Henry V (1979 TV Movie) User Reviews (13)

Oh, for a Muse of Fire! Pleeeease!

[tonstant viewer · 7/10 · 20 August 2006]

Alec McCowen's Chorus triumphantly opens the play with a summons for a Muse of Fire, but unfortunately someone handed this Muse a fire extinguisher, and flashes of insight, or even energy, are few and far between.

The usual small budget and brief shooting schedule forced videotaping in the studio, but the absence of grand vistas and real battles is not really a problem. Shakespeare's text has the Chorus apologizing for the inadequate scale of combat simulation in the confines of the Globe, and we are instructed to use our imaginations.

This video is a distinct notch below the preceding two Henry IV plays, even though it shares the same director, David Giles. Playing off Anthony Quayle and Jon Finch, David Gwillim's Prince Hal was forced into some level of theatrical vitality. Here Gwillim's weepy, whispery Henry is the whole show, and he doesn't carry it comfortably on his shoulders.

The supporting cast is notably weak, with such accomplished scene stealers as Thorley Walters, Julian Glover and Anna Quayle uncharacteristically ineffective. And both the Fluellen and Pistol are actively annoying.

Individual scenes may work well, like the exposure and condemnation of the regicide plotters or the final scene with Henry and Katherine, but all too often the pulse stops completely, and we sit there with mild hostility, waiting until someone finds a way to switch it on again. Not recommended for classroom use, as it may provoke small arms fire and lifelong hostility to the Bard.

Listen to the Chorus

[poly-nikes · 8/10 · 29 June 2012]

Reviewer "anne-25" from England was evidently so exercised by what she perceived as shortcomings in this excellent production of "Henry V" that she neglected to listen to the words. In the opening Chorus, we are advised that, since the entire combatants of Agincourt could not be incorporated into the production, we must "into a thousand pieces divide one man." A little further along, the Chorus enjoins us thusly: "O, pardon! since a crooked figure may attest in little place a million." Shakespeare obviously knew something that "anne-25" does not -- it's unfeasible to expect two medieval armies to be incorporated into a humble stage production; therefore, we must use our imaginations, as per, again from the Chorus, "upon your imaginary forces work." Even Olivier's and Branagh's film versions left a lot to be desired in this aspect. Olivier's Agincourt was confusing and brief (although the arrow flights, abetted by Walton's glorious music, were stunning); and Branagh's, although more realistic and bloody (fought in the rain as was the real Agincourt), made us suffer through excruciating and over-used slow motion, a device that never adds to action sequences. And by my count, there were far fewer than sixty thousand French soldiers in either production.

So, "anne-25," a little advice -- listen to the Chorus next time, and perhaps you'll enjoy yourself much more.

Not among BBC's best Shakespeare productions

[sarastro7 · 7/10 · 18 April 2007]

BBC's Henry V is good, but not great. In comparison with the much superior Branagh movie, this one seems rather tame. The dialog is not spoken with the awe that the words deserve. I like David Gwillim a lot (esp. in the two preceding Henry IV productions, which were better than this), and all of the cast are consummate professionals with clear enunciation.

As Shakespeare productions go, this Henry V is a worthy and adequate one, but it is something short of extraordinary. As is the case with many of the BBC Shakespeare productions, this too is marred by a lack of real drama in the performance, and when you combine this with the enormous, almost ridiculous prevalence of always stout, always bearded, always middle-aged men in always exaggeratedly ornate costumes, back-dropped by unelaborate and uninteresting sets, the result unfortunately tends to be tainted with a certain dull blandness. No offense to the actors, who are faultless in this. But at least the words come through clearly enough, and the actors, while not allowed much range, do as immaculate a job as they can under the circumstances, which is why productions like this are justified in spite of their shortcomings.

