Over at Shakespeare Geek, the question is asked if Falstaff dies a broken man. I respond with my usual love of That Bard:
To answer your question: Falstaff dies a broken man. It is because he is broken that he dies. “I shall be sent for in private,” is said only to save face. But I think it must be remembered that that is all Falstaff has done from the beginning of the film. When last we see him from the rear in long shot, he is hunched over walking awkwardly with a cane. He is tiny as he passes under the arch, but his shadow is enormous. (Very similar to The Third Man.)
Shakespeare was not big on writing pleasant characters. Falstaff, with all his faults, is as close as we get. And even that depends upon the performer. No writer in the history of the English theater has had more and better editors and directors and actors to fix his oh so many problems.
I too consider myself something of a Shakespeare geek, but that doesn’t mean I hold him in that high a regard. In many ways, he is like Orson Welles (although without the excuses—I think Welles did very well given his obstacles). Neither man created a perfect piece of narrative art. Both have loads of brilliant moments, but nothing works completely.
Shakespeare never wrote a decent comedy. The histories are dreadful. He was best at tragedy. Still, Hamlet is a mess: hands down the most over-rated play of all time. Despite the amazing amount of creativity that actors and directors have put into it, it is always un-watchable. I’m kind of fond of Richard III, but I have a real problem with Shakespeare’s constant use of villains who make Sweeney Todd seem realistic. “Since I cannot prove a lover, to entertain these fair well-spoken days, I am determined to prove a villain and hate the idle pleasures of these days”! How many times in his plays do we hear similar speeches by his villains? Richard’s a villain because he’s lame? Don John is a villain because he’s a bastard? Iago is a villain because he was fired? Please!
The most fulfilling play is Macbeth. And I believe it is not over-performed the way others of his plays are because modern artists don’t feel the need to fix it. Everyone is so determined to make Shakespeare into the greatest writer ever (an amazing, but preposterous claim), that they can’t help but try to fix the train wrecks that define his catalog.
As for Welles, at least we do have one perfect and unique film, even if it is a documentary: F for Fake. Most of his other films are quite watchable. In fact, most are quite good. And the scenes that have been released of The Other Side of the Wind are some of the most exciting film I have ever seen.
Prince Hal is a villain. Falstaff is a complex and troubled man who dies broken. And Orson Welles, once again, gives Shakespeare better than he gets.
If the Shakespeare Geek notices the comment, I suspect he will not agree!
I don’t hate Christians. I have little tolerance for stupid Christians. In fact, my spiritual beliefs
My favorite blog just happens to be on economics. It is Paul Krugman’s 
This picture is probably more responsible for turning the tide against the Vietnam War than any other, including the infamous photo of Thich Quang Duc’s 
I hate reality television for a number of reasons. The first is a worker’s complaint: there is far less use of writers. (But don’t kid yourself: reality shows use writers just as game shows—which are just the oldest form of reality shows—use writers.) Another complaint is that all reality shows depend upon producers working behind the scenes to enhance the reality. Thus: reality shows are anything but reality. Yet another problem is that despite the writers and the producers, very often nothing actually happens on these shows. And thus they depend upon the editing and music departments.