Falstaff

[Tony]

Here's a URL to a fascinating article by a Canadian writer, Robert Fulford. I believe he passed away recently,but was famous as an author, journalist, TV host, editor and film reviewer. For many years he reviewed films under a nom-de-plume "Marshall Delaney", and even published books under that name! (He was incidentally Glenn Gould's next-door-neighbour and boyhood best friend, and produced Gould's first concerts.) This article however is from 2001, and appears under his real name. Interestingly, he mentions Falstaff and Quixote not only as the two great comic stars of the renaissance, but also as opposites with the Don an idealist and Falstaff a realist. Hmmmmmm...

http://www.robertfulford.com/Falstaff.html

[Lance Morrison]

regretfully, i have yet to have seen chimes...I want to more than any other film (along with sunrise)...i dont have multiregion and my player cant be hacked...oh well, at least im not starving.

I've been reading nothing but shakespeare lately, and truely out of all the plays I've read, Richard II, Henry IV pt.1 , and Henry IV pt.2 have been my favourites. There is something very complex and brilliant about these plays that I think takes things hinted at in plays like Julius Caeser to a new level. Falstaff and Hal are wonderful. I can't wait to see Orson play Sir John, and personally I'm glad that he decided to make him less of a comic character, because I like people interpreting dramas differently once in a while... However, I'm surprised that he incorparated Merry Wives of Windsor dialogue, because from what I've read a lot of people find that Falstaff far inferior and many dont even think Shakespeare penned that play. Oh I need to stop going on I havnt even seen the film

thanks for the article

incidently, I don't like Gould,,,nothin personal, it just upsets me that a lot of people only buy his Bach cd's when there are plenty of other fine keyboardists who play the music of old johann. He isnt so great that he deserves that much attention....just an opinion

PEACE

[blunted by community]

i have yet to make it to the henry plays, but richard the III is great. iago, and richard the III are probably the best outtrageous characters william ever came up with. as i'm sure we all know, william's richard bears little or no resemblace to the actual richard.

welles is great in chimes, the direction is sublime. but the gem in chimes is guilgud. the 'uneasy lies the head the wears a crown' verse raises the hairs on my arms every time. and after you watch it a bunch of times and redigest the beauty of the words, and acting, and direction, you become aware of the music under it. also raises the hairs on my arms.

lance, when you finaly get the film, also get the rutgers book of the film. it has a wondeful continuity, and it's great to read along with the film, and it has many many other fine articles, and interviews.

[Lance Morrison]

Of course I've read Othello and would agree with what you've said about Iago...incidentally, I havn't seen Othello either, I've been too worried about seeing the beatrice version.......Richard the III I do hope to get around to, of course after I read Henry V; I love the history plays so much that I have to make sure I read usually a couple of the comedies in between each of them so that I don't over-indulge.

My favourite comedy so far: Love's Labor Lost...

Thanks for the advice on the book, I was wondering if that book was any good or not. I gather from what you say that the sound is not nearly as bad as people have said??? I mean it's confusing to hear such bad things about the sound in chimes and othello and then others seem to find them completely acceptable. both of those films I plan on seeing as soon as I find a decent region 1 dvd or vhs option, which im not sure even exists

cheers

[Michael]

Great discussion going on! Agreements here too on all the Chimes comments. And having played Iago, I would definitely agree that he is one of the more delicious villians. I thought Branagh did pretty well in the Fishburn version, though as a whole I didn't like the film. I loved Ian McKellan's Richard III, though I missed all the massive cuts from the text. Olivier's is fun too. My favorite Shakes comedy is Much Ado.

Thanks!