My last complaint regards the French princess, Katherine. The French actress is stunningly good-looking, and I can find no fault with her acting, but the director seems to have overlooked the fact that Kate is supposed to evolve. She starts learning English because she takes an active interest in her forthcoming match with Henry, and as he finally convinces her to yield to him (which she has already decided to do, despite coyly spending the last moments playing hard to get), she should give herself over entirely. That's part of her development. If she doesn't do that, there's no point in the scenes where she has her maid teach her basic English. But here, Henry kisses her twice, and on both occasions she does not respond at all; she does not kiss him back. I believe that is a misconception on the part of the director, who must have wanted to portray her more "historically" and/or "realistically", as a victim of circumstance rather than as an active participant in her fate. But Shakespeare is not literal history. Shakespeare is art. The historical Henry V spoke French like a native. Shakespearean interpretations and dramatic decisions should not be too tainted with historicity, at least not in so literal a sense.

7 out of 10.

Excellent play and cast

[gerlynga · 9/10 · 20 December 2004]

First, it has taken me almost 30 years to finally get a copy of this play to view again. Previously, it was only available as an entire series (all 37 plays)for libraries or schools ONLY--and since not many libraries could afford the entire series, it was unavailable--even at the university libraries I also checked. Thank goodness for Ambrose, since PBS has been horrendous in not making it available earlier. Finally audiences could see accurate productions with excellent casts. So...know that:

1) These were NOT film productions. They were part of an ambitious project to VIDEOTAPE the ENTIRE canon of plays. Therefore, they were shot on sets--RARELY on location. If you are producing all 37 plays with some of the best talent, you don't spend it on frills. Because these were 'filmed' stage plays, the sets were minimal--but tapestries, arches, crenelations, and some grassy knolls sufficed. The costumes were, with the possible exception of Olivier's film, the most accurate--and obviously derived from the 15th c. Duc de Berry's Hours. Kenneth Branagh's had hardly any costumes, and NO ARMOR! Leather armor on the king?! How ridiculous was that? Branagh's film costumes were historically inaccurate, though the french knights did sport some real armor. And the only location filming was the same muddy field for Harfleur and Agincourt.--See Branagh's autobiography for why: Budget mattered here too, just as it did to the BBC in 1978/79.

2)David Giles, directed "I Claudius" about the same time for the BBC, then did "Julius Caesar", and soon after, this cycle of history plays with Derek Jacobi as Richard II, and an interesting Jon Finch (who did a memorable Macbeth for Roman Polanski)as Henry IV. And unlike later producer/directors for the series, he stayed in the historical period of the action; which makes for a better understanding of that action, than seeing "Anthony and Cleopatra" in 16th century clothes. This production also had a lead actor who looked more like the real Henry V (if the NPG portrait is to be believed) and the attention to detail of Henry's scarred cheek from Shrewsbury.

3)David Gwillim not only had the continuity of playing Prince Hal in the series immediately before doing "Henry V", he had also seen Anthony Quayle's Falstaff as a child when his father, Jack Gwillim, was in the play. So there was a rapport. But doing the plays as a continuous series, and viewing it as such, it is easy to see how the portrayal built on what came before. And how bluff, jolly Hal, becomes serious, wary Henry V; who yet still remains approachable and likable as king.

4)Like Branagh's ten years later, this production tried to show a conflicted king, as well as a calculating one; a stickler for the accuracy of his claim to France (witness the close questioning of the prelates' long-winded reasoning), and yet one who could feel both the traitors', and then Bardolph's deaths, and a guilty conscience the night before Agincourt. Okay, so Branagh's and Olivier's Crispin Day speech is more inspiring--they also were enhanced by music. David Gwillim's first act--the tennis balls,and later traitors scenes have never been bettered. Gwillim didn't just glare at the French Ambassador like Branagh; you actually saw the king's surprise, rueful acknowledgment of his own past actions having caused the false impression, and an attempt to control his temper all within the space of a few seconds before he replies. Branagh's scenes were rather more histrionic. Ditto, the traitors scene. Branagh attacked so you saw the anger, but the tears did not equal the pain of those "...Why so didst thou(s)" that Gwillim and Giles did. And that closeup when Gwillim's Henry is told about Bardolph still resonates without the flashbacks Branagh had to use. No one has bettered Gwillim's "Upon the King...". Through inflection and expression it was so much more honest and real. Olivier's is almost sleepy--and he cuts a lot out. Branagh's, though beautifully lit and enhanced by music, still sounds like he's reciting--until the final desperation seeps in. Later, I think the BBC production tried to capture the historical Henry's rigorous adherence to rules, but also his religiosity--though it was very subtly done. (I could see this king burning Badby, pulling him out half burned to recant, and then putting him back in the flames when he doesn't.) RE: The glove scene: Henry deflects the challenge to Fluellen because he knows if Williams does hit him as king, it is a possible death penalty--as Fluellen himself recommends. So, for Henry it is not a game, it is an attempt to protect Williams--yet still let him know what he could have faced. And in CU we see both the king's consideration of Williams's excuses and consequent concern about the situation before he capitulates and gives Williams the crowns. And finally...

