Modern Adaptations of King Henry IV Part 1

W Rap -

Chimes at Midnight

The movie Chimes at Midnight is one of the adaptations of the play Henry IV, Part One. The adaptation is made up of scenes from Henry IV, Part One as well as Richard II, Henry IV Part Two, Henry V and The Merry Wives of Windsor. It was filmed in the USA in 1967, and was filmed by Orson Welles (director), who also played Falstaff.

The trailer for Chimes at Midnight



This is the scene where Harry Percy (aka Hotspur) is killed




My Own Private Idaho


The movie My Own Private Idaho is a modern adaptation of the play Henry IV, Part One, that is loosely based on the play. It was filmed in the USA in 1991 by Gus Van Sant.

The trailer for the movie My Own Private Idaho:


Kate Percy's plea to her Hotspur by Shelly Deroski.

Henry IV News Broadcast by Alex Santangelo and Jack Pfirrman.

Henry IV Rap

Lyrics:

Falstaff wakes up in the late afternoon
Calls Prince Hal to see how he’s doin' (Hello?)
What up, Hal? (Yo Falstaff what’s crackin?)
You thinking what I’m thinking? (Shakspeare) man it’s happenin
(But first let’s get started fighting some rebels)
Let’s hit up Glendower and rip on his evil spells
(No doubt that Glendower’s got all the bomb magic)
We goin to give it to him, it’s goin to be tragic

(Harry) Hotspur (Henry) Lancaster!
Too many rulers could be a disaster
(Who is goin to be the next king) Hal it going to be you
(Well let’s hit up the Rebels it’s time to pursue)
I prefer taking naps (those are fun too)
Drinking sack is the best (true dat) Double True!
68th to the castle (step on it horse)
what’cha wanna do Hal? (Join the attack of coarse)

Chorus
It’s the henry the 4th Shakespearian rap.
We love the henry the 4th Shakespearian rap.
What is the henry the 4th Shakespearian rap?
It’s the henry the 4th Shakespearian rap.



Let’s make people dress up, like the king
(The mighty Douglas) can’t tell the real thing
(Don’t want Douglas to get suspicious!)
Douglas vs. Henry equals crazy Malicious
(yo Henry fights hard, to no avail)
it is his son Hal who has to prevail
It’s all about the acting, baby
Lie on the ground (and live tomorrow maybe)

(Roll up to the battle) Hotspur who we hunting
(you can call us Parenthood) from the way we confronting
(we look in the fight and we spy Hotspur)
we can fight one on one if you prefer
(I fought to hard it was scary)
Stupid Henry there was no night-tripping Fairy
But Falstaff got all the recognition
( now were on top with no more rebel opposition)

Chorus

Cathy's iMovie


Battle Scene

Hotspur played by Steph Strouse, Prince Hal played be Shelby Mastrodicasa, Falstaff played by Moo, Camera work by Meg McMahon.
Samiat's photo essay
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_NDuB0oGHGYU/S5e6d6y9qOI/AAAAAAAAAmo/0EoLB0KYVj0/s1600-h/wiki+project+1.jpeg
Work Cited:


"W." Reviewed



w_movie_poster.jpg

I was hard pressed to find any source of demand for a movie to e released about the 43rd president of the United Sates, however one was still released.“W”, directed by Oliver Stone, was not necessarily a bad film, it just did not engage the audience or really present any new or thought provoking ideas. This is not to say that the film did not have any incredible scenes and performances, but it was not very entertaining and I often found myself dozing off. Before deciding to toss this movie to the curb and watch some TV instead, watch it instead to decipher the commonalities it shares with Shakespeare's Henry IV Part 1.
One of the most irritating and confusing choices made by the director, was to not follow Bush's life in chronological order, but instead to jump around from event to event.The movie starts out with the President and his advisers talking about military strategies post 9/11, and then moves back to Bush’s college days at Yale, and then back again to him as an oilman, and so on. Needlessly traveling through time just leads to confusing and irritation. Why couldn’t the director just stay focused? This is not a huge flaw with the movie, just a terrible creative choice, but it can be overlooked. More directorial errors come with a lot of needless repetition. This is especially true when there are flashbacks of Bush standing in the Rangers field looking into the stands with a look of deep emotion and though on his face. Stone is simply trying to force unneeded symbolism onto the viewer and try to get them to think that he is a “deep” thinker. The most probable reason for doing this would be to show the viewer how all aspects of W’s life are related to a game, such as showmanship, and performance. While this may be true, coming back to the field for the sixth or seventh time halfway into the movie just begins to get irritating and useless.
Another serious writing and directing flaw was that there was no side taken by film. Bush haters and Bush supporters will neither despise or praise the film,
and instead look towards it with gazes of mediocrity. If Stone had decided to embrace either the fans or supports of Bush, the film could have been more subjective
and entertaining, taking leaps that no one had thought of. Instead, the film decides to repackage ideas covered in multitudes of books
and articles already, adding to the multitudes of repetition.
“W” does have some redeeming qualities. John Broling, who portrays George W. Bush, had an incredible performance in the movie. It was quite
possibly one of the best of the year. Broling was able to infuse emotion and purpose into every word and action he preformed. His costuming was superb as well, mimicking
Bush at all stages of his life. However, there is always a nagging feeling coming back as you watch the movie. Even though the acting is superb, Broling does not have the quirky and odd face of the actual Bush, making the disparities between the two ever present.

Now onto its relation towards Henry IV Part 1.

If one is looking to find a modern day adaptation of Henry IV Part 1, than this would not be the movie. Even though the film has certain characteristics of the play, it does not mirror the play completely.
The largest comparison between the two would be the similarities between Prince Hal and George W. Bush. Both of these characters are pressured by their fathers to reach political positions they are not
yet ready to take and associate with the "wrong" sort of people. Then they both eventually settle down from their partying lifestyle and set out to accomplish the wishes of their fathers.
Both pieces also contain a Falstaffian character or ideal, for Henry IV, it is obviously Sir John Falstaff. Bush has a more abstract influence; it is the power of political rise, which ends up corrupting Bush. Beyond this basic story arc, the film and play are quite different and each utilizes a variety of different themes, symbols, and messages.
“W.” is a decent movie, but do not set out to watch it to be entertained, but instead to be educated. It is entirely devoid of huge explosions and crude jokes, making it very hard for most teenagers or children to watch, catering more to an adult and student audience. Looking at all of the errors of this film, I would have to give it a 6.5 out of 10.