I'm not a big fan of period costume dramas (or musicals for that matter), but what Kenneth Branagh did here as screenwriter, actor and director served to bring Shakespearean verse to life in a way that would have made using modern dialog an injustice. I'm not that familiar with Shakespeare apart from cursory study in high school, and with that being so far in the past, the film was a welcome departure from more traditional movie fare for this viewer. One mention in particular was surprising to hear, that of a 'band of brothers' referred to in Henry's St. Crispin's speech, only to learn a short time later that the verse actually inspired the title of that acclaimed World War II mini-series. I thought Branagh's Henry was quite eloquent in motivating his men to battle, and no less so in wooing the French Princess Kate (Emma Thompson). The film itself and Branagh's delivery is decidedly pro-England, but then again, so was William Shakespeare, and with this film one gains a measure of the bard's rich language and emotion.
Add a Review
-
When this movie was first released, I was living in Memphis, Tennessee, not exactly the most cine-literate city in the world, and it was only showing at one theatre in town- luckily, it was right next door to where I worked. I decided to see the late show one night after work, and was so totally blown away that I saw it every night for the next four days, in one case even getting off work early to catch it. As the first directorial outing for Kenneth Branagh, it must surely rank among the most impressive directorial debuts in history. I don't feel that I'd be overstating my point to say that not since Orson Welles' "Citizen Kane" was a directorial debut so impressive. From Derek Jacobi's brilliant opening soliloquy as The Chorus to the climactic battle sequence and the following sequence of King Henry's surveying of the carnage on the battlefield, this is a film that never lags, owing to Branagh's willingness to excise certain sequences that don't translate well to film- a move that Olivier was unwilling to make for his production of Henry V back in the 40's. This film totally altered the way I thought of Shakespeare- I went from looking at a Shakespearean work as being full of literary merit, but of dubious entertainment value. However, after this film, and followed soon after by "Hamlet" with Mel Gibson and "Prospero's Books" with Sir John Gielgud, I came to realize the full entertainment value of Shakespearean story, long before the recent Shakespeare explosion brought on by the Romeo and Juliet music video with Leonardo DeCaprio.
-
Ever since its release in 1989, critics of "Henry V" felt the obligation to draw a comparaison with the classic 1944 adaptation of the war-driven Shakespearian play by Sir Laurence Olivier; the legend had died that same year and I suppose couldn't watch Kenneth Branagh's vision and compare it with his own as a sort of final full-circle life satisfecit.
I can see where reviewers are coming from from but then again, I feel the film deserves to be judged on its own standards and be at least compared with the original material. Besides, Olivier's film was released in 1944 when British morals asked for more boosting and the flamboyant play could clearly exploit the audiences' need for patriotic uprising to accompany Churchill's calls of collective efforts and sacrifices. Branagh didn't have such a context to sustain his film, he was simply a Shakespearian actor who understood the timeless appeal of the play and decided to direct it with his boiling and proud Irish soul emphasizing the war aspect and the impetuousness of the king, reacting with irreverence to French condescendance.
And what he came up with is simply a captivating and gripping war-movie with a special uses of lights and darkness to isolate the earlier moments with shades of solemnity. Roger Ebert complained that the bishops' part, handled by Olivier with a little comical approach, was too talkative and needlessly expositional in the film. Personally, I feel that Branagh wanted to point out that the sort of tacit pressure exercised on the fresh shoulders of the Prince creating a rather stressful situation, Henry V who was in his late twenties wasn't a reknown warmonger but if any war against France could be tainted with legitimacy (the famous Salic wars) he would at least consider it.
The real trigger is the provocation from the Dolphin and the infamous tennis balls destined to mock his inexperience; that moment is the first hint that Branagh had nothing to envy from Olivier and would make him rather proud: the small grin that draws in his face before he can finally decide to turn the provocation back to the French throne is one of the first acting punches he hits and the best is still to come. Branagh might have intended to make a character study out of the play, an indication of the ordeal being a king in war times is, with the whole self-questioning about worthiness of war, when you're left with the Cornelian choice between war and dishonor.
"Henry V" is a legitimate film and the only concession to the play is the chorus (Derek Jacobi) who reveals his modern clothes in the exterior parts. For all its realism, "Henry V" had to open with the iconic "muses of fire" tirade, it lacks the surprise effect of Olivier's film where stage slowly turns into a real background but Branagh opts for these lyrical interludes to keep in line with the play's spirit, a little concession to story before embracing history. The chorus is more a narrator than a ringmaster here.
So the film displays a VIP gallery of British actors: Judi Dench, Robbie Coltrane as Falstaff, a young Christian Bale as the luggage-boy, Emma Thompson as Katherine, Maggie Smith and Paul Scofield who played the tired and worn-down Charles VI. They're all great but the one bravura performance comes from Branagh who delivers the first rousing speech culminating with "To the breach" during the siege of Harfleur. Branagh passes the test wonderfully and at that time never fails to convince us that he's not only the true heir of his royal ancestors but of Laurence Olivier. But while Olivier put them battles in broad daylight emphasizing the naturalness of the location, Branagh turns them into mud and rain with black and brownish tones that make blood make one with dirt... as you would expect from a modern film, the fights are realistic,
The deaths are as impressive as in the most efficient war-movies culminating with a seemingly Pyrrhic victory when the British soldiers triumph but out of despair, French had all squires and page boys killed. The film provides us the most heart-breaking moment with 'Non Nobis and Te Deum' song performed by Patrick Doyle while Henry is carrying young Bale on his back. The track shot is long and the look and pain in his face is genuine but the scene marks the film's own personality and Branagh seems like carrying a legacy of hundreds of year (counting the 1944 adaptation) and he does with such an attachment to his role that he deserved the acting nomination.
