Edward III

Edward III by William Shakespeare
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

The strongest part of the play is the bits purportedly by Shakespeare – the scenes in which a King demands that a countess sleep with him, and how the countess manages to navigate the conflicting allegiances to her husband and her sovereign. The drama of the scenario is all the more effective for the bits of absurd situational comedy that peep through, like Edward switching from writing love poetry to pretending to study maps and military manoeuvres when someone walks in. That moment effectively collapses the pull between human desires and political duties.

The countess escapes the King’s clutches with a bit of legalese about the precedence of oaths – a theme that is picked up in the rest of the play, where kings give orders that overrule the commitments they and their officials make, and have to be talked back into respecting the rules. Everyone ultimately does what they are supposed to do, which is why Marlowe’s Edward II and Shakespeare’s Richard II are more interesting histories, as these Kings push the system past breaking point and lose their lives as a result.

View all my reviews

The Merry Wives of Windsor

The Merry Wives of Windsor by William Shakespeare
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

A slight but still very funny play – I laughed out loud a few times while reading which I can't say I've done for other comedies of the period. It indulges in quite sadistic treatment of Falstaff, which fans of the character from the Henry IV plays might find unsettling. Here he takes on a similar role to that of Malvolio in Twelfth Night – a gull who is mercilessly tortured for his (financially-motivated) letchery. The extent to which Falstaff is pilloried for offending middle class propriety might suggest that Shakespeare wanted to moderate the sympathy we might feel towards him in his histories. Falstaff's riots are a source of fun, but they must ultimately be contained and repressed for civilised life to continue. The stars of the show here are the wives who skillfully weave their plots around the hapless men around them – their merriment is not a sign of loose morals but a tool of moral edification.

View all my reviews

King Henry V

King Henry V by William Shakespeare
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

A patriotic pageant which the last 100 years of commentary – understandably uncomfortable with imperialism and monarchical government – has tried to complicate. The best and most machiavellian explanation for the unprovoked invasion in this play is actually found in the Henry IV Part 2, where the dying king urges his son to go on foreign wars of conquest in order to unite a fractious kingdom. Military success will wash away the sin of usurpation.

Henry V is a consumate politician, able to deploy the common touch he learned while carousing in his youth to motivate his followers. The coldness with which he treats his dissipated former associates may mar his reputation among the admirers of Falstaff (who dies off-stage of a broken heart), but reinforces the point that upon becoming King, Henry has to move on to bigger things than drinking and whoring and actually act the part of King. Richard II was also a good actor, but Henry V (the character if not the play) is a success because he knows which part to play.

View all my reviews

King Henry IV, Part 2

King Henry IV, Part 2 by William Shakespeare
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

An uneven play probably written to cash in on the popularity of Falstaff, recycling scenes that were cut from Henry IV before it became part one, and perhaps also using some scenes originally intended for Henry V. Inevitably less cohesive, and while Falstaff’s self-interested schemes and the wider political conspiracies rarely intersect, there are patterns between them. The personification of Rumour introduces the play, and the preponderance of false reports dominate the plot, not least Falstaff’s reputation for heroism at the Battle of Shrewsbury – a theme that casts doubt on the overall project of narrative history. Falstaff is an irresponsible rogue, but the political machinations of the king and the prince are also somewhat grubby.

The play is at its most interesting in how Henry IV reflects on his usurpation, revealing the thinking that was denied to the audience in Richard II. Bolingbroke’s rise was carefully stage-managed, much like the swift reformation of Prince Henry when he inherits the crown. Despite their antagonism, father and son are shown to be master manipulators, and remarkably alike. Falstaff can only be his irrepressible self, his lies are so outrageous they are immediately seen through. That simplicity might be what was so attractive to the Prince. But his comedic, anti-historical spirit must be banished at the end for the history to continue.

View all my reviews

King Henry IV, Part 1

King Henry IV, Part 1 by William Shakespeare
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I am unfortunately immune to Falstaff’s charms, which makes this difficult to appreciate. Prince Hal’s calculating attitude to his own dissolution is more interesting, and the extent to which it is a rationalisation or justification for his preferences can be brought out in performance. His affection for Falstaff lives off the page – the actual lines are a litany of fat jokes that seem mean-spirited, borne out by his callow rejection of this alternate father-figure at the end.

Hal’s equivocal attitude is authentically Shakespearian, but so is Falstaff’s disreputable behaviour. On the battlefield, the cowardly knight satirises the ideals of chivalry and honour, and the broader political system they support. But that comes at the same time as he leads over 300 poor people to their deaths before running away, which feels morally outrageous. Reading Falstaff as Shakespeare’s argument for the joys of eating and drinking as opposed to fighting and conspiring is a simplification, and Shakespeare is never that clear cut. Hal abandoning Eastcheap for the demands of kingship is as finely-balanced a dramatic finale as the deposition of Richard II. Shakespeare doesn’t show us who’s right, and that’s what makes the work live on.

View all my reviews

Dusk

I don't have much experience with the canonical 1990s shooters this is based on – your Dooms and Quakes – but it feels like this takes what made those games special and perfects it. You move quickly, the guns are loud, and the level design is stellar. The creators were taking ideas from Half-Life and Deus Ex as well as more cartoony keycard-based shooters, and one of the joys of the game is uncovering secrets that give you little power-ups. Exploration and attention is rewarded, and can give you a leg-up in encounters.

Dusk never gets tiring – it's always bringing something new to the table. In Episode 2 you start to see levels reconfigure. By Episode 3 you can swich the direction of gravity. Only in the last two missions was I ready for it to be over – there's a big combat arena where you face every enemy in the game in waves, and then two quite challenging boss fights. I dialled the difficulty down to get through it, and still had fun blasting away. 

King Richard II

King Richard II by William Shakespeare
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

This is Shakespeare’s masterclass in portraying controversial political material in such a finely balanced way as to avoid controversy – he was the only playwright of his time to avoid tussles with the law. This for me is a more successful staging of a regicide than Julius Caesar, because the charismatic ruler remains on stage until the end, and indulges in ever more fantastic self-pitying flights of fancy. Richard is a bad king and a great poet. In his heart of hearts he probably knows it, which is why he is weirdly eager to give up his title and his responsibilities. Shakespeare’s point (if he has one) may be that poetry is ultimately an easier vocation than politics.

View all my reviews