[Lance Morrison]

You played Iago? that's wonderful, what a part! Lately I have been wanting to do acting, which I havnt ever done before...sadly our area does nothing but musicals (though I'm sure the world will be happier without having to witness my horrific acting abilities ) but I cannot imagine doing an amazing character like Iago, that must have been great

I havn't seen any of Olivier's films completely; the only part I saw was that most infamous of scenes in Hamlet in a comparison with other performances of that scene. Something about that performance struck me as very unappealing...and I really do not like the Branagh version of Hamlet...however, I saw the complete BBC version with Patrick Stewart and Derek Jacobi and was pretty impressed with Derek, I wish I owned that edition (as well as some of the others plays, they're just too bloody expensive)...I also saw their Othello, with Anthony Hopkins, which was pretty good too, even though the guy playing Iago seemed a bit too silly to me

I feel very weary about artists' works that are possibly miss-attributed or are believed to have been heavily revised by someone else...which I know is ridiculous...and for that reason I havn't read Macbeth (even though I know the story) and havn't seen the Welles version; I have read that many scholars believe the existing Macbeth was heavily revised by some of the early performers of the play, and this just bugs me to no end. Of couse the writing is still Shakepeare, and I'm sure that's reason enough to read it/watch it...I'm just hopelessly foolish....Orson's favourite---> King Lear I have been weary of too, because of the two texts that differ so much, I mean I guess most people agree he penned both versions, but still it just makes me very nervous...and of course I'm not sure if I'll ever read the plays that are still being constantly argued about whether of not they're Shakespeare's, like Timon of Athens and The Merry Wives Of Windsor......of course I feel stupid for this, and yet it's the same thing that keeps me from listening to recordings of pieces by J.S. Bach(as well as composers from before him) that people can't decide whether or not he wrote, like even the most famous tocatta and fugue in Dm...

I am curious about Orson's the Merchant of Venice; I am surprised that he would do this play, it just doesn't feel like one that he would like, or maybe it was just me that found it a bit boring compared to comedies like All's Well That Ends Well and Measure For Measure...

ENOUGH RAMBLING, sorry@!

[Michael]

'twasn't rambling at all! Interesting comments. Now, my comments on your comments....

> You played Iago? that's wonderful, what a part!

It is quite a story actually--because I also directed the production! I had another director come in the last two weeks to be my eyes though. It was shaping up to be a really strong production--I liked my cutting, we had a strong cast, etc. But, in the Welles tradition of dealing with adversity, a few days before we opened, the actor playing Othello slowly destroyed the carefully built and beautiful character we had created. Thus destroying any simpathy for him. He didn't think he was changing anything just "getting more intense". By the opening he was a raving bear and destroyed the true tragedy of the piece. Both reviewers panned the show, one saying only this of the title character "mostly bellowed". Oh, it pains me to this day to speak of it! So, I had to completely change my performance. I didn't really hit my stride until the second weekend (in a three week run!). Sigh..... One day I hope to do it again with a Real Othello and just direct it this time. Other roles I've done are Hamlet, Benedick (Much Ado), and Oberon/Thesius (Midsummer).

>the only part I saw was that most infamous of scenes in >Hamlet in a comparison with other performances of that >scene. Something about that performance struck me as very >unappealing...

I like the film but totally disagree with his interp of the character.

>and I really do not like the Branagh version of >Hamlet...

Same thing here, liked the film, with some exceptions, but disliked his performance.

>however, I saw the complete BBC version with Patrick >Stewart and Derek Jacobi and was pretty impressed with >Derek,

It's been a while but I recall this was my favorite as far as the performances. Though I think the Gibson film works well as does Kevin Klines. By the way, I have an amazing video store near me that may well have Jacobi's Hamlet, if you'd like to do a trade for a dub...

>I also saw their Othello, with Anthony Hopkins, which was >pretty good too, even though the guy playing Iago seemed >a bit too silly to me

Didn't care for Hopkins--didn't convince me he was a general, though his soft moments were all right. And yes, Bob Hoskins' Iago is very poor. Not a good role for him!

>I feel very weary about artists' works that are possibly miss->attributed or are believed to have been heavily revised by >someone else...

Interesting point of view. Why such a purist?

> I have read that many scholars believe the existing >Macbeth was heavily revised by some of the early >performers of the play, and this just bugs me to no end.

I have not heard this. Doesn't Macbeth exist in in the first folio?

>King Lear I have been weary of too, because of the two >texts that differ so much, I mean I guess most people agree >he penned both versions,

I don't remember this either.... But I'm several years from my college days. More details please.