He also was nominated for Directing (like Olivier) but didn't win. It's ironic that Mel Gibson would win for a similar film but maybe Gibson had the benefit of 'freedom' (no pun intended) by distancing himself from a previously existing work so he could throw some picturesque quality in the fights and make them look new, if not original. Branagh had no care about poetry in his fight scenes, it's just chaotic, furious, fiery and maybe closest to what the battle would have looked for real. It's still a wonderful tour-de-force from Branagh who revives the film by understanding the value of the play as a war-movie precursor:, as I sad in my review of Olivier's play, it set many templates of the genre and Branagh knew how to transcend them.
The concluding little romance with Emma Thompson is perhaps the one flaw I could agree with Ebert who said the characters weren't so romantically developed to make that ending emotionally rewarding and maybe Branagh would have better left it, but maybe he knew this is a part of the play audiences expect and needed to end his film with something more uplifting, allowing him to display a more relaxed range of emotion.
All in all, this is a glorious superproduction and a wonderful consecration of Branagh as the Olivier of his times.... And I guess I'm also guilty of reviewing by comparaison. -
artemis_57 December 2004"Henry V" marks Kenneth Branagh's greatest achievement to date. Branagh not only directs this rich and visually stunning film, he stars as the title character. The movie opens with Derek Jacobi (Branagh's Shakespearean mentor) in modern garb passionately delivering the prologue. Then we are taken into the dark, dank rooms of Henry's castle. The king makes his dramatic entrance, complete with a Darth Vader style cape.
The entire film is filled with grandeur and pomp, with any faults in the story line being attributable more to Shakespeare himself than Branagh. Henry V as I remember it from my college English class is a decidingly pro-British play (and film). There is little question that France should be conquered, and Henry speaks of his war against France as if it were France that attacked England. Indeed, Henry's famous "St. Chrispin's day speech" is so rousing, that it has been quoted often and inspired the name of the "Band of Brothers" miniseries about World War II. This is no surprise, since Shakespeare's prose is famously beautiful.
There is definitely a difference in the way that both sides of the conflict are presented. The French, at least in Branagh's movie are presented as arrogant (and somewhat effeminate), while on the side of the English, even children are filled with manly courage. Henry is presented as noble, fair, and merciful. True he threatens the mayor of one French town, telling him that if he does not surrender the town, the English will do terrible things to its residents, but does not carry out his threat. He also hangs the one English soldier who steals from a French church, refusing to show favoritism for him just because he was his friend. Apparently mercy towards your own countrymen was not a virtue that Henry saw particularly important.
The films greatest attribute is its soundtrack, particularly the use of music in the scene following the battle of Agincourt in which the warring parties collect their dead for burial.
All in all, a fascinating look inside the mind of a king. -
Excellent return to Shakespeare's young King Henry with 28 year old Branagh perfectly filling the shoes Olivier tried so hard to fill 40 plus years before. Branagh, who also directed, brings the film to life with exciting battle scenes, a first rate supporting cast that features the fine Shakespearean veteran Jacobi as the Chorus. Also with Holm, Bannen, the always reliable Brian Blessed and Emma Thompson. The story is better told and moves about at a much better pace than previous Shakespeare films. Branagh started an incredible trend with this film. (Much Ado About Nothing, Hamlet, Othello) He was Oscar nominated as Actor and Director for his work here. The film won for Costuming.
-
scotty1220 February 2001This film surely must be in the frame for a number of best ever categories - best Shakespeare film adaptation, one of the best ever war films AND one of the best ever performances by a male actor. It's truly stunning to see how Shakespeare's words, which seemed dull and difficult to understand at school, can be spoken as passages of such depth, beauty and power. Not one in a thousand actors could do this convincingly - but Kenneth Branagh can.
I think this far outshines the Olivier version from 1944 (very good though that was). Branagh convinces (where Olivier does not always) as he gives a wider range of emotional responses to Henry - self questioning, compassionate, sad at the harsh realities of life. You can really believe that here is a young man who used to be a playboy now faced with having to grow up and behave as a king of England. As others have said, he gives such fire and charisma to the battle speeches that you want to march straight into battle yourself! And importantly, Branagh also convinces utterly in the romantic wooing of the French princess.
Naturally enough, the film focuses on the main actor playing Henry, but the supporting actors are also excellent. Derek Jacobi, particularly, does wonderfully in a difficult role. If I had to give one very slight caveat however, it would be that Emma Thompson (who I love as an actress), does not quite convince as a native French speaker, though she makes a good try at speaking the language rapidly. Perhaps Juliette Binoche would have been better here? But overall the obvious rapport between Branagh and Thompson (who were married at the time) is more important than any slight problems with the accent.
