Falstaff (portrayed by Antony Sher) exemplifies the use of amplified theatricality in investigating humor and elements of the comedic genre in the RSC’s production of Henry IV Part 1. On the page, Falstaff claims an ambiguous role capable of moving across the spectrum from cynical and depressing to jesting and enthusiastic. Antony Sher extends the comedy of his character through action and voice inflection. Ultimately, his performance highlights roleplaying and delves into the nature of comedy.
Sher’s Falstaff draws attention to the act of performing. With his vivacious nature, Falstaff’s lifestyle appears immoral and immature from his first scene. As Hal reproaches Falstaff’s life, Falstaff recognizes his own wayward behavior and states: “I must give over this life, and I will give it over” (1.2.29). Antony Sher’s Falstaff exaggeratedly pours out his cup of sack as he declares a desire to reform; through the exaggerated gesture (that Sher repeats twice more during the play), Falstaff transforms into more a theatrical creation than sympathetic character, which comments on the nature of roleplaying within Henry IV Part I. A few lines further into the play and Falstaff jokingly refers to “purse-taking” as his “vocation” and that “’tis no sin for a man to labour in his vocation” (1.2.138). His brief desire for reformation evaporates in the face of his desire to maintain his indolent lifestyle. The original gesture appears inauthentic and employed to heighten the comedic relief drawn from his subsequent actions and lines that return him to his unreformed state. The three instances in which Sher’s Falstaff pours out sack emphasize the self-serving nature of the character through humor. Sher introduces Falstaff using the overt action and revisits the same gesture twice to yield a comedic interpretation of the aging knight and, thereby, he extends Falstaff’s elements of humor to generate a stereotype rather than a genuine, emotive human. Falstaff declares his desire to reform only after Hal’s reproof of his lifestyle; pouring out sack represents merely an act meaning Sher’s Falstaff assumes a role he believes Prince Hal wants to see.
Furthermore, Sher’s lighthearted approach to Falstaff’s more cynical speeches highlights the whiplash between Falstaff’s declarations of reformation and his wont to return to his depravity. Disenchanted with contemporary ideals of chivalry Falstaff questions “what is honour? a word. What is in that word honour? air” (5.1.129). Using emphatic enunciation that underlines the “air” in “honour,” Sher plays off the entire “catechism” with a lightness that reinforces the humor of the monologue. Rather than hearing Falstaff’s distaste for honor as cowardly or fearful of death, the audience hears the monologue as a comedic aside; the tone of wordplay focuses on humor instead of the darker undercurrents of the speech. Sher’s Falstaff jokes that honor “’tis insensible then? Yea, to the dead” (5.1.132). By turning to the audience to flippantly remark that the only honorable men are dead men, Sher’s Falstaff sidesteps a potentially blatant commentary on the nature of honor and its incompatibility with human life. Sher’s offhand tone during the honor speech emphasizes the joking character of Falstaff. Therefore, his Falstaff remains constant in representing an element of humor useful for comic relief instead of pivotal epiphany.
Sher layers additional elements of comedy onto his Falstaff through the contrast between his insincere desire to “give over this life” and his desire to live uninhibited by expectation. Revisiting his own avoidance of battlefield honor, Falstaff commands: “give me life: which if I can save, so; if not, honour comes unlooked for, and there’s an end” (5.3.41-42). Continuing to jest about the correlation between honor and death, Falstaff argues that a pretense of honorable action results in the same ultimate end as authentic honorable action. Therefore he chooses to avoid honor pleading “give me life,” as he sees an inevitable disagreement between his conception of life and his society’s ideas of honor. As in his earlier intonations on honor, Sher amplifies the humorous elements of Falstaff’s language. He speaks the “and there’s an end” with a frivolity aiming for audience laughs. By craving life but laughing at the prospect of death, Sher further reinforces the comedy of Falstaff; Falstaff becomes a character driven by his whims and cognizant of his own farce, embracing pleasures while still possible, sincerely joking about his own mortality.
Antony Sher creates a humorous and simple Falstaff. Devoid of any solemnity, Sher’s Falstaff appears static and bland; the portrayal begins and ends with the pursuit of corporeal pleasures and comforts without exploring the cynical and momentous potential of Falstaff’s character. Amplifying the humorous repartee through Falstaff’s actions (like pouring sack and maintaining a casual tone) appropriately focuses his tavern interactions with characters like Prince Hal. However, without any degree of gravity in his character, his actions lack human sophistication. Even though Sher’s Falstaff appears to maintain an outward façade for the benefit of characters like Hal, the portrayal still falls short of complex. Falstaff transforms into an archetypal fool instead of a complex foil or father figure of Hal.