Hal/Henry V is secretly Shakespeare's greatest character. Certainly his most admirable

Hey now. Do I not bleed when you gas me?

I'm a big fan of Henry V, St Crispin's Day was the first speech I ever memorized, Hal is still sort of a hero to me, but by far the most underrated part of that play is all the scenes of the French talking about how pretty their horses and armor are

Kenneth Branagh was a better Henry V

I think Bloom has the hall of fame down quite fucking well.
Falstaff
Hamlet
Cleopatra
Iago
King Lear

>St Crispin's Day was the first speech I ever memorized
this made me laugh, thanks.

This, to me the historical King Henry V is Kenneth Branagh in a bowl cut

That Richard the III with Gandalf is excellent.

I had an English professor who responded to Bloom's placement of Iago.

He said that Iago would never have the literary acclaim that he does today, without Othello's profound moment of anagnorisis

sorry, but the divine Laurence has him beat

youtube.com/watch?v=px5hvNWoVLE

Again, excellent, but very different to the film.

I'm not really equipped to make an insightful commentary about that right now.
Iago is sort of entrenched of special to me is all. I played him once. And there was an interview where Orson Welles says that Shakespeare played Iago, and thinking about the kind of person I imagine Shakes to be this just sends me into smiles.

Do you remember anything else your professor says about this?

>Iago is sort of entrenched of special to me is all
>and one of trips
brb, killing myself

Speaking of Richard III, I'd like to see the play headed by Ralph Fiennes, but I don't really have any idea how to do it, they make this shit hard.

youtube.com/watch?v=v6ji07tsI2M

It was 14 years ago, but he commented that while Othello is never the most compelling character, the entire play pivots upon his sincere realization of error and betrayal, and it is that moment that signals Iago's triumph and supremacy.

Sir, you shall understand what hath befall'n,
Which, as I think, you know not. Here is a letter
Found in the pocket of the slain Roderigo;
And here another: the one of them imports
The death of Cassio to be undertook
By Roderigo.

OTHELLO
O villain!

CASSIO
Most heathenish and most gross!

LODOVICO
Now here's another discontented paper,
Found in his pocket too; and this, it seems,
Roderigo meant to have sent this damned villain;
But that belike Iago in the interim
Came in and satisfied him.

OTHELLO
O the pernicious caitiff!
How came you, Cassio, by that handkerchief
That was my wife's?

CASSIO
I found it in my chamber:
And he himself confess'd but even now
That there he dropp'd it for a special purpose
Which wrought to his desire.

OTHELLO
O fool! fool! fool!

Rosalind wd be tippy top were her part not so absurdly small. But I'm with you on this one, brah. R2.

I don't think that's part of a production, I think those guardian clips were just famous actors reading monologues and soliloquies for the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare's death.

She has the most lines in AYLI by a wide margin. She is the central character.

I object to Falstaff on the grounds of what "greatness" means.

Does greatness mean that Falstaff himself is a piece of art, like a sculpture or a painting? Then in that case he is great, because he's a magnificent artistic achievement.

However, what about the other meaning of "great"? That is, having qualities towards which one can aspire? In that case, Falstaff isn't really great, or only is insofar as he is smart and witty.

On the other hand, Hal is supposed to be Shakespeare's idealized Christian King, and I think he's an achievement on that front. He is brave and daring, skilled in battle. He is eloquent and witty, as shown by his ability to hold his own with Falstaff. His time among rogues and whores gives him a unique sympathy for the common people, which he maintains. His early viciousness seems fully transformed into corresponding virtue, in the manner of St. Augustine.

I think he's very grand and noble, perhaps the most so of any of Shakespeare's characters, and in that way he's great.

>Hal is supposed to be Shakespeare's idealized Christian King

Where are you getting that? He's a political operator and a ruthless pragmatist throughout the whole Henriad. He betrays ALL his 'friends' up to and including ordering them hanged. His invasion of France is justified on an extremely flimsy and speciously reasoned pretext (the famous 'Salic law ' speech. It's not not exposition, it's ironizing.) And on and on.

Central as Ganymede. Her only occasionally shining through this guise is perhaps a testament to her cleverness, but I prefer her as herself. Richard 2 is a self-damned perversion of Mercutio-- rarely wrong, never right, always Richard.

Rosalind is Ganymede, Ganymede Rosalind. There's no schism in personality between the two. A lot of the sexual ambiguity, humor, and irony in the play is based on this identity of petsona.

So really this thread is about what character is the most flawless. What a stupid thing to argue about. Might as well argue whether Superman or Goku would win in a fight or some other equally masturbatory shit

I know, I know-- what it comes down to, for me, is a matter of reception. I like the characters other than Celia receive her as Ganymede, she's convincing, the play's hub, etc. Nonetheless, whoever she's been is augmented once she becomes finally just Rosalind.
But maybe I'm not being altogether honest. One for instance is that her arranging her own marriage has always bothered me. I feel unenlightened for having confessed this. I could go on but then it would become apparent that I have loved, and have been breezily tossed aside, by a phantom.

Nah i've seen it and he was pretty great.

?