The only Shakespeare performance that tops this movie is seeing Branagh give a live performance on stage - I was privileged to see him (with Emma Thompson) perform Much Ado About Nothing in the late 1980s, and that's still the best I've ever seen.
Don't just see this - buy or record a copy. If you see it once, you will most likely want to see it over and over! 10/10 -
didi-522 May 2005Kenneth Branagh played Henry V at the RSC in 1984, with Adrian Noble directing. Clearly this was a watershed in his life as some of the ideas from that production transferred into his own film, five years later.
Branagh is a mud-spattered, ordinary Joe, a king who like nothing more than the blood and sweat of battle. No heroic 'St Crispian's Day' a la Olivier here. Taking Henry out of the confines of the play within a play (which tended to stagnate the 1944 film) was a good move.
This is definitely the best Shakespeare film to involve Branagh, standing head and shoulders above this bloated Hamlet, the crass Love's Labour's Lost, the trite Much Ado. In his cast are Derek Jacobi (a memorable Chorus), Emma Thompson (disappointing as the future Queen), Richard Briers (excellent as Bardolph), Ian Holm (reliable as Fluellen), and (inspired casting) Michael Williams as Williams.
A clever Henry V, then, with costumes for the period, but a relevance to the times. We might not engage in close combat any more, but this Henry gives a sense of the futility of war, not just its glories. -
classicalsteve6 September 2009According to William Shakespeare, on the morn of the Battle of Agincourt (1415), one of the final military confrontations during the 100-Years War between France and England, the English troops exhibit hesitancy and consternation toward this monumental of tasks at hand. They have been engaged in a long campaign on French soil having just trekked several hundred miles toward Calais to return to England. Kenneth Branagh as King Henry V suddenly appears among his soldiers and speaks the words that inspire his noble "brethren". Here is but an excerpt:
"This day is called the Feast of Crispian: He that outlives this day, and comes safe home, Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named, And rouse him at the name of Crispian. He that shall live this day, and see old age, Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours, And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian:' Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars. And say 'These wounds I had on Crispin's day.' Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot, But he'll remember with advantages What feats he did that day: then shall our names. These are words that would make any man fight for his brethren." (Act IV, Scene 3)
No one knows exactly when William Shakespeare wrote Henry V (aka The Cronicle History of Henry fift, The Life of Henry Fift) except that it was probably penned sometime between the late 1580's and 1590's. Aside from the historical liberties that permeate much of the drama, such as the king's executing anyone who would steal from local French communities (in reality Henry V's troops plundered much of the French countryside during their campaign), Henry V stands as one of Shakespeare's most moving and inspirational achievements. Certainly, the play is very much biased toward the English. While the English are colorful, emotional, and determined, the French are portrayed as conniving and dispassionate, except for the princess Kate. Shakespeare was not intending to teach a lesson in medieval history but rather arouse patriotism among his fellow countrymen. (Is it possible Henry V was written during the time of England's battle against the Spanish Armada in 1588?)
Kenneth Branagh has taken Shakespeare's overly patriotic play and forged a piece that combines the stunning visuals of Hollywood film-making with the high-culture of William Shakespeare into a movie of stunning magnitude that seems nearly incomparable, with the possible exception of Zeffirlli's "Romeo and Juliet". Hollywood films of this type have often been lopsided with great visuals but mediocre scripts. However, in this case, there is no better screenwriter than William Shakespeare. Added to the mix is an outstanding cast of Shakespearian actors who navigate through Shakespeare's blank verse as easily as if they were speaking modern dialogue instead of late 16th-century English. They speak the lines as if they are spontaneously being uttered rather than being remembered from a 400-year-old play. And to give a little bit of spice to the experience, Branagh incorporates a few flashback scenes from Shakespeare's Henry IV in which Prince Hal (not yet Henry V) commiserates with a band of drunkard cronies lead by none-other than one of Shakespeare's most popular characters, Sir John Falstaff.
This play, this noble play, which hast action, adventure and high arte, would be a fine and noble way to show those of young years the arte of Shakespeare. Seest thou this filme, this fine filme. And if thou seest not this filme, I will sadly be forced to come into thy companie and take ye to the theatre, tie ye up to a chair, and make ye watch these actors fine. Aye, ye willst later thank me, for never was there a moment dull. -
Xstal26 September 2020I'm often amused by the ruling classes of these times and their belief in their genetic right to conquer overseas territories, using soldiers whose family history is as distant from their own, as the void between Shakespearian preachers and the unconverted.
Being an unconverted I find that history has been adjusted or important elements omitted, the translation from stage to screen leaves me wanting to watch it in a theatre and that interpretation and translation, or perhaps misinterpretation and mistranslation can lead to fascinating new perspectives or calamitous and catastrophic conclusions - in all walks of life, regardless of your lineage or aspirations. -
jaredpahl9 February 2021In America, and probably most of the Western world, we are all introduced to the works of William Shakespeare by force. For reasons unknown to us at the time, we're made to read (or follow along with) these ancient plays as some kind of obligatory checkmark in our school careers. Whether Shakespeare was taught to us by teachers who are passionate fans of the material or, more likely, dutiful nannies, it seems we have all started into the world of Shakespeare from the same point. We take for granted why Shakespeare is considered essential. It always begins, for all of us, as boring, incomprehensible Ye Olde English homework, and nothing more.
