Hollow Crown這個帝王三部曲里，讀原著時我最喜歡的就是《亨利四世》，《理查二世》有極為華麗的辭藻和精心雕琢的大段獨白，把語言的魔力發(fā)揮到了極致，《亨利五世》有君王氣勢雄渾大氣磅礴的戰(zhàn)前宣言，讀來汪洋恣肆酣暢淋漓，但我最愛的還是《亨利四世》里Prince Hal成長的故事。從終日流連酒肆與市井之徒廝混的浪子到獨撐寰宇的英武帝王，Hal的成長歷程動人心魄，想到他失去了的，割舍掉的，又難免扼腕嘆息。

《亨利四世》改編電影的難度要小于《理查二世》，從兩片的對比來看，前者的完成度也確實更高一些?！独聿槎馈穼?dǎo)演的個人風(fēng)格過于明顯，加上原劇本身人物刻畫重點集中，使得片子更像是小本展現(xiàn)個人驚人才華的舞臺?！逗嗬氖馈犯叨冗€原原著，敘事結(jié)構(gòu)嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)中有創(chuàng)新，深入刻畫了多個人物豐滿的形象，其中Falstaff無疑是極為濃墨重彩的一筆。Simon Russell Beale的表演令人贊嘆，把那個既狂妄又懦弱，自私虛偽卻又惹人開懷的大胖子演得活靈活現(xiàn)。Hal對Falstaff的感情很復(fù)雜，一方面他排斥生父亨利四世父權(quán)的威儀，盡力逃避宮廷權(quán)謀傾軋，所以對于和父親完全相反，頹廢荒唐活潑有趣的Falstaff不自禁地親近向往；一方面Hal本性高貴，他也不齒于Falstaff虛偽懦弱的一面，況且Hal深知胡天胡帝的日子總有盡頭，表面墮落心中清明的他自己也有意無意間樹立了一道心理防線，不能放任自己對Falstaff的感情過于深厚。抖森把Hal這種復(fù)雜而糾結(jié)的心理表現(xiàn)得深入且細(xì)膩，他和Simon Russell Beale聯(lián)手奉獻(xiàn)了本片最令人拍案叫絕的兩場精彩表演之一——小酒館里的戲中戲即興劇。對父王惟妙惟肖的模仿，面對Falstaff的懇求猶豫不忍，終于回絕，細(xì)微的表情和眼神拿捏得精準(zhǔn)微妙。

另一場精彩對戲是Prince Hal Summoned to Court一幕。鐵叔老戲骨了不用說，把一位君王面對叛臣四起的焦慮憂心、對繼承人不肖的憤恨和一位父親對荒唐兒子的惱火無奈疼愛完美糅合在一起，舉手投足眉間眼角渾身是戲?。。。。∟C粉自重﹁_﹁） 抖森面對前輩的精湛演技也不怯場，被掌摑后的驚愧羞憤，面對父親對自己的失望和心灰意冷，從一閃而過的受傷眼神，到心痛再到堅定決絕的誓言，抖森的把握非常到位。

Northumberland陣營中，Percy的選角很棒，活脫脫就是我想象中的那個勇武但少策謀的霹靂火。他夫人讓大小姐來演有點出乎我意料，不過效果出奇地好，兩人的對戲花火四濺張力十足。

戰(zhàn)爭場面略過不談，BBC你是有多缺經(jīng)費(fèi)?。?nèi)戰(zhàn)就是這種兩個村打群架級別的場面么抹淚！?д?
      