5)In over 40 years of viewing, David Gwillim is THE most honestly direct actor I have ever seen. Maybe the range and subtlety of others' talent is not present, but that's what made him almost perfect as Shakespeare's Henry V who was such a forthright and direct king. Olivier comes across as overtly regal, and Branagh as younger and more approachable. You never forget Olivier is a king, and Branagh is more like a brother. Only David Gwillim caught the middle ground of both the honest directness and resultant surety of purpose in Henry's authority, and the isolation of self-awareness. So for now, and as I did 30 years ago, I thank Mr. Gwillim (and Mr. Giles) for "the little touch of 'Harry(V)' in the night."

Hooray for Captain Fluellen

[bluheron1 · 2 June 2010]

The production has been well-covered above. I just want to add that, to me, this is deep Shakespeare without piffle-paffle, as the good Captain Fluellen would say. It presents the full story as Will wrote it, with minimal, if any, cuts.

As an American, I must say that British actors never cease to amaze me. They must get a lot more training than Yank actors do. For instance, Tim Wylton as the 'actively annoying' Captain Fluellen to my mind created a memorable comic character. He made me laugh or at least smile in every speech he made, which is exactly Fluellen's purpose (other than representing the rough, honest courage of the common soldier.) And I woke up thinking about his portrayal this morning, and I was still chuckling.

I particularly wish to thank 'gerlynga' for his or her thoughtful review clearly based on a deep knowledge of the play's many productions. I look forward to reading all her stuff.

"Fortune Made His Sword"

[bkoganbing · 9/10 · 17 February 2013]

Although this BBC televised play would as a matter of course lack the production values that Laurence Olivier and Kenneth Branagh brought to their films of Henry V, this adaption is second to none in the quality of the performance. In fact David Gwillim who had played Prince Hal in both parts of Henry IV grew into the role in a way that Olivier and Branagh never did.

It is interesting to speculate how history might have changed had Henry V gotten a few more years. While British historians proclaim one of the greatest of monarchs, the French see him as slightly below Hitler as one of the greatest enemies of their country. As well they should, the English got battlefield glory, the French buried battlefield dead as the 100 Years War was fought in their country. He died a couple of years older than that other conqueror Alexander the Great and had both of them lived who knows what they might have achieved.

Henry V is fulfilling the promise of greatness that he showed so little of as Prince Hal. The play concerns itself with his taking full command of the throne, executing some conspirators who were planning to assassinate him, and then achieving one of the great battlefield triumphs of the Middle Ages, the English victory at Agincourt over a French army that outnumbered them. Gwillim plays Henry with authority and decisiveness that rank with what Olivier, Branagh and others have done with the part.

The BBC series of Shakespeare plays were productions of the highest quality. I only wish that they were all available in this country as this one was. I saw it when it first aired on American public television back in 1979 and it is still as good as I remembered it from then.

Splendid

[alainenglish · 7/10 · 27 August 2007]

This splendid adaptation of "Henry V" caps off the first part of Shakespeare's eight plays Histories Cycle.

The recently crowned Henry V (David Gwillim) continues the legacy of his late father, and plans an invasion of France to advance his kingdom and consolidate his family's hold on the English throne.