And then you see something that convinces you otherwise. For me, it was a field trip to the American Players Theatre for AP English class when I was 16. The play was The Taming of the Shrew. I couldn't tell you what the play was about, I couldn't name to you a single character from memory, but what I do remember is the excitement of watching actors take Shakespeare seriously. Even in a comedy, I could see passion in the performances. This wasn't 14-year-olds reciting "What light through yonder window breaks" in apathetic monotone, this was professionals who made Shakespeare's words sing, almost literally. It was an honest-to-God compelling show, and the first time I remember actually wanting to enjoy Shakespeare. I was with a crowd of people who seemed to get it. They laughed at the right times and they seemed to follow along with the story. If The Taming of the Shrew didn't spark in me a love for Shakespeare, it at least sparked a real interest.
But onto my main point; Kenneth Branagh's film adaptation of Henry V is the type of thing to spark even more than an interest in Shakespeare for those who were like me. All that business I encountered 9 years ago, the taking it seriously, the passion, the elaborate staging and electricity of a crowd who loved Shakespeare; all those feelings are magnified in Henry V. Here is a movie, Branagh's first ever, that so confidently "gets" Shakespeare, that it ends up an unconditional triumph.
The major achievement of Henry V, the story of the young English King's valiant attempt to lead an outnumbered force into the Battle of Agincourt, is that word; 'unconditional'. Here we have Shakespeare's prose, his setting, his characters. The movie is without modern punch-ups or any attempts to orient us by re-figuring the story. Barring modern-set narration by Derek Jacobi, Henry V is Straight 'Speare. And somehow, there are no excuses you have to make for Henry V. You don't have to put on the qualifiers, "Shakespeare's language is tough to understand", "Knowing English history would make things clearer", "You need to know the context of the era". No, Branagh overcomes these obstacles with three huge elements: knowledge, passion and artistry.
Firstly, his understanding of Henry V does wonders. I've never seen or read the play, I don't know what I'm talking about, but still, I can see that Branagh the actor and Branagh the director believe in what they are saying and showing. Maybe it's just a trick of the performance, but when King Henry bellows out the St. Crispin's Day speech, and Patrick Doyle's music swells, it's an ecstatic moment. I don't need someone to explain to me what every word means because Branagh knows it for me. You follow his performance through the film almost like an emotional translator. That's the passion I mentioned. Kenneth Branagh is wildly excited to share his love for Shakespeare with the audience and the same goes for the supporting cast. The memo got to Emma Thompson, Ian Holm, Brian Blessed and the rest; "This is fun, this is exciting. Play it so."
Then, most importantly, there is Branagh's direction. This is no filmed stage play, and that's a shameful understatement. In fact, Henry V is a stunning piece of cinematic Cin-E-ma. Robust, bold, and gorgeously mounted, Henry V's visual style is in the same league as the very best historical epics. We're talking Braveheart-level artistry from Branagh, who opens the movie on a One Perfect Shot stunner and barely lets up until the final battle. And what a battle his Agincourt is. One does not expect this kind of scope, brutality, and muddy, bloody catharsis out of a Shakespeare adaptation. Doyle's aforementioned music is incredible, marrying so perfectly to the rousing action.
This Henry V is a Movie movie. Not a quiet and respectful "film adaptation" but an engrossing, stand-up-and-cheer prestige action adventure. That it does this with all the Shakespearian elements intact is its greatest feat. No need for samurai stand-ins or translated dialogue or a modern day setting, this is Shakespeare, straight-up, and it rocks! Seeing Kenneth Branagh's enthusiastic debut film is enough to make you rethink those old high school prejudices. How can a movie with so many 'wherefore's and 'thou's be so badass?
92/100 -
Tweetienator12 August 2021Solid drama of maestro Shakespeare put into motion pictures and spiced up by some fine performance by (young) Kenneth Branagh and the rest of the cast. One of those movies of (it seems) long gone times, where Hollywood was not on its crusade of reeducation and destroying great storytelling material with unnecessary agenda changes but making great and entertaining movies. But still, there is the version of Laurence Olivier from 1944, that I like a little better.
-
scalasaig30 May 2004When this film came to my town, I had never heard of Kenneth Branagh (or indeed several others in the cast whom I have now come to respect immensely); however, I went with high hopes. From the first scenes on, I found my optimism rewarded. I was impressed with the acting, the staging, and everything else. But something kept nagging at me. It wasn't until Mountjoy (the French herald) entered Henry's throne room that I realized what was impressing me so much. THEY WERE WEARING THE RIGHT CLOTHES FOR 1415! That kind of attention to detail shows throughout, and makes what would otherwise be an exceptional effort even more superlative. Also, while I am a great fan of Laurence Olivier, I still feel that in this performance Branagh IS Henry. A truly masterful effort!
-
issjmcke10 March 2000I prefer Olivier's interpretation of the role. Branagh is very showy actor but his primary method of registering emotional variation is via the volume of his voice. There is a key point in the play when Henry's troops appear vulnerable and his allies begin to desert him that Henry expresses self-doubt. Branagh simply gets louder.