I'm definitely not a purist. If the work/adaptation stands, it doesn't really matter to me if it is completely faithful to the original. Remember, most of Shakespeares plots are borrowed and he certainly took liberties with history. Had he not added his vision to dramatizing real events, or taken a tired old plot and breathed new life into it, we would not have the works we have now. Every artist borrows, changes, molds, edits from his predecessors. Orson's "War of the Worlds" is a prime example--imagine our loss if they felt beholden to stick to the original book. However, I'm not really fond of high concept Shakespeare in Theatre (it is really going overboard), because it frequently becomes more about the concept than the text and story. That is why Orson's work so well, he takes ideas of the play and makes them into his vision without sacrificing the integrity or the beauty of the original. Do check out his Macbeth by the way...

>I am curious about Orson's the Merchant of Venice;

Me too. Have only seen the clips of it and it does seem an odd choice for him.

Thanks!

[Welles Fan]

The only Othello that totally blows me away is Olivier's. I wish a widescreen version of the film of the stage adaptaion he did was available. To me, Othello must appear as a very strong, impressive figure, if Iago's felling of him is to be impressive. I agree the Hopkins versionnwas poor, with Hopkins reduced to growling and uttering animal noises. Larry Fishburne was too young, and should try it again when he's older.

I hated the Kevin Kline Hamlet, and Gibson's was unremarkable. I like Olivier's, film, though. Olivier's Hamlet is not Shakespeare's Hamlet, but is a wonderfully conceived movie, IMO.

An intersting Hamlet is the very short version by Tony richardson, with Nicol Williamson as Hamlet and Anthony Hopkins as the King.

Michael, I love the Jacobi Hamlet. I think Branagh's Hamlet is so influenced by Jacobi that I see a lot of jacobi in Branagh. Though Branagh picks up some narccissistic qualities in the character I never noticed.

An interesting tape series I have that might be of interest: The Wars of the Roses from 1963. This is a black and white TV adaptation of the RSC compilation of the 3 Henry VI plays and Richard III. They cut a lot, mainly from Henry VI. Part one. The cast includes David Warner as Henry VI, Ian Holm as Richard III, Peggy Ashcroft as Queen Margaret, and Donald Sinden as York. Lots of other good actors are in it, too.

[Michael]

> The only Othello that totally blows me away is Olivier's.

Amazinly I've never seen all of it. With what I have seen I was very impressed and thought ol' Larry was quite amazing--especially the voice. Must watch it all the way through one of these days.

>Larry Fishburne was too young, and should try it again when >he's older.

Maybe. He seems to be getting more one note in his acting as he gets older. Too much success perhaps. He's still a strong presence on screen though and very focused.

> I hated the Kevin Kline Hamlet,

Interesting! Love the fact that Hamlet always brings out strong opinions in people--certainly me included!

> and Gibson's was unremarkable.

He was all right I thought. I just thought the film itself was pretty well done. Interesting juggling of some scenes.

> An intersting Hamlet is the very short version by Tony
> richardson, with Nicol Williamson as Hamlet and Anthony
> Hopkins as the King.

Will catch that also one day.

> Though Branagh picks up some narccissistic qualities in the > character I never noticed.

Agreed.

I do agree with Welles on his point about Hamlet not being a good man--he tries to be a good man and does struggle with his morality, but still makes some very poor choices--fully aware of what he is doing. Though disagree with Orson's comments that Hamlet is an anti-feminist play. See, I slipped a Welles comment in the post!

Thanks! Michael

[Lance Morrison]

Michael....wow, you directed the play too, that is amazing. But it is awful that guy deconstructed the character...I mean it is often said how Iago truely is a better character than Othello but without a good person playing Othello, Iago becomes much less interesting. In my opinion at least. The only Shakepeare we've had around here in years was taming of the shrew, and that really dissappoints me because Orson has got me really interested in theatre...but good luck on getting to do Othello again! Wish I could see it!

