Falstaff as Hero: Welles's Five Kings and Shakespeare's Henriad
This paper examines how Orson Welles's Mercury Theater adaptation Five Kings — and its cinematic counterpart Chimes at Midnight — reshapes Shakespeare's Henriad by repositioning Sir John Falstaff as the central dramatic figure rather than a comic foil to Henry IV and Henry V. The paper traces Falstaff's function in the original history plays as a satirical critic of honor and kingly authority, then analyzes how Welles amplifies that critique into a sustained tragic arc. It argues that Welles's rebalancing reflects not mere self-interest as an actor but a broader cultural project: fashioning an American Shakespeare in which commoners and iconoclasts command the same dramatic weight as kings.
- Introduction: Welles's Self-Interested Rebalancing: Welles shifts focus from kings to Falstaff
- Shakespeare's Henriad: The Story of Henry IV and Henry V: Conventional reading of Shakespeare's history cycle
- Falstaff as Foil and Critic in the Original Plays: Falstaff exposes royal duplicity and questions honor
- Prince Hal's Calculated Politics and the Rejection of Falstaff: Hal's strategic persona and inevitable rejection of Falstaff
- Welles's Falstaff: From Lusty Radical to Tragic Figure: Welles transforms Falstaff into tragic emotional center
- An American Shakespeare and the Claims of Individualism: Welles's Falstaff as American iconoclast and individualist
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It grounds interpretive claims in direct textual evidence, quoting Shakespeare extensively and tying each passage to the argument rather than treating quotations as decoration.
- The paper moves fluidly between close reading of specific scenes (the tavern "deposition," the Agincourt prayer) and broader cultural argument, maintaining coherence throughout.
- Its comparative structure — Shakespeare's intention vs. Welles's intervention — gives the argument a clear axis that readers can follow and evaluate.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper exemplifies comparative literary analysis through adaptation studies: it reads Welles's theatrical and cinematic choices as interpretive acts that reveal latent tensions in the source text. By treating Five Kings not as a distortion but as a culturally motivated re-emphasis, the author demonstrates how adaptation criticism can illuminate both the adapter and the adapted work simultaneously.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by framing Welles's adaptation as potentially self-serving, then complicates that framing. It surveys the conventional Henriad narrative before examining Falstaff's dual role as foil and satirist. It then analyzes Prince Hal's political calculation to show why Falstaff must be rejected. The penultimate section traces Falstaff's tragic arc in Welles, culminating in the altered pardon scene. The conclusion widens the lens to argue for a distinctly American cultural motivation behind Welles's choices.
Introduction: Welles's Self-Interested Rebalancing
Orson Welles's Mercury Theater adaptation of Shakespeare, a saga entitled Five Kings, seems very calculating and self-interested on its surface. Welles shifts the focus of the history cycle from the rulers of England to Sir John Falstaff. This seems convenient for Welles as an actor — physically he resembles Falstaff more than the lean Prince Hal. This rebalancing of the narrative also creates a more substantial, sympathetic, and tragic role for Falstaff. Hal's rejection of his old friend is not seen as necessary for Hal and England's future success, but as a tragedy for Sir John.
However, this shift in emphasis also suggests that Welles hoped to create a more American Shakespeare — a Shakespeare in which commoners have equal significance to kings.
Shakespeare's Henriad: The Story of Henry IV and Henry V
The conventional interpretation of Shakespeare's history cycle is that it tells the story of Henry IV and Henry V. Henry IV, first known as Bolingbroke, commits the unpardonable sin of killing a king, Richard II. This moral crime is viewed as justified from a practical standpoint, given Richard's capricious and dictatorial nature — though Shakespeare remains ambiguous on this point. Yet a royal deposition, even a justified one, results in cosmological chaos and civil war. Only after the slate is wiped clean and Henry V assumes the throne do England's fortunes begin to change. Henry, by virtue of associating with the lower orders, possesses a populist touch that his father — and Richard II — lacked, and is thus an ideal king.
Falstaff as Foil and Critic in the Original Plays
By using foils for Henry — such as the lowly Poins and the dissipated Sir John Falstaff — Shakespeare demonstrates that Prince Hal is equally comfortable in high and low society. Hal can enjoy drinking in the tavern, yet when duty calls, he goes to war for England and fights with honor and distinction. Welles's interpretation is not incompatible with that of the Bard. He emphasizes Falstaff's role as a critic of the value system of honor and warfare endorsed by Henry IV and later by his son.
In Richard II, even Bolingbroke marvels at how capriciously Richard can change his mind as king:
RICHARD II
Uncle, even in the glasses of thine eyes
I see thy grieved heart: thy sad aspect
Hath from the number of his banish'd years
Pluck'd four away.
HENRY BOLINGBROKE
How long a time lies in one little word!
Four lagging winters and four wanton springs
End in a word: such is the breath of kings. (Richard II, I.3)
Of course, the capricious breath of kings also enables Henry IV to arrange the killing of Richard II while publicly pretending he never ordered it:
EXTON
Didst thou not mark the king, what words he spake, "Have I no friend will rid me of this living fear?"
Was it not so? … And speaking it, he wistly look'd on me,
And who should say, "I would thou wert the man
That would divorce this terror from my heart" —
Meaning the king at Pomfret. (Richard II, V.4)
Publicly, Henry IV denies ever having given such an order to Exton. Similarly, the king maintains the pretense that Richard II surrendered his crown willingly — when in reality, with his military forces overwhelmed, Richard had no real choice. The divide between the king's public and private self, Shakespeare suggests, is inherently duplicitous. This is something Henry V understands very well, but it is only Falstaff who dares to challenge it aloud.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.