While Olivier's interpretation is bit romantic and his clipped English Boarding School accent has nothing to do with Shakespeare he at least possesses the technical facility to explore the subtleties of important scenes. -
Derek Jacobi's wonderfully proud, winking Chorus and Patrick Doyle's interesting (but barely) score are the sole redeeming features of this early Kenneth Branagh misfire. A gritty (in a BBC sense of the word) take on Shakespeare's mostly tedious historical play, "Henry V" gives far too much power to one man in the worst way that Branagh repeated so often to such bewildering acclaim. He not only directs and, rather pretentiously, "adapts for the screen" the words of the Bard, but also plays the title character. And sadly, he is by far no Olivier. The man has talent, to be sure, but it either wasn't here yet or it had fled temporarily when he took up this triple task. The only "flat, unraised spirit" here is Branagh himself, who essays a monotonous monarch with all the emotional depth of Keanu Reeves after an all-nighter. He even fumbles his one good instinct as a filmmaker: flashing back to "Henry IV" is an excellent way to provide backstory for people who aren't too familiar with the soap opera nature of some of Shakespeare's histories (which is primarily important here for the character of Falstaff), but the technique doesn't mesh with the rest of the picture. And why keep the Chorus? He's a purely theatrical device. He's there to tell us we have to imagine that we're in France or Southampton-- a necessity of the theater, in which all you can see is a stage and what's on it, but somewhat disconcerting in a film because the entire point of a film is to show us someplace we normally wouldn't see. Did he keep the Chorus to make his job, as a director, of sustaining our illusion that much easier? Whatever the motives (and no disrespect to the vibrant Jacobi), it was not the right decision. It's a boring, slow-to-evolve adaptation of a terrible, impossible-to-read play. (I am a fan of ol' Will, but his history plays are some of the most tedious dramas ever to plague the page.) If you're a fan of the kind of epic battle scenes of films as diverse as "Platoon" and "Gladiator," you'll definitely enjoy that aspect of the movie. Action-wise, it has its moments. But after a while, you just want Branagh to stick to doing one thing. Unfortunately, he's too self-indulgent to get that idea into his head.
-
schogger1330 December 2002Let's get one thing straight: It was Olivier who finally cracked the concrete heads of film producers open and proved that it was possible to put the bard of bards on screen without even an American audience falling asleep after 10 minutes. Sure, after all this time his Henry looks ancient, pretentious and artificial, but so will Blade Runner after 50 years, and still both mark a watershed after which none could be done like anything before. Odd comparisons? Maybe. But fitting.
Branagh's Henry finally set a tone worth to succeed the initial awesome blast unleashed by the most powerful actor for generations, and I'm sure Branagh would be the last to deny Olivier's version the place it deserves in British movie history. Times were ripe for another tone - but times before had needed Olivier as much as the following ages will need Branagh.
I'm an obsessive fan of both versions - both for entirely different reasons - and both merging perfectly what I love most about Shakespeare's eternal works.
Branagh's film is timeless - of this time - without ever being trendy. Olivier's is timeless - as well as of its time - as long as we keep an understanding of its time.
Olivier praised the eternal flame, the eternal smell, of Shakesperean theater, as always reaching far beyond the confinds of its subject - beyond the confinds of the wooden circle of 'The Globe'.
Branagh went right for the jugular, without ever loosing grip on what makes this play a play beyond its subject, and THE play about that subject.
Has anyone considered the vital difference between Branagh's and Olivier's versions? I doubt it. Where Olivier conjured up the intoxicating smell of fresh 15th century glue from the sets rising into the audience's noses, come here straight from the bear fights, whore houses, sermons of zealots and whatever had to flee London's stern moral walls of those times, Branagh cut right to the bone of any hardened 'modern' movie goer.
Behold: Derek Jacoby's prologue is a piece of speech which will forever haunt, enchant and cover me in goosebumps - firing me up to see what comes as well as see what Olivier as well as Branagh had done with the only play ever to merge humanity's lust as well as dread for the subject of war.
Of course, Olivier's version couldn't even dream of matching the intimate intensity of Branagh's. But how could it?
Ok, I won't further dwell on it, but for the last time, consider the father to fully understand the son.
Now, having shed the overpowering shadows of the past, Derek Jacoby steps into the dark of the expecting stage - striking a match...,
"Oh, for the muse of fire..." ... and off we are, lured into the torrent of the bard's unique and eternal magic.
I consider Henry V the best of Branagh's Shakespeare adaptations, even though I wouldn't want to be with any of the others on pain of death. This one's flawless, perfectly cast, perfectly executed and perfectly acted by Branagh himself.
From Burbage to Garrick to Keane to Inving to Olivier to Branagh... it is a glorious lineage to follow in love and admiration for the bard of Bard's ambassadors.
Schogger13 -
I admit that bringing Shakespeare to the big screen is tough. There are subtleties and nuances - and limitations - about stage productions that cinema simply can't capture.
That being said, this is by far the best adaptation of Shakespeare to the big screen of the past fifteen years. The director does an admirable job of making every scene seem plausible - with slight suspension of disbelief - on stage.
