Henry V

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

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.

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.

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.

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.