It is worth watching for Gwillim's performance alone. He handles the play's memorable lines and speeches with dexterity and exuberance; 'once more unto the breach', the St Crispian's day speech and the concluding courtship of Katherine (Jocelyne Boisseua) are all alive in his hands. Some of the speeches in Act IV (where Henry describes his inheriting his father's guilt about usurping the throne from Richard II) could have been cut for this version, as they heavily slow the pace here.

Alec McCowen is the Chorus for this play and although he botches the famous opening speech "O for a muse of fire..." he delivers all his other lines well and brings the story together. Bryan Pringle's Pistol and Brenda Bruce's Hostess are very well played, the latter delivering a touching 'adieu' to the camera before departing.

There is a chronological break of several years before Shakespeare picks up the story of Henry's son and successor Henry VI.

Now available at AMAZON UK on DVD

[ikinal · 10/10 · 30 August 2006]

The complete Shakespeare set is now available at Amazon UK for a fairly low price of about $250 - depending upon exchange rates. Note the price they quote is NOT the price you pay, since it includes VAT. Shipping is only a few pounds, and takes less than a week. The amazing set includes ALL 37 plays in a compact box.

The only SLIGHT problem is that it's REGION 2 encoded.

To get around that problem, go to your favorite auction web site, and search for multi-region code free.

There, you should find sales of instructions on how to convert MOST DVD players to region-free players -fairly simply, as part of setup.

If for some reason, your player is not included in the list then consider picking up an inexpensive one -I managed to get one for $30, including shipping.

Needed more blood (aka substance) but far from cold as stone

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 31 January 2019]

Ever since studying 'Macbeth' and 'Twelfth Night' in Year 6 (consisting mostly of reading the text out aloud and analysing it), there has been high appreciation, and even love, for William Shakespeare's plays and his mastery of language. 'Henry V' is not one of my favourites of his, though am not sure whether it would be counted as a lesser play in my book because it does have a lot of powerful text (the Crispin's Day speech being one of the bard's finest) and an interesting titular character.

Between 1978 and 1985, the BBC did a series of performances of all Shakespeare's plays. While quality-wise it is not consistent, the BBC Television Shakespeare series is a fascinating one. It is great to see Shakespeare mostly adapted and performed faithfully and with respect, to see all of Shakespeare's work as part of one project and seeing so many talented actors at various career stages either in signature roles/styles or against type. There are so many fine and more performances in the series, though not all have worked, and the production values and stage direction also varied. This 1979 BBC production of 'Henry V' is not one of the best of the BBC Television Shakespeare series, though not quite a lesser one at the same time. It is somewhat of a let down after the wonderful 'Henry the Fourth' productions and do consider the Kenneth Branagh and Laurence Olivier films superior. That is not discrediting the production in any way though because there is a good deal to like here.

'Henry V's' production values may not be lavish or grand, but they didn't always come over as ugly or tacky to me and served their purpose well. Considering that the budget wasn't a big one they could have been far worse. The camera work doesn't try to do too much or anything too fancy that it comes over as chaotic and has intimacy when needed, though it could have opened up more. As an adaptation, there are cuts and abridgements but they are ones that are tasteful and make sense, not affecting the story's coherence.

While the staging didn't blow me away, that it's cohesive and doesn't do anything that's tasteless or gratuitous is laudable. The humour, authority and emotion are generally there and in the right places. Shakespeare's writing shines through with wit, intelligence and emotion, and mostly it is delivered very well with a few disappointments. Found the supporting cast to be excellent, with them being funny and touching in all the right places without mugging or being overwrought. Bryan Pringle (enjoying himself), Brenda Bruce, Anna Quayle and Thorley Walters all deliver, as does Alec McCowen. Jocelynne Boisseau is a touching Katherine. While David Gwillim is not as consistent (his delivery of the Crispins Day speech is agreed anaemic) and was much better in the 'Henry the Fourth' productions, which also did much better with Henry's character growth and conflict, much of his performance is still authoritative and moving.

Did find though that the production was a bit drab and in places static. Liked that the staging was respectful but later on it could have been bolder and had much more tension.

The momentum is not always there and parts were on the too safe and bland side, character development not always growing enough (i.e. Katherine).

Overall though, an interesting and decent production, but there is a preference for the Branagh and Olivier versions. 7/10 Bethany Cox

The best English king, for nine years.

