In any of Shakespeare’s works much is left up to interpretation. His plays, though teeming with masterful dialogue, are severely lacking when it comes to stage directions. Seldom can any stage directions, aside from ‘enter’ and ‘exeunt’, be found; furthermore, there is rarely, if ever, any mention of a character’s emotions. Because of this distinct feature of Shakespeare’s plays, directors are essentially given carte blanche regarding set design, actions, and character emotions. Kenneth Branagh makes many interesting decisions in his interpretation of Henry V. Some of the most important decisions made by Branagh are in regards to the character development of King Henry, played by Branagh himself. Two scenes in particular stand out: Henry’s …show more content…
message to the French ambassadors in Act I, Scene II, and his reaction to the sentencing of his old friend Bardolph in Act III, Scene VI. Branagh’s film introduces King Henry as a stern faced man and establishes the mood by setting the scene in a dark chamber.
From the beginning Henry is displayed as a mature ruler, committed to his country and duties. He’s made an effort to distance himself from his rambunctious youth, which makes the Dauphin’s jest all the more insulting, and Henry’s response all the more powerful. The young king responds to the ironically immature jest at his youth without blinking; sternly delivering an intimidating response that crescendos (with Henry and the rest of the room literally rising) into a declaration of war. Branagh seems to make these direction choices in an effort to display Henry as a strong king; one that is politically savvy, wise beyond his years, and in control of his emotions. In reading the original dialogue from Shakespeare, some of which Branagh omits, I did not imagine King Henry remaining so stern throughout the entirety of his response. While the speech clearly crescendos, unlike Branagh’s interpretation, it seems to do so from a seemingly good tempered and almost playful tone into the austere one found throughout the movie’s scene. I believe Branagh directs the scene in the way he does for the purpose of showing Henry’s sternness as a sort of mask that begins to fall apart after facing war, and for this reason I prefer Branagh’s version to how I believe Shakespeare meant for the scene to be acted …show more content…
out. Act III, Scene VI is a scene that stands out as one in which cracks can be seen in Henry’s kingly mask.
Unlike Shakespeare’s original text in which Henry is simply told that Bardolph, an old friend from his rambunctious youth, has been hung for thievery, Branagh decides to force him to look Bardolph in the eyes while he sentences him to death and subsequently watch the hanging. In the movie, as soon as Henry realizes it is his old friend that is to be hanged, his stern mask can be scene to falter. He knows that as King he must sentence Bardolph to death but he is clearly sad that his old friend is about to die. While keeping eye contact with Bardolph the entire time leading up to the hanging (with intermittent flashbacks showing their friendship) Henry begins to tear up with a few rolling down his cheek by the end. Branagh’s version is a stark difference to the original text in which due to the lack of stage directions, King Henry doesn’t seem to bat an eye when told that Bardolph has been executed. Despite the lack of any indication from Shakespeare I believe he would have intended at least a pause and break of character by King Henry, but Branagh takes it to the opposite extreme in this case. While I enjoy that Branagh chose to direct the scene in such a way that Henry shows emotion, as any human realistically would, I think he took it a little too far. Regardless it fits the character development of King Henry he seems to be going
for. Branagh’s King Henry is young and inexperienced; trying to put on a brave face while facing the horrors of war and the reality of ruling a kingdom. Shakespeare’s King Henry faces the same obstacles, but based on dialogue alone his demeanor never seems to falter in public painting him as a near perfect ruler with his conflicts and imperfections only appearing in private contemplation. All in all, Branagh’s King Henry is more realistic and believable and it is for this reason that I prefer Branagh’s version of the play to the original.
Hal’s remark to his father indicates a now strong, independent mind, predicting that Douglas and Hotspur will not accept Henry’s offer because of their love for fighting. Henry’s reply in turn indicates a change in attitude towards his son, a newfound respect. Acknowledging Hal’s prediction, the king orders preparations to begin, and we see he has his own set of solid moral values: knowing that their ‘cause is just’ helps him to reconcile with his highly honourable conscience that there is indeed cause for war. Still maintained is the conflict between the very format of the text, with Hal and Henry’s conversation held in formal verse typical of the court world, in which Hal is now firmly embedded. Falstaff, however, sustains his equally typical prose speech, which indicates to the audience the enduring division between the court and tavern worlds.
I side with Loades on this as despite resentment from the nobles, after the Perkin Warbeck imposture there were no more serious uprisings which strongly support the success of Henry’s policies. Whilst most nobles would see his methods as unjust (especially the wide of use bonds and recognisances) Henry succeeded in increasing the crown’s standing at the expense of the nobility, securing his position whilst weakening the nobles. Through most of his policies Henry was successful in limiting the powers of nobility. Henry sought to restrict the noble’s power and yet at the same time needed them to keep order and represent him at local levels, therefore Henry sought not to destroy the nobles but to weaken them enough that they did not pose a threat, he needed a balance of control over the nobles and strong nobility.
But in Henry’s own mind he describes himself as “the mirror of all Christian kings” and also a “true lover of the holly church. In the beginning of the play Henry is set up to be the ideal of a Christian King. Interestingly, Shakespeare highlights this as an important characteristic as this occurs earlier in the play. Therefore readers are tricked to respect and agree with Henry’s decisions later on in the play.