Kenneth Branagh, while he strikes me as a bit full of himself, is fantastic as the young, vain, ambitious title character, while Paul Scofield, Henry's French counterpart, delivers an equally impressive performance as the king who understands the gravity of Henry's invasion of France.
Aside from Shakespeare's obvious bias toward British interests - which have little to do with the big-screen production - this is an amazing film. -
TheLittleSongbird9 March 2011I like Kenneth Branagh's Shakespeare films, and Henry V is one of his better ones. The play is a very good one, and this film does it justice.
Visually, it is very beautiful to look at, with interesting camera angles and great scenery and costumes. The music fits each scene very well and doesn't fall into the trap of being too melodramatic.
The film like the play has a fine, compelling story that makes you feel all sorts of emotions, and the dialogue is wonderful. Branagh's directorial flair has a lot of vigour to it, and the Battle of Agincourt especially is very evocatively staged.
The performances are uniformly good, Branagh is particularly impressive in the title role and the supporting cast are all fine Derek Jacobi coming off best in yet another one of his great performances. Overall, very well crafted. 9/10 Bethany Cox -
HotToastyRag1 March 2021I'll admit I wasn't exactly looking forward to watching the remake of Henry V. I managed to stay awake during the 1944 version, but I was bored to tears. How much Shakespeare can a person who doesn't like Shakespeare stand?
I guess I should have had a little more faith, since I adored Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet. This movie actually captured my attention, while Branagh was speaking anyway. Everyone else seemed to be talking in a foreign language, but the lead actor (who also adapted the screenplay and made his directorial debut) brought his own subtitles along. While I won't be so disrespectful as to say, "Laurence who?" this is certainly an impressive feat. It's no wonder young Branagh was immediately catapulted to the Olivier pedestal and made it his mission to remake all the classics.
The beginning of the movie is very exciting and paid a little tribute to the 1944 version in its way. Remember the opening of the original that showed the audience gathering in the Globe Theatre before the play started? In this version, Derek Jacobi talks directly into the camera (he plays the chorus) and introduces the play while walking through an empty film set. During his final line, he opens up a door leading to the rest of the actors in Shakespeare Land.
A compliment might not mean anything coming from me, since I'm not a connoisseur. But for the fellow non-connoisseurs out there, if you want to watch a Shakespeare movie and actually understand what's going on, rent a Kenneth Branagh movie. Compared to hearing dry monologues on a stage with painted sets, watching an actual battle on a battlefield is very engrossing. I couldn't believe it was actually exciting to see him waving his sword, as his white horse reared up on his back legs, commanding, "Once more onto the breach!" And during his rousing St. Crispin's Day speech, he was actually rousing. Remember how boring the original was? Let's all forget about it and stick with 1989. -
Kenneth Branagh understands that Shakespeare wrote for the masses as well as the nobility. Shakespeare is often performed with a pomposity that forgets that before it was performed for kings, Shakespeare played for peasants. Branagh delivers the Bard's words with grit and a earthiness that makes them feel grounded and real.
-
tubby115 March 2010Henry V announces that the Shakespeare play cannot be done justice in the restrictive space of theatre. Yet, for all Shakespeare's literary brilliance and the fine acting, Henry V feels like a nomadic and underwhelming experience.
The story is linear and this is in stark contrast to the complex but deeply meaningful language of the play. Although the acting is of the highest quality the straightforwardness is rather cumbersome. The introduction of Chorus played by Derek Jacobi certainly serves a necessary purpose of providing immediacy to proceedings.
The introduction of the four characters Bardolph, Nym, Pistol and Flagstaff just didn't fit at all in the scheme of the film it felt rather strangely and obtrusive. I understood they knew Henry V but couldn't understand their relationship, it was vastly under-explored. Most of the characters are tipped very lightly in characterisation and their deaths do not nurture a single regret.
The cinematography is the films greatest strength providing the necessary atmosphere but I felt the direction, suffered a lack of emotional structure and set bearings. This is where Henry V suffered as a film, the battles are staged in rather closely shot environs, not wishing to expand the destruction and death of warfare. The fine speeches and acting is severely hampered by not providing the audience with sufficient stimuli that a film can only provide. Henry V goes on his journey to Agincourt, and indeed to his famous victory with a tiny consortium of people that is not grand or epic but rather non-sensical, how did they win the battle of Agincourt?
Henry V provides the necessary thespian talent but it is ravaged by its lack of coherency and piece-meal offerings of epicness. The film is too straightforward and suffers greatly from its almost nomadic sense of pushing to the end, leaving the cinematography to make up for the lack of extras, landscapes and grandeur. Henry V although admirable in some ways does not enrich the vistas of our imagination as it had so offered to do so at its beginnings. -
While not much of an historical expert on Henry V and not having even personally read Shakespeare's play, I presume this film, from its appearance, to be quite a stellar adaptation. Battle movies, whether Shakespearean based or not, are not normally my favorite genre though this tale seems very well executed. I found the actual battle scenes quite long and graphic with plenty of mud, sweat, blood, and tears, even though it was doubtless exactly thus at Agincourt in 1415. The scene where the surviving soldiers from each side collect their dead from the battlefield for burial is a vivid depiction of the tragedy of war.