在戰(zhàn)役末尾有個最令我心碎的片段——當(dāng)Hal以為Falstaff戰(zhàn)死時他是真心傷痛哀悼，而Falstaff卻用厚顏無恥的謊言搶奪Hal殺死Percy的功績，致使Hal對他徹底失望灰心，舍棄對他的感情。這里Hal先是完全怔住了，一臉難以置信的表情，最后用一個無奈的生硬笑容最后一次縱容了Falstaff的謊言，他的眼神里完全沒有笑意，此后也再未正眼看過Falstaff一眼。
Falstaff這個角色真是讓人愛恨交加又無可奈何，前一幕他可以詼諧逗趣引人發(fā)笑，轉(zhuǎn)過身又暴露出虛偽無恥的一面讓你恨得牙根癢癢。我在讀原著時從來不能肯定他到底是怎樣看待Hal，到底對他有沒有真誠的感情。有時候我覺得這個大胖子并不像看上去那樣腦滿腸肥終日昏昏，他精明世故看得比誰都清楚，因此對Hal或許真就沒什么感情可言，即使有，也都被他自己壓制掉了。
而Hal，盡管開篇他就有一番“眾人皆醉我獨醒”的獨白，表明這些放浪形骸的行徑都是自己刻意為之的韜光養(yǎng)晦之策，但他畢竟年輕心熱，排斥父親的同時潛意識里必然仍舊渴望有個父輩的Figure相伴，F(xiàn)alstaff正好填補(bǔ)了這個位置，和他形成一對終日嬉游尋歡作樂的市井“父子”。他對Falstaff絕對有真摯的情分在，因此此處的“決裂”也格外令人嘆息。

總體來講我愛這部《亨利四世》勝于《理查二世》，劇情更豐滿，布局更嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)，沖突更細(xì)密，群像刻畫更是到位得多，各位演員的表現(xiàn)都無可挑剔。抖森的表演張弛有度，細(xì)膩而深沉，在眾多老戲骨的映襯下也不露怯，應(yīng)該是得益于他本人良好的戲劇素養(yǎng)和對莎劇的熱愛。不過本片中抖森的演技傾向于“求穩(wěn)”，沒有小本的理查二世給我的驚才絕艷的震撼感，當(dāng)然這也和劇本和角色氣質(zhì)有關(guān)，希望抖森在《亨利五世》中詮釋那位英武的軍神能夠大放異彩，雖然作為肯尼叔叔NC粉的我私心覺得這真的是個非常艱巨的挑戰(zhàn)。不過從爵爺?shù)娇系?，一代代杰出演員在演繹這個角色時似乎暗中有個默契的軌跡，即逐漸淡化他的戰(zhàn)神光環(huán)，每一次新的演繹都比前輩更側(cè)重于挖掘亨利五世人性化的層面，我也很期待抖森的亨五能有新的突破，一切就看導(dǎo)演怎么安排了。

剛開始的看的時候，以為都是寫君王的故事，所以期待宮斗、陰謀是很正常的，結(jié)果大失所望。老外怎么這樣敷衍啊，Hal這鮮肉樣就一代明君了？說好的英明神武呢？幾乎木有啥宮斗情節(jié)，更別提好萊塢大片中的千軍萬馬大亂斗了，也木有什么欲迎還拒的黃袍加身，篡位也交代得極為簡單（這好像上一集的情節(jié)了）。反正跟嬛嬛比簡直弱！ 爆！ 了！連《冰與火之歌》里面的人物都比這復(fù)雜好么。

全劇看完，還記得什么了呢？只有那個胖得像酒桶的Falstaff，唾沫淋漓，艷壓全場。還有那個場景，F(xiàn)alstaff聽聞一起打混的小王子Hal順承大位，連滾帶爬飛奔回來沾光，然后就被君王無情地拒絕了。此時，說實話，因為Falstaff就是個丑角，小人。比較接近Sir John Falstaff福爵爺形象的其實是韋爵爺，但人家韋爵爺雖然也貪財好色且奸猾，但人家的閃光點是重情重義好不好。而這Falstaff除了插科打諢，逗人發(fā)笑之外，一點正面都木有。所以即使感受到他的失望，心里更多認(rèn)同是Hal的理智，我們接受了不少這種教育嘛，要么你狠，要么你有好手腕。

然后，我就看了Simon Schama's Shakespeare。這是講解莎劇如何成為經(jīng)典的。主要是分析了很多當(dāng)時的時代背景，比如莎劇之前只有奇跡劇可看，比如語言本身變得重要，比如英國正在成形，需要語言和形象的自我認(rèn)同等等。這些都還很正常嘛。

