Plot Details: This opinion reveals no details about the movie's plot.

Dedicated to the troops of Great Britain, and designed to inspire them in World War Two, the best parts of this film are the most passionate. The St Crispin’s Day speech, the Battle of Agincourt, and the invasion of France are stirring moments designed to inspire patriotic fever among the British. Unfortunately, they are surrounded by sections that are unnecessary, incomprehensible and somewhat dull.

Laurence Olivier is better here than he was in Hamlet . He played the Dane as far too thoughtful and morose. Henry is a far more energetic role, and it fits much better with Olivier’s physical acting style. He is also a far more likeable character – early on, he pardons a man who was drunk when he committed some crime, he speaks extremely persuasively, he helps soldiers find their courage, grants mercy to the defeated French, and does his best to speak to the French princess Katharine, in French. His best moments are his speeches just before battles. Both of them are filmed for full effect – with a slow pull back as we see hundreds of soldiers listening to his every word. With his first speech, Olivier then cuts to a low angle of Henry, a device to inspire respect for him. In the second (the St Crispin’s Day speech), Olivier cuts to Henry darting off on his horse to begin the battle. They are the two best moment of the film.

Olivier as director has some great moments as well. Early on, he makes a thoroughly boring speech entertaining by having the character unsure of who he is talking about. The battle scenes tend to be chaotic, but this fits, as we are meant to be slightly unsure of who will come away victorious (and the opening cavalry charge by the French is terrific). The scenes on the Globe stage don’t feel like a BBC production at all, rather they have life and are interesting. This is largely due to the decision to include the crowd’s reactions, instead of having the characters onstage without an audience. His portrayal of backstage during a performance, is perfect. He makes a decision which I feel is wrong (I realise it is almost sinful to suggest that anything Olivier did with Shakespeare is wrong, but…), which is to have one of Henry’s soliloquies done as a voiceover. He did the same thing in Hamlet . A soliloquy is a speech addressed to the audience; it is not a character’s thoughts said aloud. The audience would answer any questions asked in the speech, or give the character their opinion as to what he should do. Olivier’s worst moment as director is to have Henry looking sad while “his thoughts’ are played for us.

His most interesting decision is to begin and end the film as a performance at the Globe Theatre, where Shakespeare’s works were originally performed. (Notice the mirroring of opening/closing shots: from the stage, to the musicians, to the flag being raised/lowered, to outside the theatre) I’m not sure it totally works. The theatrical gestures, make-up and costumes work surprisingly well. The chorus doesn’t completely work, because he doesn’t always seem sure of what he’s saying. It takes almost half an hour to leave the theatre at the beginning, which feels like too long. I suppose the intention was for us to realise that Shakespeare does not exist solely on the stage, and that this film is an example of a play working on stage and screen. It’s a necessary point, and well made, but it takes too long at the beginning. The Globe bookends also allow us to begin and end the play in England, which fits with the film’s tone.

Unfortunately, there is a problem with the art direction that has me wondering about the Globe scenes. Often there are fake backgrounds and models used in long shots, that look terrible. Again, Olivier may have chosen to have these aspects so that we can remember that there is a performance at the Globe going on. But the point is lost, as we are stuck looking at realistic sets in the foreground with an obviously painted background. If Olivier had filmed the entire play as a film, he would have needed better backgrounds; as a play onstage, it would have gotten mindnumbingly dull. He tries to have two things at once – homage to Shakespeare and a good film, but it does not fully work.

There are certain other aspects of the film that don’t completely work. The death of Falstaff is one. Falstaff is a recurring character in Shakespeare’s plays, a lovable rogue. Without any prior knowledge of him, his a completely unnecessary character in this film. His death is seen in contrast to the successful British invasion, but it doesn’t make sense to an audience that hasn’t studied or read many of Shakespeare’s plays. Also, the scenes with the three British soldiers (they may well be captains or such – it’s a problem that it is very hard to remember characters’ names), are dated. These soldiers include a Welshman and an Irishman (curiously, I don’t remember there being a Scot), and are designed to show that Britain is not separated into Wales, England, Ireland (and Scotland), but a whole greater than the sum of its parts. This fits with what the film is intended for, but has lost its impact. In addition, that Princess Katharine speaks only French is just annoying. It is possible that a British audience in 1944 would have a better understanding of French than my schooling gave me (likewise, they could have a better appreciation of Falstaff), but it is frustrating for the scene to not have subtitles. If the scene was meant to be not understood, and for us to laugh at Katharine’s attempts at learning of English, it should have been much shorter. The second sequence with Katharine also goes on too long, as she and Henry decide whether they love each other, but is easier because at least one character speaks English. As the first sequence stands, it is a major flaw.

Of course, the most famous sequence in the film is the Battle of Agincourt, and it is everything it should be. It is filled with shots of the St George’s Cross, an obvious show of patriotism, that somehow doesn’t feel tacked on. The film does have the idea that war is noble and worth fighting, but not as strongly as another film on which I’ll publish a review shortly. Here it is not as annoying, because a half-decent depiction of the enemy is made (more on that next paragraph). The battle itself has the British not fighting fairly, but with enormous courage, and close-ups of a horse’s teeth help you feel almost part of the action.

I dislike the film for its portrayal of the French. At the end, the French are gracious in defeat, and are treated with respect from the British. But before this, the King of France is depicted as a scared, weak and almost dumb simpleton who has a tendency to faint. I did like the depiction of fighting amongst the French, and that the EVIL Frenchman (Dauphin) was disliked by the French as well as the audience, but he was cartoonish in his vanity, occasional cowardice, and his sheer unlikeability. Of course, Katharine is shown to be beautiful, but because we can’t understand her, she doesn’t have a character otherwise.

Not surprisingly, the technical aspects are excellent. The costumes by Roger Furse are a thousand times better than his truly awful work for Ivanhoe . Robert Krasker’s cinematography doesn’t match his work in The Third Man , but it is nonetheless outstanding. One image that stood out to me is a shot that has the advancing French cavalry seen via a reflection in the mud. As well as this, he sometimes frames characters wonderfully either side of pillars or other vertical lines in the set. Other than my problem with the art director, this is a first-rate technical achievement.

Henry V is worth seeing, not only because it is Shakespeare, but because it has some thrilling scenes, good direction, and an entertaining lead performance. It is let down by the fact that it is dated in some ideas, and overly patriotic, even though it was designed to be. I’m sure it’s great to compare to Kenneth Branagh’s version, but I haven’t seen that one. This film is hard to understand in places, and sometimes slow, but if you need to, sit back and wait for the battle scenes.

NOTE: This is part of Kenshin-guy’s “First in a Series Write-Off.” Although the Olivier-Shakespeare connection is not technically a series, this is their first collaboration. Olivier also made films of “Hamlet”, “Richard III”, “Othello”, and “King Lear.” Despite an attempt by George Cukor in 1936 with “Romeo and Juliet”, and numerous other Shakespeare films prior to this, this film also marks the first time a Shakespearean film was well received and honoured. A list of contributors (the most recent as far as I know):
-Kenshin-Guy (Host)
-Xeno3998
-GasJocket214
-Sephiroth2000
-WretchedPyro
-gorocco
-Orestes84
-matt_harney
-Shampoo-Girl
-eBrown2
-Kurt_Messick
-yusakugo



Apologies if this is late – it’s the 30th of May in my timezone!


Recommended: Yes