Henry IV Parts I & II condensed into one play?

[Harold Bernum]

A local theatre company is running Henry IV, Parts I and II as one play. I've
been of two minds on this. First, yes, the condensed play can provide a more
concise journey on the road to Henry V. Then again, both Parts in full
combine to a run time of about 5 hours. That's a lot of mountain to squeeze
into a cup.

It has happened before, I am sure. I remember the film "Tinker, Tailor,
Soldier, Spy", which condensed a massive novel into a two-hour film. Things
had to be deleted, with other things moved around, but it still adhered to
the spirit of the source material.

I'd like to put the question out there: has anyone seen the Henry IV plays
condensed into one play in the past, and if so, how was it? Did it work?

[ne...@panix.com]

In article <q6sffl$bi3$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,

Harold Bernum <noemai...@example.com> wrote:
>I'd like to put the question out there: has anyone seen the Henry IV plays
>condensed into one play in the past, and if so, how was it? Did it work?

A few years back, well, 15 I guess, Lincoln Center did it with Kevin Kline.
https://www.lct.org/shows/henry-iv/

Their version essentially pulled out anything which wasn't Falstaff-related.
I found it to be somewhat unsatisfying, although the performances were good.

As per a previous thread here on Faustus, I find some of the press about this
adaptation to be a little annoying. The director is quoted as saying,
"They are, first and foremost, among the greatest works of the stage."
If so, then why not direct them instead of something vaguely related to them?


JB
------------
Jeff Berry - http://www.aspiringluddite.com - food, musings, etc.
"I don't need TV when I got T-Rex" - Mott the Hoople

[Harold Bernum]

ne...@panix.com wrote:
> Their version essentially pulled out anything which wasn't Falstaff-related.
> I found it to be somewhat unsatisfying, although the performances were good.

That must have been irritating. That reminds me of a review of the Pirates of
the Caribbean sequels. The essential idea was that the character of Jack
Sparrow was a fun character, but one that should have remained a secondary
character instead of being pushed to the head of stories

Following that line, Falstaff is also a popular character, but there was
so much more going on.

> As per a previous thread here on Faustus, I find some of the press about this
> adaptation to be a little annoying. The director is quoted as saying,
> "They are, first and foremost, among the greatest works of the stage."
> If so, then why not direct them instead of something vaguely related to them?

Sadly, a lack of faith that people will sit through the full plays. It's
strange that people have such reverence for Shakespeare's works on the one
hand and are so easy to make these ad-hoc adaptations on the other.

[John W Kennedy]

I saw it in an indy film. But it was 20 years ago; I don’t trust my
reaction.

For whatever it’s worth, when “Masterpiece Theatre” did “Clarissa” in
three hours, I felt like a child running down a steep hill, wildly
flapping my arms and shouting, “Help! I can’t stop!”. (For context, I
had recently read “Clarissa”, a novel about one million words long.)

--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"