First things first, I think I must publicly acknowledge that I love Shakespeare and was extremely glad to be able to see one of his plays. I’ve read Julius Caesar, Romeo and Juliet,  Macbeth, and Hamlet; each of them left its mark on me in inexplicable ways. Whether it was the betrayal in Caesar or the madness in Hamlet, Shakespeare was always able to uniquely convey emotion through powerful language. At the same time, he touched on timeless themes and relatable topics: the lust for power, parent-child relationships, and the temptations of love are only a few.

There was also his intrigue with history and the monarchy that I could relate to. I am fascinated by the class structure and political systems of the United Kingdom, something I enjoy learning about whenever I can. Whether it’s through watching television (i.e. The Tudors and CW’s Reign, whose season 3 plot intertwines England and France) or doing research, there are so many compelling things about the English monarchy that I’m glad Shakespeare tried to highlight. I mean, just take for example how Henry IV became king by ousting Richard II. Can you believe that happened? What about Elizabeth I, whose feud with Mary, Queen of Scots, resulted in her (Mary’s) execution? English history has been tainted with, among others, murder, treason, incest, and religious rebellion. I can see why Shakespeare loved it.

Henry IV was an amalgamation of the aforementioned traits and themes (namely power and family), set in the 15th century after Henry IV seizes the throne. In the St. Ann’s version, however, there were obvious differences: the cast was all women and it was set in a prison. Coming in, I figured this would be a problem—what would a Shakespeare play be without the glitz and glamour of the monarchy?

Perhaps not much. I admit the play was spectacular—the acting was captivating, the jokes were laugh-out-loud hysterical (Scotland!), and the addition of music was lovely—but some part of me kept feeling like Henry IV the play was really just the backdrop to the drama within the prison. After all, that was the context; the review in class mentioned that, in the plot, the prisoners were staging a show. This ultimately disappointed me. And in the end, while I loved many parts of the St. Ann’s rendition, I came out of it realizing I would rather stick to the old stuff that made Shakespeare great. Unpopular opinion, I know. Sue me.

Last Tuesday, I made my  way to one of my favorite areas in Brooklyn, Dumbo, to see the play Henry Iv at the St. Ann’s Warehouse with my class. This version of the renown play had all all-female cast and I was interested in how that aspect of the play would turn out. I actually really liked the all female cast. I thought the actors were entertaining and believable. Not once did I think that the role would be better played if it were a male because the acting was strong. My favorite actress was the one that played Hotspur. She had high energy and her performance was captivating throughout the night. The boxing scenes with her were also some of my favorite scenes in the play. The plot of the story was interesting and reading the summary definitely helped, but I wish I had read the play before hand in order to understand the meaning of the dialogue better. There were scenes where I was completely lost in the dialogue, but the acting still kept me engaged. I didn’t mind some of the props such as the kids chairs, but I did think the dog and baby were a little silly. Besides that, I wasn’t bothered by the untraditional props because they were intentional in order to show a different interpretation of this play. I really enjoyed how the audience was almost a part of the play at some points. In the beginning, the gates were closed and we weren’t allowed to use the restroom which made me feel like I was locked up as well. The stage was also the room itself and the audience surrounded the room, which also added to that feeling. There were also a few scenes where the audience was directly involved such as the scene where the woman from the audience came on stage. Another thing I enjoyed was the DJ booth. I thought it was clever to use that during the times where the actors would change the stage because the music diverted the audience’s attention. Overall, I really enjoyed this play. I was expecting to see a more traditional version of a Shakespearean play, but it was refreshing to see a modern take on it.

Of the three performances our class has seen so far, “Henry IV,” by William Shakespeare, was easily my favorite. I think the most important thing about these pieces, is the presentation of the story. The performer’s acting, the setting, and the innovative use of the  props  grabbed my attention and successfully communicated the riveting story.

My favorite actress in the play, by far, was Jane Anouka, who played Sir Harry (Hotspur) Percy. Normally in literature and live performances, including plays, movies, and TV shows, I favor the protagonist over the antagonist. I have not been able to give up the mentality of that good will always triumph over evil. However, in this play, the adversary that tries to kill his father, King Henry IV, in an attempt to take control, was the most brilliant in my eyes. In addition to the character’s nature in Shakespeare’s play, the sheer passion that the actress presented us with was awe-inspiring. I was amazed how the actress was able to argue fervently with other characters and perform athletically at the same time without showing even the faintest appearance of exhaustion.

Initially, I was somewhat disappointed with the informality of the play using a DJ for music and children’s toys as props. My perception changed completely after the first few minutes. These two aspects were brilliantly intertwined into the play as a source of comedic effect. Never did I imagine myself laughing at a performance of one of Shakespeare’s renowned plays. Furthermore, when the play took on a serious tone, I found myself too distracted by the intense plot and acting, to notice the simple props.

I was also intrigued by the “play within a play” concept prevalent in several scenes throughout the performance. It added a unique twist to the play, where the viewer is forced to consider multiple settings, rather than just watching the piece exactly as it was written by Shakespeare. It allowed people who are not as familiar and comfortable with of Shakespeare to appreciate the play in a different way.

Even despite the lack of an intermission for a two hour and fifteen minutes performance, I have no complaints! I had a remarkable experience.

After I finished reading the summaries of Henry IV parts 1 and 2, I was very excited to see the play. Unfortunately, when I entered the “theater”, my expectations dropped. For such a highly recommended acting of the play, I did not expect the stage to be a basketball court, with the audience surrounding it from all sides. As the play continued, however, I did not even notice the other side of audience much because the actors acted in such a way that both sides got to see all of the action.

As for the twist of the play within a play, I would have to say that it was highly creative. In the beginning, I got to see how the prisoners were brought in, and even from that point, they were already in their roles, acting like prisoners. Furthermore, the actual fights within the play, as well as the interruptions in it added action to the play, making it more appealing to the current generation.

Although the guards were not major contributors to the play, they did change the overall perspective of it. May it be them constantly keeping an eye on the prisoners from behind the seating area, or from the top of the cage, or even the harsh way they closed the gates, their actions added on to the theme of prison. Aside from that, they did not even allow people to leave the cage during the play.

One thing that I cannot forgive the director was the lack of props. I understand that it is meant to be a prison setting, but really? Child toys as props? A prison is more likely to have actual tables or supplies for the prisoners to make the props from than play sets for children. The only possible reason I can think of for choosing these props were that they were easy to move in between acts.

Overall, I would say that I liked the play, but if I had to choose, I would much rather see a traditional style Shakespearean play. The edits added to it did add action, but it did not seem like Shakespeare would do something like this. May it be that I was not expecting this, or any other plausible reason, I simply did not see the point of this change. As for the actors, bravo, you really did a great job in portraying masculine roles.

Ps. The phone (picture attached) was an actual old-style phone, Professor Ugoretz.

• Ben K