This Shakespearean play made for all time, whether accurately or not, a noble and just hero out of the historical figure Henry V (just as Shakespeare firmly established Richard III as a villain). From my amateur perspective, Kenneth Branagh gives a brilliant performance in all facets of the king's action, whether back in England dealing with political / military issues following an insult by the King of France, eventually at the end wooing the French princess (daughter of said French king), and most especially rallying his weary, demoralized troops at Agincourt.
Of course the English victory at the bloody Battle of Agincourt, despite superior numbers of French forces, is legendary. Henry's rallying St. Crispian's Day speech prior to the battle is, from my standpoint, a fitting example of Shakespeare's genius. I can still picture 'We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...', delivered by Branagh with such eloquence and intensity.
The scene in which Henry refuses to spare his friend, who has been caught stealing from the French church, is also dramatic and shows the king's efforts, undoubtedly painful to him, to remain impartial when disciplining his troops. This soldier was in fact Falstaff, whom I recall vividly as 'Prince Hal's' (later Henry V's) friend from the earlier play, Henry IV, Part I, which I DID read in school, so found the incident particularly touching.
However, for me the scenes of Henry hobnobbing incognito with his troops before the battle, his own conflicted emotions about his military decisions, and the subsequent rousing St. Crispian's speech are indeed the definite highlights in this memorable adaptation. -
Igenlode Wordsmith24 August 2007I spotted that this was on the BBC having seen the recent re-release of the Laurence Olivier version; wisely, Branagh doesn't go for any kind of direct competition, as the two films are totally different.
My abiding impression: gloom. Even the titles are low-contrast red on black; most of the film is either orange-tinged, or bluish-dim from dark or from rain. It's a play of candles and whispers, where people spend much of their time in hoarse undertones speaking very rapidly (was Branagh as director trying to cut down the running time?) The only sunny, light-filled room was Princess Katherine's bedchamber, and likewise this was more or less the only scene played for laughs: Olivier's film retains the comic relief of the stage version, but Branagh's is dark in more senses than one.
While I found Olivier's production oddly uneven (some scenes work brilliantly, others remain earthbound), this film worked, but at a consistently low-key level. In places its remorseless 'gritty' approach works against the text: the King announces that only a handful of English soldiers died, but the film depicts a slaughter ground. (I couldn't help wondering why Harry is carrying a random corpse -- apparently one of the dead 'boys' -- since if the intent is to suggest that we are equally to mourn the dead French, having him slog across a wasteland of corpses with one of his own men on his back rather nullifies the implication.) I was also confused when the archers are shown firing INTO the mêlée, where they cannot possibly discriminate between friend and foe; either the arrows are going to a completely different destination from the combat between which these scenes are cut, or the director just thought it would look good without realising the lethal effect of such volleys. The scene with Branagh prancing about at Harfleur on a white horse (and posing conveniently in an archway against the flames) suggests that he didn't have much respect for medieval arrows' effectiveness.
As for the big scenes, Harfleur didn't work for me in either version: Olivier's is too obviously pasteboard (no danger from archers there, as they never get off the beaches!) while Branagh's is too theatrical for its would-be realistic setting. Branagh wins on "St Crispin's day", which is more integrated into the surrounding scene (Olivier gives a beautiful recitation, but I don't feel that it blends in). Olivier definitely wins on the night before the battle, both French and English: he has both the humour and the pathos of it, and his personal performance is by far more sensitive. Branagh's version feels abrasive and rushed: the section he really lays stress on is Harry's remorse for his father's usurpation, which Olivier cuts altogether, shaping the scene instead towards the weight of soldiers' deaths on the warmaker's conscience.
Neither is really successful on the battle, although Branagh clearly has more money to throw at it; Brian Blessed in full armour is an awesomely massive sight! The use of slow-motion feels rather self-important, although in all fairness it may not have been such a cliché in 1989 as it has become in action scenes since. I like the scene in which the French charge is shown only as an approaching thunder of hoofs and the widening eyes of the men facing it; but then Olivier's squadron of Irish farm-boys on horses are also pretty impressive. (Perhaps horses and extras who can ride were harder to obtain by Branagh's day!) The scene where the King tells the French herald that he really has no idea which side is winning rings true, as it is not particularly clear what is going on... the preceding sequence where he violates the herald's traditional immunity from attack ("I am a herald and ambassador, and may not be assailed" as Tolkien, who knew his mediaeval literature, phrased it) does not.
Branagh falls pretty flat on the wooing scene, mainly because again he plays it basically straight rather than with humour. He has the looks for a plain soldier king, but little trace of the charm needed to pull the wooing off, and it is unsurprisingly that Emma Thompson's Katherine appears entirely unconvinced save on dynastic grounds until he kisses her. In the context of his film as a whole, this final scene appears as a distinctly disjointed coda to an otherwise downbeat production: Branagh's "Henry V" is all about the run-up to the big battle sequences, and there's an almost palpable feeling of "Now, here we are" as the fight is about to begin. Olivier's production, pulling out from the real landscapes of the battle to the semi-staged court, then back to the Elizabethan theatre and finally out to a model altogether, winds down much more gracefully.