然后看到一個論斷，俺就震驚了。在莎爺心中，這個胖胖的Falstaff乃是英格蘭的象征。你能忍受把“我們的大中國”寫成一個油腔滑調(diào)的大胖子么？但據(jù)說Falstaff當(dāng)時還相當(dāng)受歡迎，是人民群眾喜聞樂見的藝術(shù)形象，在Falstaff被拒絕一蹶不振之后，當(dāng)時的女王還要求莎爺給加戲，還觀眾一個生龍活虎的Falstaff。

為啥呢？莎爺?shù)膽蚶锲鋵嵔o了每個階層和角色生動的表現(xiàn)，無論販夫走卒或是王公大臣。當(dāng)時有兩個英格蘭，一個是夏天的英格蘭，小酒館中的生活，平民階層的生活，汁液淋漓，充滿歡樂。一個是冬天的英格蘭，森嚴(yán)，乏味，貴族階層的生活。而Falstaff就是活力四射的那一個，那些的風(fēng)趣幽默的話語就是莎翁旅行表演中各地小酒館，旅店日常的再現(xiàn)，真實，親切，帶給人們歡樂。而他的食欲其實是生命力的象征。而Hal對Falstaff的拒絕其實是一種自我閹割，成為亨利五世的Hal從此再沒有了之前在小酒館的歡樂。估計這也是當(dāng)時的女王心底不能說的秘密吧。

從這一點上看這也許就是東西兩出戲之間的區(qū)別。甄嬛中極力表現(xiàn)了人性的扭曲，人在針尖密布的地上行走，雖然把一眾花樣的姑娘變成了一塊塊老姜，但以君主制為辯護(hù)，以生存為正義給了這種扭曲的合法性。而之所以風(fēng)行，深得人心，因為它是對于普通人的生活而言是政治正確的，我們早就接受了這樣的教訓(xùn)：心思縝密，偏執(zhí)狂才能生存，成功即正義。而莎劇中這并不是重點，他生動的語言（雖然這點可能感受并不直接），鮮活的人物和時代風(fēng)貌。不矯飾，不避諱，也不標(biāo)榜，寫君王的理性至上，更寫出了普遍的人性，完整的人性。

