Play review: ‘Player Kings’, Noel Coward Theatre, London

‘Player Kings’ is billed as a ‘reimagining’ of Henry IV, directed and adapted by Robert Icke and starring Sir Ian McKellen as Falstaff, Toheeb Jimoh as Prince Hal and Richard Coyle as King Henry IV. The play journeys through the relationship between Prince Hal and the bad influences of Eastcheap, led by Falstaff, as the former wrestles with his father’s expectations and everyone’s comparisons between him and the ‘other’ Harry, Henry ‘Hotspur’ Percy, an acknowledged formidable soldier who Henry IV would openly claims he would prefer as a son.

The play takes parts of both parts of Shakespeare’s Henry IV plays, and also borrows from Act 2 scene 3 of Henry V, in which Falstaff’s death is reported (although he is not a character in that play). At the outset, Henry IV, who has deposed his cousin, Richard II, and taken the throne following rebellions against him, is himself now facing challenges from the Percys, his former allies, who have become dissatisfied with his rule. He is presented as sober and sombre, a devout Christian whose desire to make pilgrimage to the Holy Land is disrupted by the rebellions he faces. The contrast between him and Prince Hal, his heir, who is introduced in a rave scene as a hard-drinking, drug-taking criminal who steals, dances on tables, and passes out semi-naked, could not be clearer. Hal is also contrasted with Hotspur, the former’s casual ‘street’ dress and apathy to issues of rule and power presenting a very different impression to the latter’s military dress and assertive manner; he is very involved in his family’s meetings with ‘the other side’ in a way that Hal is not. Gradually, Hal is dragged into the conflict, culminating in the Battle of Shrewsbury, where he encounters Hotspur and kills him. Notably, Hotspur had gained the upper hand in their single combat, but honourably stops short of injuring Hal when he hears a ceasefire alert. Hal responds by stabbing him the back, and so even after Hotspur has died there is an ongoing contrast between his values and Hal’s.

Falstaff looms large throughout the play- both literally in stature and as an influence on Prince Hal and his friends. He is at the centre of every jape and party, obsessed with ‘Sack’ and with the success coming to him once Hal becomes King. He is a grotesque figure, but a magnetic one, attracting both Mistress Quickly and Doll Tearsheet, and always accompanied by a varied group of friends many of whom- like Prince Hal- are younger and, in this production, theoretically more interested in drugs and raving than his tall tales. They know he is full of bluster and his anecdotes become more exaggerated before their eyes, and yet he is tolerated, feted, and even loved… until he isn’t. Much has been made of McKellen’s casting in this production as he has always apparently turned down offers to play Falstaff, claiming to not understand the character. This production clearly changed his mind, but in some ways it’s hard to see why. 

There are lots of ideas, not all of which work, and some of which are oxymorons even within the world of the play. The action seems to be set in a variety of periods (why is Prince Hal going to a modern rave when his family home is a medieval castle? Why are swords being referred to when people are being shot by soldiers who seem to be dressed in anything from the 1940s to today? Why is Falstaff promoting Sack in a modern photoshoot in a 1920s-era gentleman’s club?) and the sets are a mix of unnecessarily realistic (I think that probably is a real fire in that grate, although I don’t know why) and the overly symbolic (oh look, a branch suspended from the flies. It has apples on. This must be the countryside.)

The performances are also a real mix, and it’s hard to identify why. The production is lengthy, running at three hours and 48 minutes on the night I went (there is one 15-minute interval), and it’s understandable that energy will wane, although many of the actors are not onstage throughout, in spite of significant ‘doubling’ across parts. This shows some actors off to good advantage- Samuel Edward-Cook, an intense, aggressive Geordie Hotspur, every inch the military man for whom honour is everything, is transformed after his death in the first half and becomes, with a hideous mullet wig and double denim, the second half’s Pistol. His changes of body language and accent work to differentiate between the two very different characters, and his performance was strong in both parts; as Hotspur he was mesmerising and it was easy to see why Prince Hal paled into comparison to this impressive symbol of manhood.

In contrast, I genuinely didn’t know that Tafline Steen was playing both Lady Percy and Doll Tearsheet, but this is for less positive reasons- while her Lady Percy was compelling, and one of the most strongly acted of the smaller parts, her Doll Tearsheet was poor. She was hampered by the accent she was using (I couldn’t identify what it was meant to be, possibly French, possibly Eastern European) and had none of the certainty in the character that she had showed when playing Percy. This is hardly surprising because- much as it makes sense to double the two parts together- she is significantly miscast in this second role. It is stretching credibility to believe that Mistress Quickly could be attracted to Falstaff (especially when portrayed with such spark by an actor like Clare Perkins, who gave her real nuance), but this can somewhat be explained by the play: they have a long acquaintance; she has an interest in keeping him close in the hope of finally getting back the money she has lent him; she is beaten down by life and the alternatives for her as an older women with a colourful past are limited. Steen is young and beautiful- the dodgy wig and baggy puffa can do little to hide this- and does not look like the type of woman to publicly vomit from too much ‘Canary’ and brawl with men twice her size. Some versions of Doll might (might) tolerate Falstaff as a client on a slow night, but the idea of this one having a real affection for him was a step too far.