亨利四世：第一部分

刚开始的看的时候，以为都是写君王的故事，所以期待宫斗、阴谋是很正常的，结果大失所望。老外怎么这样敷衍啊，Hal这鲜肉样就一代明君了？说好的英明神武呢？几乎木有啥宫斗情节，更别提好莱坞大片中的千军万马大乱斗了，也木有什么欲迎还拒的黄袍加身，篡位也交代得极为简单（这好像上一集的情节了）。反正跟嬛嬛比简直弱！ 爆！ 了！连《冰与火之歌》里面的人物都比这复杂好么。

全剧看完，还记得什么了呢？只有那个胖得像酒桶的Falstaff，唾沫淋漓，艳压全场。还有那个场景，Falstaff听闻一起打混的小王子Hal顺承大位，连滚带爬飞奔回来沾光，然后就被君王无情地拒绝了。此时，说实话，因为Falstaff就是个丑角，小人。比较接近Sir John Falstaff福爵爷形象的其实是韦爵爷，但人家韦爵爷虽然也贪财好色且奸猾，但人家的闪光点是重情重义好不好。而这Falstaff除了插科打诨，逗人发笑之外，一点正面都木有。所以即使感受到他的失望，心里更多认同是Hal的理智，我们接受了不少这种教育嘛，要么你狠，要么你有好手腕。

然后，我就看了Simon Schama's Shakespeare。这是讲解莎剧如何成为经典的。主要是分析了很多当时的时代背景，比如莎剧之前只有奇迹剧可看，比如语言本身变得重要，比如英国正在成形，需要语言和形象的自我认同等等。这些都还很正常嘛。

然后看到一个论断，俺就震惊了。在莎爷心中，这个胖胖的Falstaff乃是英格兰的象征。你能忍受把“我们的大中国”写成一个油腔滑调的大胖子么？但据说Falstaff当时还相当受欢迎，是人民群众喜闻乐见的艺术形象，在Falstaff被拒绝一蹶不振之后，当时的女王还要求莎爷给加戏，还观众一个生龙活虎的Falstaff。

为啥呢？莎爷的戏里其实给了每个阶层和角色生动的表现，无论贩夫走卒或是王公大臣。当时有两个英格兰，一个是夏天的英格兰，小酒馆中的生活，平民阶层的生活，汁液淋漓，充满欢乐。一个是冬天的英格兰，森严，乏味，贵族阶层的生活。而Falstaff就是活力四射的那一个，那些的风趣幽默的话语就是莎翁旅行表演中各地小酒馆，旅店日常的再现，真实，亲切，带给人们欢乐。而他的食欲其实是生命力的象征。而Hal对Falstaff的拒绝其实是一种自我阉割，成为亨利五世的Hal从此再没有了之前在小酒馆的欢乐。估计这也是当时的女王心底不能说的秘密吧。

从这一点上看这也许就是东西两出戏之间的区别。甄嬛中极力表现了人性的扭曲，人在针尖密布的地上行走，虽然把一众花样的姑娘变成了一块块老姜，但以君主制为辩护，以生存为正义给了这种扭曲的合法性。而之所以风行，深得人心，因为它是对于普通人的生活而言是政治正确的，我们早就接受了这样的教训：心思缜密，偏执狂才能生存，成功即正义。而莎剧中这并不是重点，他生动的语言（虽然这点可能感受并不直接），鲜活的人物和时代风貌。不矫饰，不避讳，也不标榜，写君王的理性至上，更写出了普遍的人性，完整的人性。

这也许是莎剧这样听起来像老咸菜的经典却一直鲜嫩多汁的原因吧。



部分观点引用自Simon Schama's Shakespeare，理解莎剧的绝佳伴侣。

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

权力是颗high翻全场的春药，你我都知道。

其实本文的副标题叫做——偶像的力量。

鉴于心中的巨大疑惑：抖森到底看了什么样的剧本把一个热血的惊奇动画改编电影诠释的如此基情委屈和完美。看之前网评不是NC粉就是ANTI-NC粉，基友说抖森在演技方面还是个小孩子 TAT，这世上还有比这更打击人的评语吗？！

所以为了得到一个相对（自我而言）客观的观影感受，通读了一遍莎翁原作《亨利四世》《亨利五世》的中译版（窝不会告诉你们窝是通宵读完的）然后百度了查理二世、亨四的前后史实。然后看了两遍亨4。现下终于有点底气来写此文。

首先不得不说，莎翁的原著是本彻头彻尾的剧本，只有场景时间和出场人物，对于人物的刻画和情节的推动，完全倚靠对话或者独白。此外就没有更多的关于人物表情声音的描述，这就完全依靠演员对于剧本的理解和导演的要求了。不禁让我想起 穆赫兰道 里面 rita陪betty准备试镜，同样的台词，一次betty表现出的是凶杀情节，而另一次则诠释了爱情场景 。难怪要说一千个人心中有一千个哈姆雷特。