這也許是莎劇這樣聽起來像老咸菜的經(jīng)典卻一直鮮嫩多汁的原因吧。



部分觀點引用自Simon Schama's Shakespeare，理解莎劇的絕佳伴侶。

       當(dāng)初BBC放出兩分鐘的preview clip時，tumblr的fandom簡直要瘋了。大概全世界只有J叔敢說: your cheekbone does not scare me! 看完整個兩小時,我真心覺得這場戲是我最喜歡的，不僅因為our cheekbone got slammed,更是因為它是全電影里演技的最好的scene，沒有之一。
    首先莎翁的文字挑戰(zhàn)了我的耐心，自尊心，做為腦殘粉的誠心，一切生不如死心！而且我還是很有自知之明地讀the royal Shakespeare company出的版本 ，整個stage production從舞臺設(shè)計到化妝都寫得清清楚楚，每一句被刪減修改的對白還被斜體了的版本！
    Act III Scene II在原著里只有henry iv和hal兩人，電影里henry iv特別指明讓三個小王子留下，看著哥哥受罰。細(xì)節(jié)雖小，卻讓henry iv作為父親的權(quán)威更加突出，讓hal的羞辱感更加強(qiáng)烈。
    好了，重點是演技。J叔叔的演技真是太好了！我喜歡他這么久都沒看過他演莎士比亞，真不知道自己怎么稱是他的影迷的！上一集小本演得很好，我覺得很重要的原因就是他的聲音:unsympathetically cold and eccentrically crazy. Richard II從頭到尾都很神經(jīng)質(zhì)，所以小本演起來只要保持一致就好。但是叔叔在這里情感和聲音都是波濤洶涌，跌宕起伏~
       簡單解剖一下就是，爸爸很生氣，先是批評，自己覺得不過癮，丟丟帽子，挖苦諷刺下兒子，說著說著真激動了，帶著哭腔地坦白，其實我也可想多見兒子了。就是這一句話，save mine, which now doth that I would not have it do, make blind itself with foolish tenderness.爸爸幾聲大吸氣，本來還手叉腰很powerful的樣子瞬間捂臉抱頭不知如何愛兒子。莎翁哪會寫這么復(fù)雜這么人性的細(xì)節(jié)，爸爸真是太偉大了~【撒花
    再說our cheekbone， 用網(wǎng)球geek tom的術(shù)語說，跟J叔叔這樣的爸爸演對手戲絕對raise his own bar。這場戲兒子在聽爸爸訓(xùn)誡時，除了給他臉部鏡頭，他是沒幾句話的，靠的都是臨場反應(yīng)。爸爸說我站姿不端正，丟我帽子，我也就是可憐巴巴地看一眼帽子，心里小小抗議一下，繼續(xù)我傲嬌無所謂的表情，然后爸爸一番長篇大論，我目不轉(zhuǎn)睛，他怎么轉(zhuǎn)我怎么看。爸爸眼淚都要出來了，我眉毛挑挑好心疼啊。拋開our cheekbone got slammed，書上寫得很明白（電影開頭也有講），hal玩世不恭是為了以后讓大家對他刮目相看，整個scene到這一點，hal的臉上都寫著“我就知道被爸爸請喝茶會是這樣的結(jié)果”，但是之后體力不支的爸爸開始絕望王位不保：wherefore do I tell these news to thee? hal有三秒中臉部鏡頭，表情過渡從發(fā)慌著急到表決心保護(hù)爸爸，很自然令人信服~【真是好兒子，撒花

「I know you all and will awhile uphold the unyoked humour of your idleness. Yet herein will I imitate the sun, who doth permit the base contagious clouds to smother up his beauty from the world, that, when he please again to be himself, being wanted, he may be more wondered at, by breaking through the foul and ugly mists of vapours that did seem to strangle him. If all the year were playing holidays, to sport would be as tedious as to work. But when they seldom come, they wished for come, and nothing pleaseth but rare accidents. So, when this loose behaviour I throw off and pay the debt I never promised, by how much better than my word I am, by so much shall I falsify men's hopes. And like bright metal on a sullen ground, my reformation, glittering o'er my fault, shall show more goodly and attract more eyes than that which hath no foil to set it off. I'll so offend, to make offence a skill, redeeming time when men think least I will.」



「What need I be so forward with him that calls not on me? Well, 'tis no matter, honour pricks me on. Yea, but how if honour prick me off when I come on? How then? Can honour set to a leg? No. Or an arm? No. Or take away the grief of a wound? No. Honour hath no skill in surgery, then? No What is honour? A word. What is in that word honour? What is that honour? Air. A trim reckoning. Who hath it? He that died a'Wednesday. Doth he feel it? No. Doth he hear it? No. 'Tis insensible, then. Yea, to the dead. But will it not live with the living? No. Why? Detraction will not suffer it. Therefore I'll none of it. Honour is a mere scutcheon. And so ends my catechism.」



「Brave Percy. Fare thee well, great heart. Ill-weaved ambition, how much art thou shrunk. When that this body did contain a spirit a kingdom for it was too small a bound, and now, two paces of the vilest earth is room enough. Adieu.」