Okay, now the only source I have handy to reference right now is the pelican edition of his complete works....
Macbeth: it was indeed published in the first folio of 1623, but rather than based on Shakepeare's manuscript from 1605 or so (which no longer exists) it is based on a revision, speculated to be the script used by the King's Men shortly after William's death. One of the main reasons for this conclusion is that the parts of the witches seem to be elaborated, namely the songs, which were part of a play written by thomas middleton 1610-1615, The Witch...in the folio version only the opening words of these songs were used, but a 1664 version of the play had the whole text even though The Witch was unpublished until thre 1700's, so it is hypothesized that the rest of the words were gathered from actual performances by the King's Men of Macbeth, the players having in some way been association with Middleton and adapting the songs to Shakespeare's play. Witchcraft and related subjects were very popular interests during te early 1600's, and so this was likely added to increase interest in the play. Beyond this, it is considered strange that Shakespeare created such a short play, much shorter than almost all of his others. It is hypothesized that besides the elaboration of the witch's parts, cuts and pasting were done to the script for performance, making the narrative more confusing than is usual for Shakepeare. Of course these arguments may not sound that strong, but heck Shakepeare scholars know more than me so I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt...

King Lear exists in a 1609 quatro and of course the 1623 folio...the quatro has 285 lines including a whole scene which were not in the folio, and the folio has 115 lines which were not in the quatro. There are a lot of smaller differences too...usually it has become standard to combine the texts./.

Hey, I would appreciate a duplicate of the Jacobi Hamlet very much so, but I do not have a lot to trade...I do have some classic movies that I wouldn't mind copying for you...

I have nothing against reinterpretations, ala Welles, in fact I think they can often be wonderful and enlightening....I just like to know the original version of something before I experience someone's revision, ya know? Like the people who play Bach on grand pianos with all sorts of dynamics and lots of rubato (i.e. pausing a lot to give the music a more improvisational feel), I mean I think there is definately merit to that, but I also think that hearing the keyboard works on a single-manual harpsichord (which is incapable of dynamics) and keeping the momentem going, all of which are more how they were played in Bach's day, shouldnt be forgotten.

I'm amazed you have played Hamlet too! I'm actually reading it right now, which althought I have seen that performance with Jacobi as the prince I havn't personally read it. Did you know that there are three Hamlet sources...a first quatro, a second quatro, and the folio edition. The first is VERY short and has a different plot order too, and lacks the political aspects that are in the second quatro....the second quatro is widely believed to be the edition which is the most complete and has had the least revision by performers, which some say are quite evident in the folio, which has 70 lines not in 2nd quatro and is missing 230 that quatro 2 has.

anyway, I'll shut up! I found a copy on video of chimes that I might get...and as much as I dont want to i might just have to buy beatrice's Othello, ewwww!

Also, I love Orson's comment about how Hamlet could be a young John Falstaff

[Noel Shane]

For the general Shakespeare discussion going on here... a recent interview with Harold Bloom (in light of his new book-length essay on Hamlet), which some might find interesting:

http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/interviews/int2003-07-16.htm

[Michael]

Lance,

> Michael....wow, you directed the play too, that is amazing. >But it is awful that guy deconstructed the character...

Yeah it was tough to take. Though, friends who saw it didn't think he was that bad. But as a director/actor it was tough to take. I actually Wanted Othello to be the better character and actually cut a bunch of Iago's lines. I wanted to show the destruction of a basically good man. A man that was flawed because of his lack of knowledge outside of war. Instead, we got a raging bear that looked like an idiot (gee can you tell it still smarts to talk about it?!). At least the rest of the cast was strong and it didn't phase our Desdemona much. Anyhow, I'll do it again maybe one day.....

> Wish I could see it!

Well.... I do have a video tape of the show, though as you know taped stage plays are tough to watch. But, it was filmed (I think) the second or third weekend, so as I remember it came out ok.

> Okay, now the only source I have handy to reference right >now is the pelican edition of his complete works....
>Macbeth: it was indeed published in the first folio of 1623,

Thanks for this information. I didn't know all this background. Interesting stuff! Especially about Middleton's The Witch. Pity we don't know what the original looked like. Actors, sheesh! Always trying to pad their parts.... LOL

>King Lear exists in a 1609 quatro and of course the 1923

Haven't studied Lear really, just read it a couple of times. Love the play. Should I ever do it, though I get nervous thinking of trying to find someone to play Lear, I certainly would combine the two versions.

