Henry V

When I saw this movie at age 13 or so, I was terribly disappointed because it was clear that this is the third part in the story. Henry IV Part 1 and Part 2 come before this play, and they tell the story of Sir John Falstaff and his friendship with Prince Hal ( who is Henry V in this play.) The first two plays also introduce Nym, Bardolph, Pistol, and Mistress Quickly. Unfortunately, this play starts after Falstaff has been banished and Prince Hal has become King.

This play is a lot of fun, but it's very frustrating if you haven't read the earlier plays. There are so many poignant (or funny) moments that point backwards. Even the pretend audience at the beginning seems to feel that they want Falstaff back! The best acting moments in this movie are all scenes where the lower characters remember Falstaff and mourn his death.

Of course, there are some heroic battles and speeches in this movie, but looking back after forty years they don't seem as impressive as when I was 13. The great battle is actually over fairly quickly. And a lot of the later scenes drag, like when Captain Fluellen makes Pistol eat his leek. This is played as very bad slapstick when it's actually very violent and brutal in the play.

With tensions between England and the arrogant French pushed to breaking point, King Henry the Fifth sets out with his armies to conquer and quell the French in their native land. The film builds up with to the historic battle of Agincourt with the troops and the king camping together and making progress across the land.

Whenever Henry V (to use the shorten title) comes on TV I always tape it simply because I always assume that it is a masterpiece of English cinema – such is it's reputation in many circles. However this reputation may not be that well deserved as I have decided from my viewing of it today. The plot is Shakespeare and I will not criticise it, but I know myself that it is not a story that I would pick if asked to chose from his canon of work – I prefer the darker stuff or the out and out comedies. That aside the film tells a straightforward tale, here used to raise morale and fly the flag of Britain and England during WWII. As such it works but I needed it to be more than just a flag waving exercise, I wanted more detail and more thought. Such scenes exist within the play but Olivier does not use them as well as he uses the grandstanding speeches and battle scene – his focus is not on thought but on scale.

As director he does quite well in early stages and in the actual battle itself. The device of opening ad closing in the playhouse works to good effect and is clever but far too many scenes have poor camera angles or are poorly framed. The battle scene is good but too much of the film is ordinary in terms of looks and style. As actor Olivier carries the King well but is too one dimensional for me and I didn't have to put any thought into him to watch the film. He holds back for much of the film but leaps up for more upbeat scenes or rousing speeches. The support cast all sound natural with the dialogue although some of the roles are a little bit hammy, they still hold the film together well.

Overall this is an enjoyable film that has good spectacle to it and key scenes are very good. However the lack of anything under the surface is a problem and it is one of the lesser Shakespearean adaptations I have seen. Still worth a look but if you're like me, you'll be left wondering `was that it?'

What an intelligent film!!! I loved its stage-y quality--The good-humored recreation of a performance in Shakespeare's time with the audience so fully engaged, laughing at jokes we don't understand (e.g., the machinations of churchmen). I loved the details and sense of history--the sets inspired by medieval illuminations and the score by William Walton. The tight script and directing bring out the complexity of the play. Unlike other reviewers, I'd rate it higher than Branagh's more visceral, contemporary version though I can see why some might find this one pallid. It doesn't have a modern feel, and this style of acting Shakespeare feels dated to me--I've grown accustomed to naturalism. Overall, I appreciate that it is many-layered and distinctively English. I hope it accomplished its worthy goal of raising morale during the WWII.

Olivier was asked by his government to make this film during the second world war to raise the morale of civilians and troops alike. He abstained from showing excessive blood and gore, used the language of Shakespeare brilliantly and achieved his mission. I have seen this film many times and it never fails to thrill me. The story line is commonly known, we know how happily it came out in the end. It was the first Shakespearian play made on film in color and enthralled all who saw it.

I saw a modern remake of this film, 1989, recently with Kenneth Branagh. The battle showed sweat and blood, a non-theatrical production in comparison to this 1944, very theatrical, Olivier production. Some reviewers denounce the heavy-handed acting of 1944, but I find it charming.

Olivier has an economical charisma. His acting has few flourishes, but his voice says everything. Olivier in period costume is mesmerizing. As Shakespeare's bad-boy prince turned earnest King, Olivier takes charge and demands the return of English lands from the rather effeminate French nobility. Outnumbered 10 to one, his merry band of Englishmen dispatches the Dolphin at Agincourt. Then he courts the French speaking princess Katherine with broken French and economy.

The recreation of old London and the Globe Theatre was delightful. The audience and players went on in heavy rains without complaint. The mention of Falstaff's name is enough to get applause, though the buffoon has only a short death scene.

I do believe the play has been abridged. Many of the longer speeches seem shortened. Still, this is accessible Shakespeare. How can you go wrong? Never!