沖著抖森來的 結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn)falstaff亮了 一開始以為他只是個小偷騙子荒唐可笑的地痞 但后來看到他在戰(zhàn)場上先是偷偷逃開 遠(yuǎn)離戰(zhàn)局 當(dāng)一切結(jié)束之后他又無恥的奪取殺死Percy之功…那個瞬間我覺得他其實并不愛hal 他只守著一頭金羊 一有機(jī)會會毫不猶豫的扯下金毛
覺得抖森特別喜歡挑這種內(nèi)心矛盾的角色 hal很清楚falstaff這種人不值得結(jié)交 但又舍不得在他身邊時感到的放松和快樂 這是在父親身上無法體會到的 也是在終有一天登上王座之后必然失去的…
劇情方面有了理查二世的鋪墊 基本上不看原著理解上也沒什么問題 這也是我比較喜歡這部的原因 因為我真的不覺得需要事前做功課或者事后靠專業(yè)解讀才能理解的電影是好電影 背景知識或者專業(yè)解讀只能是錦上添花讓人更深刻的理解電影想要表達(dá)的意思 但靠電影以外的東西來補(bǔ)完電影應(yīng)該講清楚的情節(jié)這就有點本末倒置了

On the year of 2008, Olympic Game has been hold by England. For the sake of spreading England unique culture, which will also be beneficial to cross-cultural communication, BBC TV station has directed a series of film called Hollow Crown, which are some adapted works from Shakespeare’s history plays including RichardⅡ, HenryⅣ and HenryⅤ. To be honest, Henry Ⅳ is one of the greatest films I have ever watched.
Henry IV is a story about a king who stole the crown from his cousin, and is tormented by his guilt. Also, it's growing story about his son, a feckless young prince, who is always exposed to some blackguardly ruffians. However, when he suddenly is conscious of his father’s weighty responsibility and his massive burden, the prince, who seems to be cynicism, is forced to grow up and face his destiny. Then, on succeeding to the throne, the new young king takes his country to war, realizing he must assume his responsibility to strengthen national defense and fight against invaders. Eventually he becomes the greatest warrior king in English history.
In deep meaning, it's also an adventurous story of people facing an uncertain future, and of a country searching for a new sense of patriotic identity.
In this film, what deeply impresses me most is not father and son, but friendship and betrayal. In fact, this movie does not put emphasis on the relationship between HenryⅣ and his son HenryⅣ,but do stand out what happens between the young prince Hal and his so-called loyal friend Jack Falstaff. To some extend, the friendship and betrayal is the most dramatic aspect, running through the whole movie.
Jack Falstaff, as the leader of some ruffians, is almost paternal relationship with Hal, the young prince. Generally speaking, Falstaff is too much of a pretty crook, who is a congenital liar, congenital drunk as well as thief. However, Falstaff sets his affection on Hal, and the emotion shed by his eye really convince audiences that they own true friendship, conveying a message that even he is a ragtag, the prince still cherish their relationship.
However, that is totally wrong. Why Shakespeare is a most renowned writer, because everything that is Shakespearean is ambiguous. And in the most ambiguous but dramatically important scenes, Hal's split loyalties between Falstaff and his father of are central to both plays.①
Falstaff brings out the wayward and irresponsible side of Hal. However, the other side of the young prince's personality lies in this prince’s inherent essence. Although Hal seems like a terrible shit and he does some dreadful things, but in his inner world, he is a very upright person, he is also an ambitious and sophisticated politician.
I know you all, and will awhile uphold the unyoked humor of your idleness.
Yet herein will I imitate the sun, who doth permit the base contagious clouds to smother up his beauty from the world.
That, when he please again be himself, being wanted, he may be more wondered at, by breaking through the foul and ugly mists of vapours that did seem to strangle him.③
The words from Hal’s mouth show his ambition, appearing in the beginning of the film, give us a warning.
So how could the writer, Shakespeare copes with this difficult problem? Why Shakespeare is being Shakespeare, because he solves it through a play within a play.
Prof.Jonathan Bate(Worcester College Oxford) claims that:
This fantastic scene, to my mind. Come on, I'll say it the greatest scene Shakespeare ever wrote.
This fantastic scene where they act out Prince Hal returning to court, being interviewed by his father.
It's an amazing piece of theatre, where you have Falstaff and Hal playing the parts of King Henry IV and Hal.②
In this play within play, Hal and Falstaff have an interesting pub game, they need to play the parts of King Henry IV and Hal, imitating a conversation between father and son.
