Many of the choices made by Royal Shakespeare Company director Gregory Doran in his rendition of Henry IV Part 1 seemed to focus on a specific characterization and interpretation for the character of Hal. Alex Hassell’s Prince of Wales seemed to be a man that truly reveled in his drinking and partying ways before reforming at the end of the play. His delivery in several key scenes seemed to reflect a man who is not necessarily manipulative and calculating, as in some versions, but rather an ambitious prince prone who is confident in his ability to overcome his disreputable past with future acts of glory. Hal’s soliloquy effectively captured a man who was resolved to his princely duties despite his present circumstances. However, with his line of “I do, I will” to Falstaff, we see that Hal is reluctant to leave this world and his friends behind, though he knows he must and will do so when the time arises. After the call of duty to quash the rebellion comes, Hal seems to demonstrate a shift in his character dynamic. Hassell’s Hal shows his frustration with Falstaff in the scene in which he asks for a sword and is jokingly tricked into taking sack by mistake. In this scene, Hal shows a growing displeasure with his former life and friends, realizing in this moment that he must distance himself from them and move forward with his life.
Meanwhile, Sean Chapman’s characterization of Hotspur was somewhat unorthodox, choosing to produce a high-energy display marked by erratic physical reactions and occasional outbursts of vivacity. This enthusiastic portrayal emphasized the immaturity of Hotspur and the rashness of many of his decisions. However, I found this performance to be endearing, and Hotspur’s intensity was effective in strengthening the character’s motivations. If the perceived slights by the king move him strongly enough to throw a tantrum on the king’s throne, then the decision to rebel itself seems to have a more righteous and justified cause. This idea seemed to carry over into his relationship with Lady Percy as well. Hotspur seemed to be truly in love with and devoted to his wife (unlike what the plain text may suggest), but his love was simply unable to overcome the will to rebel when talking with her. He appeared to struggle with the internal conflict of openly communicating with Lady Percy and the lure of the impending battle. The scene helped to create some internal conflict for Hotspur, which again draws similarities between himself and Hal.
The relationship between the two princes in Doran’s version is somewhat different than in other performances. Rather than serving as a foil for Hal and occupying opposite ends of a spectrum, this Hotspur positions the two princes in relatively parallel stature to one another. Their duties as princes are what drive both of them to their confrontation in the play. As a result, the death of Hotspur becomes a symbolic gesture for Hal. The death of Hotspur represents part of Hal dying on the battlefield. By killing Hotspur, whose raw emotion and energy represents the immaturity in Hal himself, Hal is killing that former self. The price’s whoring, tavern-dwelling, and thieving ways have died along with Henry Percy, and he has been reborn as the future king. Hal’s initial use of sword and shield in his battle with Hotspur seems to support this concept, as the split in weaponry could perhaps be representative of his split ideals of his sinning ways and the desire for greatness. Hal’s transition to dual-wielding two swords mirrors Hal and Hotspur once again just before Hotspur is killed. Finally, the moment he laments the death of his noble adversary marks the moment he laments a death in himself, and is reborn as the true Prince of Wales.
One other interesting note in this play is that the redemption of Doran’s Hal seems to extend beyond the eyes of his father Henry and Hal himself. In conjunction with Christian imagery used in set-design and props, Doran seems to suggest that Hal is redeemed in the eyes of the Lord as well. The crucifix displayed at the play’s opening seems to relate to Hal as the prodigal son who is forgiven for his previous sins. Killing Hotspur redeems him in the eyes of his people, his father, and God. This paints the character in a much more heroic and positive light, and makes the story of this Hal very different than in performances that paint him as a Machiavellian manipulator. Here, he is a much more sympathetic and likable character, as the audience is lead to believe that he truly struggles to overcome his own immaturity and desires to do so. Ultimately, the childishness of Hotspur and Hal in this performance presented them as flawed but likable characters, and made Hal’s triumph a celebration of his rise to heroism and nobility by overcoming his personal weaknesses.