回到此剧，最好看的还当属 哈尔和福斯塔夫在酒馆里那场临时表演 、亨利王与哈尔王座前的对话。 还有福斯塔夫侵占哈尔战果的那一幕。

在酒馆里的闹剧展示了哈尔和福斯塔夫之间的联系。他们或许是酒肉朋友，但演到最后，福斯塔夫动情地说： 千万不要让他离开你的哈利的身边；撵走了肥胖的杰克，就是撵走了整个的世界。 或许福斯塔夫只是需要哈尔这个金主帮他还清所有的欠债，或许他只是怕老来寂寞，但一刻，他的眼中闪烁着的是真实的不舍和情感。 哈尔回答他：I DO, WILL。 不知是否原文如此，但中译本里只有一句“我偏要赶走他。“ 让我想不出哈尔对福斯塔夫抱有怎样的情感。 剧中哈尔目光闪烁，他第一次说，I DO的时候神情还有不舍留恋，哈尔重视这个满口谎言的无赖朋友。但当他再次开口说 I WILL的时候，就明白哈尔已经站在君主的位子上思考这个问题，此刻他是即将要披上荣光的亲王哈利。

插一句题外话，哈尔询问福斯塔夫是否愿意扮演他的父亲，当福斯塔夫答应时，从沉寂中爆发出的欢呼声和抖森那笑裂的表情，如同孩子一般的兴奋，让人也跟着傻笑起来。>w<

题外话2 ： 潘西在殿外大吼，就是魔鬼朝我索要，我也不给。感谢演员此番呈现啊，说实话看书的时候完全没想到潘西是用吼的（这倒也符合他的性格），饱受日式斜阳派颓废风的影响，我看书的时候，还以为那是类似于阴暗的咒骂之类的。吼出来实在太帅了！

而说到哈尔和亨利王在王座前的谈话那一幕。尤其是亨利王听到哈尔改邪归正，主动请缨对决潘西的保证，他嘴角压抑着自己欣喜的笑容。铁叔演足了一个君主、一个父亲对于继位者对于儿子的愤怒、爱以及得知逆子归巢时欣喜又不敢表现地太过明显的冲突。 导演最后没拍亨利王怒战道格拉斯，道氏败走的那一幕啊！铁叔老病残（最后大雾）的比重有点大。对于基友”相比铁叔，总觉得抖森还是个小孩子啊╮(╯▽╰)╭”那残忍的指责我也只能点头称是。ORZ 但一想到哈尔王子也不过是19、20的小伙子，血气方刚，带着理想的荣光里含着那么点幼稚和天真，抖森演得都正好啊！由于缺乏同类舞台剧的对比，知不知道更好更高的呈现是个神马情况，对于抖森的表演还是持肯定为主。

最后说道福斯塔夫佯称是他杀死了潘西那一幕。无论是看剧还是看书，我都在想，哦！这个肥嘟嘟的老骗子，他怎么敢在哈尔面前睁眼说瞎话！感谢演员的精湛演技，看的人牙痒痒，又觉得，福斯塔夫就不是什么正派人物，他从来都是夸大其词、满口谎言，从来都是。（这句式好熟悉……差点要脱口而出brother= =）

不得不吐槽下抖森的台词啊！抖森你到底是怎么念的台词……莫名其妙的违和感总是在重要场景挥之不去（他模仿他父亲的那一长串，殿前宣誓的那一段）基本是台词一长，感觉就有那么些怪怪的（还有开头那段对时间的长台词）

吐槽2： 这战争场面让人扶额……两军加起来将近5万人的事实，不超过100人的现状是在泥巴地里打滚这是什么情况。同样悲剧的战争场面还有权力游戏那场君临保卫战，号称是耗资巨大，结果还是演出了农民起义的窘迫。

吐槽3：原来吾王的小皮衣底下是深V黑色衬衣啊！围脖上有人好奇会不会脱掉皮衣就是直接是吾王的御体，所以，哈尔从酒窖里出来，脱掉皮衣的那一瞬我好失落！_(:з」∠)_

总体而言，抖森的表演还是很有感染力的，他笑裂的时候有些小出戏，但终归他的哈尔王子胡作非为的时候让你笑，韬光养晦的独白让你心动，殿前宣誓和对抗潘西的时候让你觉得严肃和感动。他最后连看都没看福斯塔夫却说着“要是一句谎话可以使你得到荣誉，我是很愿意用最巧妙的字句替你装点门面的。” 你能从他的眼中读到失望和无奈。酒馆里的戏谑，依旧能从他闪动的眼眸中读出，亲王哈利是希望得到来自父王的认同的，哈尔是在乎他的朋友，以及他是多么地明白权利的游戏中必须舍弃。抖森的眼睛太会演戏了！

但不可否认，抖森还是有那么一丢丢图样图森破，他应该能演得更好。感谢上帝给了他恰当美貌，否则接下来我就要忧心他自此走上美少年为求演技纷纷毁容变大叔的不归路啦。

以上。