Henry V (1944)

 "But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make."

It is, I suppose, extraordinary that I've waited so long to see and to blog Laurence Olivier's version of this play, made in no small part to boost wartime morale, a task at which it broadly succeeds. Yet it is, of course, a far richer achievement than that.

The early scenes are inspired. We begin with a panorama of the London of 1600, such a small city focused north of the Thames, with the Tower on the eastern edge and the Globe, with other theatres, situated just south of the river. We then see the Chorus, and the early scenes, played out in the Globe, with glimpses of backstage and much of the groudlings. This makes perfect sense, given the Chorus' pleadings for us to use our imagination to conjure up vast armies and battlefields which cannot be shown in a mere wooden O.

Yet this is cinema, and the film soon shifts to allow us to see such incredible vistas. The matte paintings are obvious, but the effect is one of awe. This is, perhaps, whether we are looking at scenes of Elizabethan London or the muddy French battlefields of the early fifteenth century, a somewhat romantic, 1940s version of the past, reminiscent of The Adventures of Robin Hood. This is, perhaps, too clean and sanitised a recreation of an earlier age which, compared to Kenneth Branagh's version four decades later, does not quite feel lived in. While it is not necessary toshow blood and gore, the overall effect feels perhaps overly sanitised.

Nevertheless, the film is a triumph. Shakespeare stands and falls by acting, and Olivier's performance is spellbinding, the big speeches delivered to perfection. Olivier's style may be a little dated today, yes. That does not make it anything less than great.

One cannot help but see this film, released in the year of D-Day, through the prism of the time it was made. The heavy subtext of the horrors of war, that a war had damn well better be just for the suffering to be worthwhile, is unusually downplayed, the justness of resisting Hitler being clear. Yet the horrors are acknowledged, the humanity and the suffering. And the ending of the play, as Harry woos Kate through the language barrier, feels perhaps a little less odd here as it signifies the hope of peace that original audiences would have felt.

For me, this is not quite up there with Branagh's version. But it is great nonetheless.

Henry V (1989)

"I'm afeared there are few die well that die in battle, for how can they charitably dispose of anything when blood is their argument?"

This is the second screen adaptation of this play that I've seen and blogged after The Hollow Crown, albeit one made twenty-three years earlier, and the differences are stark from the opening scene, where Derek Jacobi's chorus awakens us by lighting a match. This introduces two themes: this production's constant okay with light and it's claustrophobic feeling, indoors and on small sets as much as possible and with the location scenes shot so as not to look expansive. Hal finds the crown as uneasy as did his father is the clear message, and his guilt over being an usurper's son, paralleled by his anxiety over the war being just (because sending people to their deaths and their bereaved dependants into penury because of who should be King is totally just, right?) is reflected in the visuals.

Kenneth Branagh is a suitably angsty Henry. Yes, the speeches are present and correct, but this is not a jingoistic Henry V but an anxious one.

The rest of the cast excellent too, including a surprisingly unshouty Brian Blessed, whose message to Charles VI reeks of a menace he hasn't exuded since he was Augustus in I, Clavdivs. And, on top of those mentioned in the tags, we didn't have room for Derek Jacobi, Robbie Coltrane as a splendid Falstaff in scenes nicked from the Henry IV's, Robert Stephens, Paul Scofield, Harold Innocent and a very young Christian Bale. I particularly enjoyed Ian Holm's Fluellen, discoursing on Pompey the Great- for Shakespeare, all Welshmen are in some way his old classics teacher!

This is a superbly visual production, superlatively acted and directed. The emphasis on sparse lighting, points of light in the darkness and claustrophobia gives us an individual version of the play from Kenneth Branagh that is highly effective. A fine film.

Henry V (Richard Eyre, 2012)

"Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the king that led them to it."

In a way, it's rather annoying that I've done so much musing over the disconnect between Shakespeare's plotting dialogue, specifically written to be performed on a stage, with all the limitations that implies, and the medium of television, and sumptuously shot location shots to boot. If I'd waited until now to talk about I would have had so much to say. After all, consider the chorus here- a gloriously metatextual character, probably played originally by Shakespeare himself, who refers to a "wooden O" and apologises for the compression of time which all historical dramas do and which his bits help to elide. It's particularly eyebrow-raising to hear John Hurt declaiming apologies for not being able to represent the battle scenes properly as we watch brilliantly realised battle scenes. It's a juxtaposition that seems almost deliberately intended to highlight the tension between media.

Metatextual stuff aside, though, and briefly mentioning that this is my first experience of the play, not just there's an intriguing political subtext. This play follows on directly from its predecessors, even to the point of featuring Bardolph, Pistol, Mistress Quickly and (sort of) Falstaff. We can assume, then, that there's a continuity of theme, and that the examination of the nature of kingship should be understood in relation to this continuity. In fact, There's an interesting scene, on the morning of the battle, when he pleads with God not to punish him for the sins of his father, insisting that "I Richard's body have interred anew". Hence, presumably, his determination to attribute his eventual victory to God alone, and perhaps even his very determination to pursue his claims in France- an assertion of royal legitimacy and, perhaps, one his usurping father could not have made.

Hal may be very different from his former self, as we clearly see when he approves the hanging of his old mate Bardolph. The prevention of looting in captured towns is more important to a king than old friendships, however oddly this may sit with his later orders to kill all the prisoners!!! But is he really all that good a king? Because, unusually for Shakespeare, I think I can detect a definite authorial voice at work in this play. And that voice is asking why on Earth should ordinary people suffer and die in war just to satisfy the "honour" of lords and kings. Shakespeare, I think, would have seen honour as Falstaff did, not as King Harry does here. Which, then, is the more virtuous? Shakespeare gives us a king who seems to fit all the conventional notions of the good king, and then questions that. After all, he kills prisoners, betrays his friends, and wages war for his personal "honour". It's a very different angle on kingship from its three prequels, but it's fascinating, important, and rounds out the thematic whole that is the four plays on kingship.

Tom Hiddleston is extraordinary, and pulls off the task of making Hal and King Henry seem simultaneously very, very different and yet absolutely the same person. His two main speeches are surprisingly low-key and un-Olivier-like.

To finish, it's interesting for this Leicestershire native to hear Pistol addressing his new wife, the former Mistress Quickly., as "me duck!" It seems that our ways of speaking once spread much further southwards than they do now. And it's a bit of a bolt to be reminded that King Henry died at 35, the age I am now. He conquered France… what have I done?