Contemporary+Adaptations+of+Henry+IV,+Part+One

=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__

media type="youtube" key="eii4_wbuPJY" height="344" width="425"

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

media type="youtube" key="cX9-9ae0ymI" height="344" width="425"

__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__:

media type="youtube" key="xA0U0otWuzE" height="344" width="425"

Henry IV News Broadcast by Alex Santangelo and Jack Pfirrman. media type="file" key="Alex and Jack thing1.mp3" width="240" height="20"
=Henry IV Rapmedia type="file" key="Lazy sunday homemade beat.m4a" width="300" height="50"= 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 Lie on the ground (and live tomorrow maybe)
 * It’s all about the acting, baby**

(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= media type="file" key="mobile.m4v" width="300" height="300" Hotspur played by Steph Strouse, Prince Hal played be Shelby Mastrodicasa, Falstaff played by Moo, Camera work by Meg McMahon. [|Samiat's photo essay] [] __Work Cited__:


 * [|Shakespeare in Film]

="W." Reviewed=



=
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.======

=
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======

=
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.======