It’s probably the most stunning debut effort by a filmmaker in the history of the form. Kenneth Branagh’s Henry V (1989) has always been my favorite film version of the play. Branagh was obviously influenced by Oliver Stone’s Platoon, which he had apparently just seen (blood and guts spilling in slo mo), not to mention Akira Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai (rain, rain and more rain) when he set out to make his version of the Bard’s classic about the great conflict on the field at Agincourt (1415). As I recall, at the time he said something to the effect of presenting a film version of the play that was not a peon to British nationalism (like the Olivier version, which was produced around the time of WWII). I must say he succeeded.
If Branagh never made another film after Henry V, it alone would put him up there with the 20th century’s best filmed Shakespeare directors. From the film’s first frame with the famed Derek Jacobi serving as chorus, we are compelled by Branagh’s deliberate filmatization of one of the most famous conflicts in English history. You really don’t need to know the particular’s of the politics involved, nor have memorized the succession of Norman English monarchs and their historically tumultuous relations with France to enjoy this film. The plot is simple: Harry, the king of England, is insulted – and Harry, like any bully, intends to make a very big deal about it, despite the fact that his forces are greatly outnumbered – 5 to 1, as the legend goes.
Branagh was very lucky to have such notables as Jacobi, Judi Dench and three or four other great talents along for the ride, especially for his directorial debut. The scenes depicting the household of Pistol and Mistress Quickly (Dench) and a nice cameo by Robbie Coltrane as Falstaff are very well done and augment the battle scenes quite nicely.
But the last scenes of the film (Act V of the play) are always a letdown. Once Harry has France in his grasp and makes an attempt at courting the French king’s daughter, the film takes a decided downturn. Granted, Emma Thompson does an admirable job at playing the startled and wary young Katherine, uncomfortable with the brash forwardness (and English) of the young English conquerer, the final scenes (film-wise, certainly) move more like a series of stiff tableaux than an apt conclusion to a great armed conflict, especially one involving such seemingly insurmountable odds. But the fault, in this case (dare I suggest it?), lies with the playwright.
Nevertheless, it’s surely one of the best of the Bard on celluloid.
by Marlin Tyree | Source: MGM DVD
09 Jan 2007 6:22 PM | Comments (4)
I do need to see this, considering just how much I adore his Hamlet adaptation.
-Afraid I can’t join you in praising Branagh’s Hamlet, Rob. I found it too long – meandering, really (Shakespeare’s plays were cut ruthlessly and routinely in his day). And as film is decidedly a director’s medium, the inclusion of an ENTIRE Shakespeare play seems to me to be a bit unnecessary – it’s as if a director has nothing to say about the individual or society with or through the play. God knows Shakespeare has suffered radical interpretations on the stage. There’s a bit too much of everything in Branagh’s version for my taste, though I appreciated the cameos from nearly half of Hollywood.
Also, Branagh’s no Hamlet. He’s Harry, tempermentally. To (Laurence) Olivier’s credit, no one one has done it better since his post-WWII version (lugubrious as it is).
I do remember it’s length being a bit testing, but I found it very rewarding in the end. Olivier was excellent, although I wasn’t all that impressed with the picture itself. Then again, all of this was part of AP English four years ago, so I’m not exactly going to stand firmly by my opinions without the appropriate revisitations.
Oh, I don’t mind a lengthy film is the length is justified. In other words, if the entire experience remains compelleing. The thing about ‘Hamlet’, ‘Henry V’ or any other Shakespeare film treatment is that his reputation is such that once you decide to include minor characters, you’re obliged to see through their development and capitulation. But their inconclusion may not necessarily add to whatever you’re trying to express with the material. Wouldn’t it be more rewarding to watch a compelling 45 minute version of any literary film transposition than a three hour “fully realized epic”? I think epics are tough to sit through (with careful attention) unless you’re watching a master of the form; in which case, as I’ve said, length is a minor consideration.
rob
9 January 2007
8:37 PM
Website