Instead this production uses the passing of time to justify all-new actors, with Morrissey replaced by Alun Armstrong who is joined by his real-life son Joe (the family resemblance is remarkable) playing the rash northern firebrand Hotspur. In particular, it’s a shame that David Morrissey wasn’t able to remain as Northumberland to bring this point to life. Since Henry IV Part 1 is a direct continuation of Richard II and even carries some characters over, it’s a shame there is no continuity in the cast: it would have brought it home more that Henry is now facing the fruits of the rebellion he himself led against Richard and that the same people who swept him to power now seek to undo him. It’s such a richly textured and beautifully realised production that it makes last week’s perfectly acceptable outing look like a sparse am-dram performance by contrast. These are well realised and contrast beautifully with the pristine but coldly austere palaces and castles of the nobility and finally the frosty, misty battlefield on which the play reaches its climax. Hotspur is manifestly more qualified to rule but is also recklessly impatient, seemingly intent on hastening King Henry’s departure from the throne by leading a rebellion on the north.Īs a production, Henry IV Part 1 benefits from a richer backdrop than last week’s opening entry into the BBC’s Hollow Crown season, being set against the bawdy, dirty backstreets of Medieval London,and in the smoky, hazy depths of the Boar’s Head Tavern in London’s downmarket Eastcheap area. Where Richard II had dangerous and shifting ideas about kingship and majesty, this week’s story is a straightforward retelling of the story of the prodigal son, with King Henry’s heir Prince Hal something of a reprobate slumming it with the lower class and clearly not fit to succeed to the throne whereas the other candidate, Henry Percy a.k.a. That makes Henry IV more robust to editing and easier to cope with being pared down perhaps also it has more superfluous padding to give up than did Richard II. Perhaps that’s because the core story here is somewhat clearer-cut than last week’s more vague and ambiguous plot. Only in the very opening minutes – when two scenes are intercut in a very modern and jarringly non-Shakespearian way – did I feel that there was anything amiss with the production, but that quickly passed. That possibly helps with overcoming the problems presented by my preconceptions for its predecessor, because while I’m sure this was as changed and abridged as Richard II had been I didn’t feel nearly so aggrieved about it this week. Unlike last week’s Richard II, I came to Henry IV Part 1 with absolutely no prior experience of the play.