Henry excites fear by stating he is passionately ready to sacrifice for his country. This play towards pathos, or appealing to the audience’s emotions, is an effective way of trying to convince the House to go to war against Britain. This pathos, combined with the logic of Henry’s speech, makes for a convincing argument. Logically taking the House step by step from stating that because he has an outlook on their situation, he should express it to them, to stating his argument before the House, to saying that lacking freedom is worse than death, then taking it full circle pronouncing he would prefer to be “give[n] death” then to have his freedom taken away by the British.
...ears or express emotions over her death or her madness. Therefore the Kenneth Branagh version of Hamlet was able to show a closer interpretation of the play Hamlet and the significance of the characters.
For hundreds of years, those who have read Henry V, or have seen the play performed, have admired Henry V's skills and decisions as a leader. Some assert that Henry V should be glorified and seen as an "ideal Christian king". Rejecting that idea completely, I would like to argue that Henry V should not be seen as the "ideal Christian king", but rather as a classic example of a Machiavellian ruler. If looking at the play superficially, Henry V may seem to be a religious, moral, and merciful ruler; however it was Niccolo Machiavelli himself that stated in his book, The Prince, that a ruler must "appear all mercy, all faith, all honesty, all humanity, [and] all religion" in order to keep control over his subjects (70). In the second act of the play, Henry V very convincingly acts as if he has no clue as to what the conspirators are planning behind his back, only to seconds later reveal he knew about their treacherous plans all along. If he can act as though he knows nothing of the conspirators' plans, what is to say that he acting elsewhere in the play, and only appearing to be a certain way? By delving deeper into the characteristics and behaviors of Henry V, I hope to reveal him to be a true Machiavellian ruler, rather than an "ideal king".
One of the key words in his dialogue is 'honour' because in Elizabethan times honour was bound up with ideas of nobility and manliness. Henry has constant reference to the divine, to get permission for his actions, 'God's will.' Additionally there is various uses of semantic fields, associated with religion, God, covet, honour and sin; all taken from the bible. Henry applies a very close relationship term, 'cuz.'
Henry in Henry V The bishops refer to Henry in the first scene as "a sudden scholar" who can "reason in divinity. " Canterbury says, "The king is full of grace, and fair regard. Ely quotes "and a true lover of the holy church. The two bishops, pretty much have the same view on Henry, they think highly of him.
then when your next in line for the throne, to bare the weight of a
his blood with me shall be my brother. Be he ne'er so vile, this day
Kenneth Branagh creates his own individualistic adaptation of this classic through the use of visual imagery, characterization, and setting. Branagh cut many lines and speeches from the text to better support his interpretation of a more open and informal society of warm-hearted, affectionate characters. Though Shakespeare's mood is more formal, Branagh remains true to the essence of the play as all of the same characters and most of the dialogue are justly included in the film. Although distinct differences can be made between Branagh’s film and Shakespeare’s written work, they both share a common denominator of good old-fashioned entertainment; and in the world of theater, nothing else really matters.
... version of Henry's court and Henry's camp, the dramatic effect constituted, in its way, a reasonably accurate depiction of Henry's achievement in England." (Pilkington 1-2) I believe that Shakespeare's Henry V contains more charm and less fanaticism than the true Henry V. Shakespeare has created a fairly accurate depiction of life in this time period, altering only what he saw fit for his own lifetime.
The prologue to the beginning of this play calls upon the "Muse" to help present the play. The chorus explains to the audience of the difficulties faced in presenting this play. It is difficult to transform a small stage to represent the English or French Courts, or the battlefield in France. They apologize, telling the audience, "But pardon, gentles all, the flat unraised spirits that hath dared on this unworthy scaffold to bring forth so great an object" (li 8-11). It is difficult to depict the life of King Henry V with all the honor and glory that he deserves when presenting it on the stage. ...
Olivier reigned in on his nation’s need for self expression during wartime and Shakespeare fit the bill perfectly. Olivier’s sagacity led him to rewriting and directing Henry V that fused his nation’s need for self expression during wartime and Shakespeare. It did not take much work to trim and style Henry V to relate it to England during World War II. He used this piece to rally and at the same time awareness to the great works of Shakespeare. Olivier also directed Hamlet and Richard III and acted in several Shakespeare films. His Hamlet was filmed in black and white and offered a dark and psychological approach in contrast to the cheerful and patriotic Henry V. Olivier decided to do the opposite of typical films by pulling away from characters as speeches developed, instead of zooming in. This technique offered fresh and visually appealing films and gained much laudatory remarks. Olivier was known for his “physical and vocal power as an actor.” His standing and accomplishments as an actor and director brought “Shakespeare to a wider audience,” and “contributed to making the Shakespeare film a vital
In the trial scene (act 4 scene 1), Shakespeare uses many different dramatic techniques to make the tension in the court room rise and build. He also uses dramatic irony and many other techniques to engage an audience in this particular scene in the play. These techniques would work have worked on an Elizabethan audience or a modern day audience. Although, these two eras do not share the same views on some of the things Shakespeare wrote about, the same mood and ideas are given across through Shakespeare’s use of dramatic techniques.