The Outstanding Performance of Prince Hal

As William Shakespeare wrote As You Like It, “All the world’s a stage,/ And all the males and women merely players./ They have their exits and their entrances/ And 1 man in his time plays several parts.” Shakespeare additional adds to this philosophy upon introducing young Prince Hal in his play Henry IV Part 1. Hal adopts several personas ranging from the “noble” to the “degenerate” (Barber 54). He is capable to wittingly run this gamut of personalities on his way to inheriting the throne via manipulation of what he learns from observing King Richard II, his father King Henry IV, and his own political stratagem. His ultimate wisdom-the realization that “makes” Hal-is that the function of king is small more than a functionality for the public, thereby implying that the king himself is tiny much more than an actor. Via King Henry IV’s assessment of Hal’s actions in light of each Richard’s and his own rule, Hal discovers that a king is a performer that must choose what kind of persona he wants to reveal to the public. In addition, in light of his early associations with John Falstaff, Hal embodies the role of the “traditional prodigal son,” full with degenerate and bibulous cronies to tempt him into wrongdoings (Barber 54). Even though each King Henry and Hal recognize that this current life of carelessness and ill-repute do little to prepare him for the throne, Hal is a crafty young man, worldly in his perception of a leader’s role before his public.

An actor have to not be too intimate with his audience in order to establish himself and his actions as somehow separate from the commonplace, the banal. According to King Henry IV, Richard II’s tragic flaw was that he “grew a companion to the common streets, enfeoffed himself to popularity” (HIV1.III.ii.68-69). He too often appeared in the public eye, thereby stripping himself of that mystery and respect that a king need to demand from his audience. A king need to be observed just sufficient to make the public intrigued, however allow sufficient enigma to yield a sense of wonder. Moreover, an actor’s functionality is a marriage between speech and action. Therefore, the “pathos of the loss of meaning” and position as king is emphasized in moments when “word and gesture, name and physique, no longer go collectively,” such as when the ousted Richard looks in a mirror at his reflection to find the “meaning the face has lost” by losing his kingship (Barber 68). Even though Richard performed his function as king to the greatest of his ability with flair and ostentation, he neglected to earn the respect of his audience, thereby leading to his downfall.

In contrast, an actor need to also establish a particular level of familiarity with the audience to win more than their affections and establish a sense of connectedness. After getting witnessed the blunders of Richard’s reign, Henry was cautious to make his reign “seldom but sumptuous” (HIV1.III.ii.58). Because of this concern, Henry never really establishes a recognizable persona with his audience, becoming as a result enshrouded in mystery. His anonymity is represented for the duration of the Battle of Shrewsbury wherein he “survives due to the fact he has numerous marching in his coats, and all through a political career where…he manipulates the symbols of majesty” (Barber 63). Even Shakespeare’s audience has little respect for Henry simply because he takes so little notice of his son, save to admonish him for his wrongdoings. Falstaff, the foolish alcoholic but confidante, rather than Henry often gains more of a father-like billing to Hal. Hal feels as although a wiser ruler would be 1 who is each aloof and connected to the public so that there is a separation in between the king’s role and the audience’s role but there remains a real partnership and communication among the two.

Despite the fact that Hal has studied the scripts offered by Richard II and Henry IV, he should experiment with is personal character development and understand from his own errors. Hal occupies his time at the local pub with typical thieves and prostitutes, losing his “princely privilege with vile participation” (HIV1.III.ii.86). His plan is to establish a reputation of folly and immorality in order to reduce the expectations of those around him-only to later impress them with his seemingly overnight adoption of reliability. Essentially, Falstaff, symbol of Hal’s adolescent irresponsibility, is “merely a pastime to be dismissed in due course” (Barber 54). Simply because Hal manipulates Falstaff in order to produce a persona, it becomes apparent that the young prince is conscious that he need to play a portion for the public. “The prince is creating a fresh start off as the new king” by casting off his old buddy Falstaff (Barber 64). Upon conquering Hotspur at the Battle of Shrewsbury, Hal lastly gains the component of the noble king. As he stands over the slain bodies of each Hotspur, representative of self-sacrifice and nobility, and Falstaff, representative of Hal’s former life, there exists a sense of function-alter. He is recast from fool to prince.

Being aware of that a king is nothing more than an actor is Hal’s ultimate wisdom because the attainment and overall performance of that part is his motivation all through the complete play. As he observes the shortcomings of each Richard II’s and Henry IV’s performances, he begins with a common concept of the sort of king he wants to be. Even though he has his shortcomings all through his youth, they serve only to establish him as human, a sort of “everyman.” Even so, his ability to rise above these mistakes is the characteristic that earns his public’s respect. In the finish, his functionality renders him each familiar and astounding and, judging from his reception in Shakespeare’s time, earned him rave reviews.