[Dr_Coulardeau · 10/10 · 21 November 2016]

He is the perfect king in Shakespeare's plays who reigns from 1413 to 1422, hence nine years. Shakespeare invested him in three previous plays, Richard II, 1 Henry IV and 2 Henry IV. But in these plays he is a kid and then a teenager playing it hooky in the taverns of London. But that time is now finished as we know from his rebuke to Falstaff on his coronation day at the end of 2 Henry IV. The man has changed and his most important achievement is the battle of Agincourt on October 25, 1415, the day that celebrates Saint Crispin that Shakespeare also calls Crispian who was put to death on October 25, 285. Note how the superstitious people of Shakespeare's time can jubilate on the fact that 285 produces 15 by adding the three digits of the date. Hence 1415 is a miracle date that brings God down on Henry's side to the point that the battle only kills twenty-five people on the English side, dixit Shakespeare, twenty-five to honor October 25, Saint Crispin's day.

This English king who has the intention to unify England and France by marrying the King of France's daughter will fail in that respect since his son will only be six years old when he dies in the Château of Vincennes in France on 1422. Note though how they all are cousins or uncles. In other words these two crowns are systematically inbreeding. There is little clean blood and new blood in their descendants. Shakespeare seems to consider this as normal and even a sign of closeness, hence a justification for unifying the two crowns and of course the two nations that are seen and defined as being born under the kings of this period. The War of Roses is like a nation-forming civil war, a war between brothers and cousins, uncles and nephews. That's one of the results of this intense inbreeding. So Henry V marries his cousin. And their imposing the One Hundred Year War onto the French will enable the French to become a nation at the same time.

That's the end of the play and the courtship of Henry to Katharine is both awkward and funny how Henry is behaving like a soldier and wants the courtship to be a battle and Katharine to yield to his might, and at the same time how Katharine is well-behaved and French-educated and she has to flee, fly away and flutter around, and she swiftly parry his assault, deflect his attack, block and avert his advance, counter and rebuff his intention, and finally repel and repulse his vanity to take as a conquest what should be received as a gift or a present. Luckily her father King Charles VI arrives and he can finally give his daughter to Henry and Henry can finally receive Katharine. The love words of Henry are vastly contorted by the linguistic game of both, Katharine trying to speak some English and Henry attempting the impossible task of speaking some French.

The whole action of the play is one battle or nearly, the war leading to that battle, Agincourt, and it is thus entirely dominated by military questions. It contrasts the English army led by Henry V and the French army led by the Dauphin in the name of his aging father Charles VI. Imagine the French nobles drinking wine in the morning before the battle and boasting that they are going to defeat the English the way they gulp their wine. On the other side the English are austere and very serious in their concentration on God and his necessary help. The English are humble in many ways and the French are vain, as vain as peacocks who will end up plucked like chickens before roasting or broiling.

In a very clear sign of defeat Montjoy, the French herald, appears three times. The second time he had said he would not come again, and the third time he comes to concede the day is Henry's, hence the defeat. Three is always a sign of a disturbance, a bad news, a catastrophe. But the catastrophe of one side is the victory of the other. And he will come a fourth time with the body counts that will settle the bad news and bring up a good news. First the French body count:

"HENRY V: ten thousand, sixteen hundred mercenaries; The rest, princes, barons, lords, knights, squires, And gentlemen of blood and quality." (IV viii)

And then the English body count:

"HENRY V: Duke of York, Earl of Suffolk, Sir Richard Ketly, Davy Gam, esquire: all other men five and twenty." (IV viii)

But the strong point is the night before the battle. On the French side they revel and are bored of waiting. On the English side they try to rest and concentrate on their divine mission. The king though tries something delicate: he hides himself under some cloak and goes around to check on his men. Security is correct every single time he comes up in the night. He finally sits with a group of soldiers and one of them, Williams, gets into an argument with the King, not knowing who he is, because Williams is not as respectful as he should be and Henry overreacts. But this leads to a deep and sad reflection of the king. He sees his place as the depositary of all the tasks and actions of the people but he also considers that the soul of these people is their own and they have to look after it themselves, as he says to the soldiers in the night.

