addition to pleasing the eye, also serve as effective tools to convey social status and allegiance without being too much like uniforms. This made the plot easier to follow without "dumbing it down". (Although I did notice that a couple of the actors were wearing - EEK! - denim jeans under their tunics, but hey, that's the price you pay for having killer seats. If you're in the $6 section, disregard that last complaint.)

Okay, so here comes my big "But". No, not the one that follows a couple of paces behind me and likes the feel of corduroy. I'm talking about my numero uno gripe about an otherwise fine production - the music. No, I'm not talking about the generous soul with the boombox at Lake Eola who was apparently attempting to rouse the long-slumbering corpse of William Shakespeare himself with a 100 decibel interlude of Jamiroquai's "Virtual Insanity" (thanks, buddy, and The Bard says hey!). I'm talking about the 1980's Queen-meets-Survivor guitar rock that punctuates the action of the play, especially the swordfighting scenes. Now, I'm not exactly one of these lutes-n-flutes historical purists or anything, but the music just really didn't gell with the tone of the play. I understand the intent behind using the music to engage and excite a modern audience, and if you're someone who saw and enjoyed all the Highlander movies maybe you'll disagree, but I just found it distracting. At one point, the combination of guitar rock, guys with swords, and intermittent bursts from a fog machine made me feel like I was at a Spinal Tap concert. Will the dwarves crush the 18-inch Stonehenge? Will the bass player escape from his pod in time for his solo? Now that's drama.

All kidding aside, Henry IV, Part 1 is definitely worth seeing, even if the battle scenes at the end leave you with a Velveeta kind of feeling. Who knows, maybe this is done intentionally to demonstrate the absurdity of violence and underscore Falstaff's contention that honor and valor through combat are essentially useless and hollow virtues. And in this increasingly violent and senseless world, is that such a bad message to present?

Jim Gunshanan is filmwriter looking to support himself in doing what he loves. He likes Indian food and music. Other Articles I've Written