Stout
Hold onto the ball, Murray!
All right, all right, I had to do it. Not only am I a Shakespearean (both in hobby and professionally), but I feel bad for not expounding more personally on the last movie I posted. So, here goes...
Branaugh's film does in part what very few other productions, and no truly well known productions of the show, have done: To get across the truly serious subject of the brutality of war and the ruthlessness of politics.
This will be a VERY rough synopsis, so bear with me:
King Henry V is a monarch that was known to the Shakespearean audience to be the son of a usurper, as Henry IV had taken the crown by force from Richard II. Henry therefore felt he had to legitimize his rule. Not only that, but the nobility and the church were offering free grants, NOT loans, that exceeded anything in English history, for a French campaign.
Henry V opens with the comic figure of the Archbishop of Canterbury basically telling the audience he's going to uphold Henry V in his claim to France and help fund it, because he doesn't want taxes to go through which would cripple the church.
Henry allows the churchman to convince him in a very perverse scene. It appears to be normal, but Henry V's claim to the French throne was based on Salic law-France said, by Salic law, no one could inherit the throne through the female line. Henry's churchman ostensibly 'proved' to Henry this wasn't the case. Of course, in basing his claim on his relations through the female side, Henry is also illegitimizing his OWN reign since, under this rule, an English noble by the name of Mortimer (the son of his grandfather's older brother's daughter, if I'm not mistaken) would be king instead of he. In this, as in other parts I have not the time to get into, the ruthlessness and even the idiocy of politics is clearly shown.
Also, throughout the film, Branaugh seems to make clear that war is hell. It is strange he omits the killing of the French prisoners at Agincourt, then, because it was a coldblooded act of necessity on the battlefield-in essence, the fight was still on, and Henry didn't know if they rejoined battle if the French prisoners would break free, so he had them executed. It IS in the play in a stunning scene ending, but Branaugh omitted it. Instead he went for a touching scene with carrying a dead boy across the battlefield.
All right, I'll give an A+ to anyone that both A) Has read this far, and B) Can tell me the other obviously glaring difficulty in this movie as it regards the actual play.
Branaugh's film does in part what very few other productions, and no truly well known productions of the show, have done: To get across the truly serious subject of the brutality of war and the ruthlessness of politics.
This will be a VERY rough synopsis, so bear with me:
King Henry V is a monarch that was known to the Shakespearean audience to be the son of a usurper, as Henry IV had taken the crown by force from Richard II. Henry therefore felt he had to legitimize his rule. Not only that, but the nobility and the church were offering free grants, NOT loans, that exceeded anything in English history, for a French campaign.
Henry V opens with the comic figure of the Archbishop of Canterbury basically telling the audience he's going to uphold Henry V in his claim to France and help fund it, because he doesn't want taxes to go through which would cripple the church.
Henry allows the churchman to convince him in a very perverse scene. It appears to be normal, but Henry V's claim to the French throne was based on Salic law-France said, by Salic law, no one could inherit the throne through the female line. Henry's churchman ostensibly 'proved' to Henry this wasn't the case. Of course, in basing his claim on his relations through the female side, Henry is also illegitimizing his OWN reign since, under this rule, an English noble by the name of Mortimer (the son of his grandfather's older brother's daughter, if I'm not mistaken) would be king instead of he. In this, as in other parts I have not the time to get into, the ruthlessness and even the idiocy of politics is clearly shown.
Also, throughout the film, Branaugh seems to make clear that war is hell. It is strange he omits the killing of the French prisoners at Agincourt, then, because it was a coldblooded act of necessity on the battlefield-in essence, the fight was still on, and Henry didn't know if they rejoined battle if the French prisoners would break free, so he had them executed. It IS in the play in a stunning scene ending, but Branaugh omitted it. Instead he went for a touching scene with carrying a dead boy across the battlefield.
All right, I'll give an A+ to anyone that both A) Has read this far, and B) Can tell me the other obviously glaring difficulty in this movie as it regards the actual play.