> Hey, I would appreciate a duplicate of the Jacobi Hamlet

OK, next time I go to my favorite video store, I will look for it!

>I'm amazed you have played Hamlet too!

Out of the Shakespeares I've done, I am most proud of this production. The entire cast was very strong and I really connected to the character. Though I still had problems with a few cast members (pacing) all in all the show came off excellently, in my opinion. The video of it came off better than the others.

>Did you know that there are three Hamlet sources...a first >quatro, a second quatro, and the folio edition.

I did know this. Actually, several years back I was in the US premier of the horrible first quarto version. I played Marcellus and other small roles. I really didn't care for it and I'm pretty convinced that it is a pirated version by some those who acted it originally. The version showed the differences in the second q. and folio edition together, so it was very easy to edit that way. Not to say that cutting Hamlet is easy! Our show ran about 2 hours 45 minutes with the intermission.

>to buy beatrice's Othello, ewwww!

Well, I bought it before I heard all the uproar about it. I love it, but unfortunately, I still haven't see the Laserdisc version of it that has the un"restored" version.

>Also, I love Orson's comment about how Hamlet could be a >young John Falstaff

Actually he was refering to someone else that suggested that and actually he disagreed with it. It's in the Orson Welles Interview book. He says that didn't work for him because Falstaff is very good man and that Hamlet was not.

Thanks! Michael

[Lance Morrison]

From Orson Welles Almanac, New York Post, February 6, 1945
¶ Not long before he was killed, the Prince of Denmark visited England. Suppose he'd stayed there and avoided the ghosts and graveyards (he didnt like them anyway), and lived to be old and fat....Did he change his name?...
¶ Shakepeare's great people, in their great moments, are transported with a high and passionate revulsion at the wickedness of the world. All except Hamlet. Exiled from tragedy and living sinfully in London, he laughs at the world, and it's the greatest laughter in our language. We catch him only once without a joke. "I am old," says John Falstaff of Elisnore. "...I am old."
¶ The good life is about to be the death of him. He's ruined himself, but it's been fun. Hamlet or Falstaff--call him what you will--only regretted his sins because there weren't more of them.
¶ Shakepeare, a sociable sort who liked to trade gags with the boys at the Mermaid, surely wished that Hamlet could have joined him for a drink after the show. I think Falstaff is Hamlet--an old and wicked Hamlet--having that drink...

...now that was an excerpt which was placed in the midst of Falstaff conversation with Bogdonavich in This Is Orson Welles, and from how it is inserted in the book and how it is from the orson welles almanac, I figured it was one of his own writings...perhaps he changed his mind in later years???

I do really have a problem seeing Falstaff as a good man and Hamlet as not...I love them both, but to me Hamlet is the better man...Falstaff, I don't know, he's very much a C.F. Kane in my eyes, wanting love but not having any to give...

And hey, dont really worry about the Hamlet video...I mean it's not that I do not want it, I really do, and I also am curious about your own Hamlet!! but I do not have a lot of good stuff to trade. The only tradable thing I have of Welles is The Fountain of Youth, also with the TV version (Huston I believe?) of King Lear in which he played the title role. If you're interested in any classic and foreign films from other directors, i (and my neighbor, who I kind of pool my collection with) have a small but high quality collection with directors like bergman, kubrick, herzog, renoir, godard, mizoguchi, scorsese, etc...so just let me know what I can do for ya!

Thanks for the great conversation, I wish I could be an actor and director like you
PEACE

[Michael]

FUN DISCUSSION! Thanks for the TIOW quote. Interesting that he took different views!

