Falstaff

I watched clips from the 1979 version of Henry IV part two with Anthony Quale as Falstaff and David Gwillum as Hal. Immediately, I was struck by the portrayal of Falstaff beginning in the Hogarthian bar scene. Quale’s Falstaff is, in appearance, a figure comparable to Santa Claus with the large white beard and head of hair thinning on the top. However, Falstaff’s immediate actions are at odds with this jolly appearance. When he picks on Doll Tearsheet, telling her that when she must help make the

Falstaff represents all of the worst aspects of humanity. Shakespeare’s King Henry IV is a powerful exploration of the regressive chivalric values that permeated Elizabethan times, plunging England into a sweeping state of debilitating disrepair, bereft of any sense of morality or integrity. Juxtaposing tavern antics with palace intrigue, Sir John Falstaff epitomizes the prevalent chaos and disorder, bearing no respect for the chivalric honour imbued in all the knights of England. A flamboyant,

It may be hard to see past the physical appearance, but the character of Sir John Falstaff has been described as “-one of the greatest characters in English literature,” per Charles Boyce, author of Shakespeare: The Essential Reference to His Plays, His Life and Times, and More (185). Falstaff may be a strong source of comedic relief, but he has more depth than is often acknowledged in viewing the play. Falstaff not only liberates the audience from the seriousness of the play, but he also gives

Swaggering Soldier. His character from Henry IV Part I, Sir John Falstaff, is modeled after Plautus’s own Pyrgopolynices. In outward behavior, direct correlations between the two characters can be drawn, though ultimately Falstaff proves to be a more complex and complicated character for his emotional and intellectual depth that Pyrgopolynices lacks. Perhaps the most significant defining characteristic for both Pyrgopolynices and Sir John Falstaff, is their lying, boastful behavior. Both characters are notorious

The Character of Falstaff in Henry IV Part I   In Henry IV Part I, Shakespeare presents a collection of traditional heroes. Hotspur’s laudable valor, King Henry’s militaristic reign, and Hal’s princely transformation echo the socially extolled values of the Elizabethean male. Molding themselves after societal standards, these flat characters contrast Sir John Falstaff’s round, spirited personality. Through Falstaff’s unorthodox behavior and flagrant disregard for cultural traditions, Shakespeare

play King Henry IV: Part One, the word becomes ambiguous. The value and interpretation of the theme changes with each character; some consider the framework as praiseworthy while others argue it is completely insignificant. The characters Hotspur, Falstaff, King Henry IV, and Prince Hal present their own understandings of honor which mirror their personalities and consciousness. In comparing and contrasting each of their translations, the character’s true being is better understood. First, honor in

life; his father, King Henry IV, and Sir John Falstaff, his lowlife friend and bar companion. Both men represent two opposite father - figures to the young prince. It is the Prince’s ability to take and acquire the best traits in each that makes him surpass both of them and become great. Prince Hal’s relationship with both men is one of conflict. On one hand, his relationship with his father is tumultuous, while on the other his relationship with Falstaff is confusing. Though it is the main

Study of Falstaff on Film The Character of Sir John Falstaff is an integral part of any adaptation of Shakespeare's "Henry" plays. The treatment of this character effects the way the production will be taken by the audience as the treatment of Falstaff is directly related to the understanding of the character of Prince Hal (later Henry V). Kenneth Branagh's Henry V, the BBC versions of parts one and two of Henry IV, and Orson Welles' amalgamation Chimes at Midnight all show Falstaff in different

father-figures; Henry IV and Falstaff for Prince Hal, and the Earl of Northumberland and the Earl of Worcester for Hotspur. Both father-figures for Hal and Hotspur have obvious good and bad connotations in their influence on the character. For example, Falstaff, in his drinking and reveling,

power to inspire and degrade, William Shakespeare has laced Falstaff with this same innate ability as the very incarnation of charm and a liberator of the human spirit in his play King Henry IV Part I. Loosely based upon the knight John Oldcastle, Falstaff’s significance extends far beyond comic relief, as he becomes the primary vessel through which Shakespeare subtly despatches his erudite commentaries on politics upon his audience. Falstaff is both immortal and immoral, and as a self-interested nominalist