As first, Falstaff play the role of Hal’s father, the present king, in the course of communication, Falstaff doesn't tell Hal to pull his royal socks up. Rather, he instructs the young prince to spend more time with a splendid fellow called Falstaff. Falstaff regards that he is a loyal and true friend around Hal. And sometimes, indeed, he is, at least many audience thinks so, including me.
Then, they change the position, Hal do an impression of his father, and Falstaff plays him. At the beginning, Hal pretends to be his father, being angry to interrogate his son, Falstaff, why he would play with a local ruffian. Later, Hal's perspective begins to change. He claims that his son Hal must banish his fat friend, Falstaff.
Then Falstaff say the most impressive words from his bottom of heart:
Banish plump Jack, and banish all the world.③
The emotion from their eye contacts reveals that they are all touched by these sincere sentences. Especially Hal, he moves to tears, totally smothering his tears from his eyes.
However, the Hal say these words:
I do.③
Again, he supplies another sentences:
I will.③
That is really strange.
When Hal says “I do.”, he is within the context of the play within the play, as the acting the part, in his father’s tone. But then, in that instant pause, and the shift of the verb tense “I will” disclosures that he is speaking not within the play within the play, but as himself.
He is giving Falstaff warning that the moment will come, when he becomes a real king, he need to banish Falstaff.
What happens to Hal, why he needs to say these serious words?
It is believed that if you know the play well, if you love the play and the adapted movie, you cannot watch it with a dry eye.
So at the end of that game, there is a chilling premonition, and that what appears in the ending of this movie.
Gold save the king.③
With these cheerful sentences, Hal is crowned in Westminster Abbey, and eventually becomes the king. Then in the parade, Falstaff deliberately happens to meet his heart, Hal. Falstaff want to claim kinship and let the king give him some advantages. However, the king changes his voice, he is strict with this fat man, saying the follow sentence:
My lord Chief Justice, speak to that vain man
I know thee not, old man. Fall to thy prayers. How ill white hairs become a fool and jester.
I have long dreamed of such a kind of man so surfeit-swelled, so old and so profane. But, being awake, I do despise my dream.
Make less thy body hence and more thy grace, leave gormandizing.
Know the grave doth gape for thee thrice wider than for other men. Reply not to me with a fool-born jest!
Presume not that I am the thing I was.
For God doth know, so shall the world perceive, that I have turned away my former self. So will I those that kept me company When thou dost hear I am as I have been, approach me and thou shalt be as thou wast, the tutor and the feeder of my riots.
Till then I banish thee, on pain of death
As I have done the rest of my misleaders, not to come near our person by ten mile. For competence of live I will allow you, the lack of means enforce you not to evil.
And, as we hear you do reform yourselves, we will, according to your strengths and qualities, give you advancement.④
That’s a very long monologue, but when Hal says these words. It is really powerful and awful. Does he totally forget the time Falstaff around him, like his father to care of him? Does he never remember the happy ages he enjoy his youth, not worrying his duty to take charge of a country?
So why he does that?
Hal is not to do this having a mater plan, he just has an idea of how he wants his life to go, he is aware of his responsibility, who knows the fun will have to end one day.
Therefore, both these acts speak volumes. Hal gets rid of formal himself,
And I think that is the most dramatic aspect of the whole movie. Making you so convincing that Falstaff and Hal is a pair of close friend, but the end reveals that they break down their relationship in this way. So amazing, is not it?
 But the ending has its own premonition and reliable explanation. The most ambiguous part seems not so ambiguous, thanks to our greatest writer, Shakespeare.
Like the so-called “O. Henry-style ending”, disclosure when the movie ends the people of the psychological situation changes unexpectedly, or the fate of the hero suddenly reversed, giving audiences an unexpected result, but also be associated with real life, resulting in a unique artistic charm.


Reference:
①,② From: BBC Documentary: Shakespeare Uncovered_Jeremy Irons on the Henrys.
③ From: The movie: Henry IV
④ From: The Book: Henry IV