OK, back to the Hamlet/Falstaff Welles Quotes from the Orson Welles Interview book.

from Richard Marienstras interview 1974 -- "OW: ...Once someone wrote that Falstaff was a Hamlet who never returned from his exile in England, and became old and corpulent. The truth of Falstaff is that Shakespeare understood him better than the other great characters he created, because Falstaff was obiged to sing for his suppers. He had to earn everything he ate by making people laugh. It's not that he was funny; he had to be funny I think that in all of Shakespeare, he's the only good man. ..... I think that Falstaff is the only great imaginary character who is truly good. His faults are so minor. No one is perfect, and he's filled with imperfections, physical and moral defects, but the essential part of his nature is his goodness. That's the theme of allthe plays he appears in."

from Bazin, Bitsch and Domarchi Interview 1958--Orson: "Hamlet is a villain, without a doubt, because he wants to kill his uncle without allowing his soul to be saved. Think of the relish with which he describes the burder of Rosencrantz: he's a villain. Despite everything else he may be, Renaissance man, Shakespeare, all the things that have been written about him, he is nonetheless a swine. All Shakespeare's great characters are swine: they are forced to be"

> but to me Hamlet is the better man...Falstaff

Have to disagree here. Hamlet lies to his friends, wants to kill his uncle without his soul being saved (same thing his uncle did to his father), abuses the woman he loves and his mother, sends his friends off to be killed, and attempts to kill his uncle in front of his mother (not knowing of course that it is Polonius) and shows little regret in doing so afterward. Though one can always justify actions due to extreme circumstances, these are not the actions of a truly moral and just man--for all his vast intellect and pondering, he allows himself to react in bursts of emotion that end up hurting or killing other people. And there's my 2 cents worth!

>I don't know, he's very much a C.F. Kane in my eyes, >wanting love but not having any to give...

Agreed on this Falstaff view, except that I do beleve he had love to give--just showed it in different ways. However, his actions of being a lovable swindler are hard to justify him being the only truely good Shakespearean man. But then again.... Interesting thoughts here!

>And hey, dont really worry about the Hamlet video...I mean >it's not that I do not want it, I really do, and I also am >curious about your own Hamlet!!

Oh, we'll work something out.... Send me a private message.

>Thanks for the great conversation, I wish I could be an >actor and director like you

Hey, it's never too late to start! All it takes is other people willing to go on an adventure with you! If you have a passion for it, go for it! Get involved! The theatre world needs people who are passionate.

Thanks! Michael

[Lance Morrison]

wow, thanks for the quote from a 70's Welles...quite a difference of opinion, he seems to think more of falstaff and less of hamlet, whereas before he was kind of in the middle.

I suppose my opinion of Hamlet has been much coloured by the Jacobi performance, which made him seem somewhat more likeable... I mean now that I read it myself, he does seem like a crueler person...I'm still not sure though, I need to read more, because he is very much an enigma to me

I think Shakespeare's great characters are so flawed that none of them can be said to be better men than the others...I mean many of them do seem to be good at heart, and they also can often seem to be quite witty, but then they go off and do something that makes us realize they are no better than any of the other characters...or something like that...agghhh I am not nearly as knowledgable as I try to sound

And I would love to get involved with theatre. Truely. I just cannot stand the musicals that are performed here. I think a musical can be good, I mean I like music and I like theatre, so they should go together, but in their popular form which mocks various music idioms, I just cannot find appeal. Now, if you had characters who expressed themselves through jazz improvisation or classical performance, that could be great...but then the actors would have to be really talented musicians instead of people who can just sing (not to put down the abilities of vocalists)...I guess this is starting to sound more like opera or pretentious performance art, but hey I'm just dreaming...... at least they could have a decent storyline and no cheesy cliched songs.........The traditional Japanese theatre forms (i.e. kabuki, noh) have music thoroughly integrated into the drama, however I have yet to have seen these performed, I've only read about them and read some of the plays.

BUT when there is a drama here at the theatre (where I happen to work...), I will be involved somehow!

Also, I have not heard any of Orson's audio Shakespeare
julius caesar
http://www.amazon.com/exec....s=music
merchant of venice
http://www.amazon.com/exec....4963203
twelfth night
http://www.amazon.com/exec....s=music
...I do not know if these are any good or not, but they are quite expensive for me, even though I am quite interested

Incidentally, I was surprised to find when flipping through the timeline in This Is Orson Welles that he actually did a version of Hamlet for radio, his own adaptation for the Columbia Workshop in 1935; I'm not sure if he was credited or not for this, but in any case I would quite like to hear it

thanks, PEACE ALL