And then alone he gets onto a long reflection of the fate of a king, shifting from prose to verse to let us know he is reaching out to the sky, to God, to the truth of life he definitely considers as the truth of God.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

Not unabridged, not Branagh, but worth watching

[flash-104 · 7/10 · 1 January 2007]

I'll start with a correction to another review: Like most or all of the other BBC Shakespeare productions I've watched, this has some minor abridgments, e.g., the haggling about "Heir to France" in V.2. It's nothing like as extreme as the "Good Bits" approach that Branagh took, and indeed leaves in some passages that suggest that even Shakespeare nods, such as Fluellen's nattering about Macedonian and Monmouth rivers immediately after mourning the massacre of the boys.

Like most of the other BBC Shakespeare I've watched, it's mostly competent, low-key, and not very dramatic. (After Olivier and Branagh, it was kind of interesting to see a sedate Crispin's Day speech.) There are some outright mistakes in the directing, at least in the light of Branagh. I don't see how anyone, for instance, could ever have directed Nym's leave-taking from Mistress Quickly as casual. But there are bits of Shakespeare here you won't see anywhere else, so it's worth watching, once you've seen Olivier and Branagh.

Quite a good rendering of an uneven play.

[mhk11 · 16 October 2011]

I want to reply to one of the claims made by the 2010 reviewer (who puerilely refers to Shakespeare as "Will"). This reviewer states that the play is presented "with minimal, if any cuts." If the reviewer takes the time to read the play instead of making uninformed pronouncements about it, he or she will discover that numerous cuts have been made in the BBC's production. To be sure, most of the abridgments are pretty well judged, and there are considerably fewer abridgments than in the Olivier and Branagh versions. Nonetheless, the claim that the BBC's production presents the text uncut or nearly uncut is flatly incorrect.

As for the production itself, it's quite a good rendering of an uneven play. I agree that David Gwillim is too "weepy" and "whispery", but he performs several of his scenes well (for example, the scene with the tennis balls -- until he starts to throw them -- the scene of the exposure of the traitors, and the scene in which he woos Katherine). His rendering of the magnificent St Crispin's Day speech is very disappointing, but his rendering of the riposte to Montjoy shortly after that speech is excellent. Likewise, although he starts the great "Once more unto the breach" speech quite lamely, he finishes it well. Other members of the cast are generally proficient. In particular, the actors who appear as the French nobles seem to enjoy their roles, and they perform those roles adeptly.

Shame, and eternal shame, nothing but shame...

[anne-25 · 18 October 2002]

Another BBC take on Shakespeare's histories, this production is of somewhat dubious quality. Completely unabridged, the play can be difficult to follow for those who have not read it, also, the poor camera angles and lacklustre performances from the cast fail to emphasise on certain points. David Gwillim, whom certainly looks more like Henry V than Olivier or Branagh, has a mixed performance in the lead role. His Henry, while amusing and likeable at times, tends to whimper his speeches, most notably when he meekly whispers his way through the St. Crispins day speech before leading his men against three or four pitiful French whom, we are to believe, are actually Sixty-thousand strong. In fact I lie, Henry does not even lead his men, we only see him trudging towards us after the "battle" has taken place. The characters than have the audacity to boast that ten-thousand French have been slain, when we have yet to see one dead body (discounting the solitary dead "boy")

The scenery is poor as well, instead of filming on location, the play is filmed on a horribly unrealistic set, the walls of Harfleur are evidently made from cardboard or some such substance, and the scenic field of Agincourt is in fact a wall. Cinematography does not change, almost all of the play is filmed in bright cutesy colours and Agincourt seems a remarkably pleasant "telly-tubby" place (all we need is the. We just cannot believe for a moment that what we are watching is real. The lack of music as well must be stated, since it strips the play of drama and tension.

This play could have been so good, the cast is capable, but the direction is so poor. If music, on-location sets, and better cinematography (i.e mud, fire, blood at Harfleur and Agincourt) had been used, then for very little extra money, the play could have been brilliant.