I'm not sure how much of the difference between the two versions is the difference between the cinema and the television (humour, in particular, goes down much more effectively with a full audience), but I think the grimy tone of Branagh's is undoubtedly intentional, and with hindsight I think it does the production no favours. The changes in tone between the realistic and the theatrical, the play for laughs and play of conscience, the heroic and the rascal, serve Olivier well: the constant unrelieved intensity of Branagh's production is a strain, and the play as written doesn't always sit comfortably with all the comedy removed. Some release of tension is, I think, necessary.
The film's level of success is consistent, but I found I didn't actually enjoy it that much. The wartime version works better... when it does work. -
Kenneth Branagh and Laurence Olivier are two men that have often been compared to one another. Both are Shakespearian actors with a love for The Bard and both made their directional debut with an adaptation of Henry V.
In 1413 Henry V (Branagh) has ascended to the English throne. Worried that the King may take property from the Church The Bishop of Ely (Alec McCowen) and The Archbishop of Canterbury (Charles Kay) convince Henry V to claim the throne of France and go to war with their rival. The English storm through France, but with disease, fatigue and horrible weather Henry attempts to bring the army back to England, leading to the Battle of Agincourt.
Branagh's version of Henry V has often been compared to Olivier version, for good reason. Olivier takes a more stylised approach, his art direction was routed in Medieval Art and his film started as a play and slowly become more realistic. Branagh takes a more realistic approach, setting his film in castles, halls and muddy fields and he uses darker, more natural lighting as places are lit by candles. The 1944 film was made as to be a pro-war film to help morale the British public, whilst Branagh takes a much more anti-war view, showing the horrors and hardships of Medieval war.
Branagh gave a terrific performance as Henry V, someone with intensity behind him and quiet determination whilst still being able to deliver a speech. There is pain and doubt on his face as he sees the war at first hand, the death and destruction and even doubts about his mission. This is particularly the case during his monologue of self-doubt. Branagh is surrounded by talented actors, all giving excellent performances; the most surprising being Brian Blessed who is much calmer to his usual larger-than-life persona.
Branagh's direction has a Kubrickian edge to it, sharing camera angles and movements and a visual look, having similar lighting and sets. There are many moments where Branagh he allows a long take when more are debating or monologuing and zones in very slowly. There is a gorgeous four minute tracking shot showing the aftermath of the battle whilst a Latin song is playing in the background.
It was clear that the production was limited on the scope of the numbers of people it could, shooting very closely to mask this. But an advantage was that it show that the Battle of Agincourt was a very close, tough battle it really was as it was fought on a muddy, wet, narrow field. The 1989 version got the tactics right but the costumes wrong and the 1944 got the costumes right but the battle wrong.
The 1989 Henry V is a great adaptation of one of Shakespeare's most quotable plays. It is a great realisation of the play and one of Branagh's best films. -
Of all Shakespeare's famous history plays about the intrigues, scheming and war-mongering that infest the ruling classes of his native land, only two are continuously revived on stage or screen as stand-alone productions. One of these is "Richard III", and the other is "Henry V". The latter gets a superlative treatment here from Shakespeare maestro Kenneth Branagh, in his first treatment of the Bard for the silver screen.
Henry V (Branagh) must consolidate his claim to the throne against those who do not see him fully fit to be a monarch and may plan his downfall. To this end, he invades France but is faced with with heavy opposition and betrayal in his quest...
Even in 1989 Branagh was already established as a major talent capable of drawing a lot of big names to work with him on his projects. This is very much the case with this production, with Derek Jacobi making a delightful, really involved Chorus plus Judi Dench as Mistress Quickly and Philip Schofield as the King of France.
He makes interesting use of flashbacks to illuminate Henry's character, notably in his friendship with and eventual rejection of Falstaff (played here by Robbie Coltrane). That said, he doesn't go far enough with it. He could have used this technique in Act IV, when Henry meditates on the responsibilities of kingship and the guilt inherited by his father on usurping Richard II. Some flashbacks about the latter event would have helped enormously here.
As Henry, Branagh plays him as a considerate monarch only fully roused in the heat of battle and delivers all his speeches with ferocity and gusto. As Katherine, Henry's trophy on defeating the French forces, Emma Thompson is pretty but sadly, vapid and there is no real chemistry in the concluding courtship scene.
The location shooting is highly effective and although the battle scenes are not gory or too violent, you do get a realistic sense of the muddy, rain-drenched atmosphere of it all.
Definitely worth looking at, especially as Branagh seems to have abandoned his Shakespeare screen adaptations for now. -
prophetess_mar7 March 2007I like this play very much after having read it and watch another version of it. But Branagh's work? I didn't like it. It was too "Hollywood-like" It could be said, for lack of a better word, that Branagh "overacted"; but I will just say that his performance wasn't exceptional. He was very intense and histrionic, yes, but intensity alone doesn't make a good film (especially when you're not starring in 'Hard To Kill') Shakespeare's character's are very complex, and complexity I didn't find. On the other hand, it was "dynamic and entertaining". Branagh seems to feel that the more action he brings, the better. Branagh wanted to capture the attention of the masses, and he did it. He made a Hollywood-eske blockbuster.
But if you want quality and superior acting, please get the BBC version of it with David Gwillim (1979)