Kenneth Branagh’s Henry V

Cadet Max Liebl

ERH-205WX

2/20/17

Kenneth Branagh’s 1989 version of Shakespeare’s Henry V is reputed as one of the most important adaptations of the play because of his portrayal of Henry as the King and leader the audience imagines him to be. The remake is often seen as being dark and with harsh scenes of combat and gore that one would not expect of a screenplay of a Shakespeare production. However, Branagh created his version in a post-Cold War world at a time when violent war movies were on the rise, and the heroes were portrayed as larger than life characters. Branagh sought to recreate Henry in the light that was originally intended and in a way, that would appeal to an audience of this era. With scenes that allow the audience to see the more human side of Henry that is more ideologically and politically aware. This allows for a better view into his emotions which in turn creates a better understanding for Henry not as the king, but as the man. Kenneth Branagh’s 1989 version of Henry V brings to life the true Henry that Shakespeare creates in the play, in that he is portrayed as a strong and confident leader who the audience can feel an emotional connection with.

In the original play by Shakespeare, the theme ubiquitous throughout is the theme of coming of age. There is a constant struggle for Henry to break free from the reigns of his childhood innocence and take on the persona of a great king. It is without a doubt that Henry demands and receives an immense amount of respect from his subordinates, and as shown in the beginning of the play, it is apparent that they have taken notice:

The courses of his youth promised it not.

The breath no sooner left his father’s body

But that his wildness, mortified in him,

Seemed to die too. Yea, at that very moment

Consideration like an angel came

And whipped th’ offending Adam out of him, (I.i.24-27)

It is clear that Henry is no longer viewed in the same light he was in his youth and in the scene where he condemns Cambridge, Scroop, and Grey, his resolve is solidified. It is known during his condemnation of the three men that Henry and Lord Scroop have a history with roots going back to their early years. However, Henry puts aside any personal emotions that may exist between him and Scroop for the sake of England and marks him as a traitor and is sentenced to death. Throughout the play Henry has more run-ins with his past that lead to him making decisions that reflect a coming of age and a forging of a new level of maturity that will mark him as one of the greatest kings in history.

In 1944, Laurence Olivier brought Henry V to life on screen as an effort to rally the English population during the time of war. In his version, Olivier seems to glamorize the king as the ideal character without allowing the audience to take note of his true persona. The idealized version of Henry makes for a poor connection between the audience and the actor and paints an unrealistic picture of the struggles of Henry’s reign. In an article comparing the Branagh and Olivier films, “…[the] investment in the unkempt and harsh side of physical life–is not debasing but provides an almost ritual immersion from which Henry emerges…” (Donaldson 65). By the audience becoming more in tune with the emotional side of Henry, it creates a better picture for how Henry got to be the king that he is renowned to be throughout history. The gore and scenes of intense battle allow the audience the kind of interaction that Shakespeare originally sought. By placing Henry in the kind of treacherous situations one would never imagine a king of sort in, it is easier to portray him as the leader that he is imagined to be.

A striking difference between the Branagh and Olivier films is the level of intimacy created to better understand Henry and his relationships with others. Many times, throughout the film, the man behind the crown is revealed and the audience gets a glimpse of the spontaneous and empathetic side of Henry. Henry’s Crispin’s Day speech is one of those situations where Branagh portrays him as if he is reaching for an “invisible essence” and imagining the glory that would come from this victory. Throughout the speech, the audience sees two sides of Henry, the ambitious, eager king, and the serious and well-spoken leader in which the acting fades away and reveals his feelings of immense pride and love for his “band of brothers.” Branagh develops Henry in a way that allows us to see into his past life through the relationships he shared with others. The audience sees his coming of age when he orders the deaths of Cambridge, Scroop, and Grey and the death of his childhood mentor, Falstaff and how cutting these ties opens the doors to new ones. Henry’s past relationships are, “…intense and mistrustful, charged with the emotional weight of tangled primary family dynamics” (Donaldson 67), but out of the strife of war, new bonds are formed and are proven to last far beyond those of his youth. Henry changes throughout the film and he finds his new self through the bonds of love and brotherhood which Shakespeare had intended to show.

Kenneth Branagh creates an image of Henry that was originally intended by Shakespeare as a confident and charismatic, yet reserved and thoughtful leader. Branagh brings Henry to life as a dynamic character who is constantly being developed throughout the film. However naïve Henry may seem, the audience is reminded of his hard-headedness and serious drive for victory through the scenes of intense battle and betrayal that confirm his commitment to being king. As compared to Laurence Olivier’s version of the film, the audience often does not get a proper view of the man that Henry is, but instead a static “acting” performance which seems forced and undeveloped which leaves the audience satisfied, but without knowledge of the real Henry. Branagh opens the door to Henry’s mind and allows for us to see into his emotions and his love for companionship formed and solidified in battle and hardship.

Works Cited

Donaldson, Peter S. Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 1 (Spring, 1991), 60-71.

Shakespeare, William, and Claire McEachern. Henry V. New York: Penguin, 1999. Print.

Article Summary: “Henry V: King, Chorus, Critics”

The article by Lawrence Danson, takes a very critical stance on the performance of Henry V. Beginning with the very date the play was performed in is scrutinized by comparison to the Chorus mentioning the return of Henry V to that of the Earl of Essex prior to his demise to determine the actual location of the first performance of the play. The article states that, “Essex’s campaign was in shambles by late summer; by the time the Globe was ready to open, his defeat looked certain.” (Danson 27). This would mean that the play was first performed in the interim theater known as, The Curtain, which leads the Chorus to take on an apologetic tone and points out the lack of scenery to provide the audience with a clear image of the play’s setting. This is another point that Danson makes in that, “The Chorus’ apologies violate that elementary rule of English good breeding, “Never apologize, never explain”-not too much, at any rate, lest you keep the offense fresh in mind.” (Danson 28). However, Danson does go on to further explain that this sort of tone puts the audience in a more attentive state, thus praising the way it is used so wisely.

A key theme that is brought up throughout Danson’s article is the notion that less is more. Danson praises the Chorus’ ability to reflect King Henry in an optimistic and imaginative light and the ambiguity that is created by the voice of the Chorus. The play itself being a work of fiction, the Chorus helps define the parameters for how the audience should interpret the play. King Henry’s Saint Crispin’s Day speech reflects the imaginative and aesthetic voice that the Chorus aims for. The speech sheds a triumphant light onto King Henry, but like all Shakesperian plays, as Danson points out, “Harry, committing himself (with the aid of Chorus) to the status of fiction, becomes by that token an object for interpretation.” (Danson 35). Danson states that such characters as King Henry self-create themselves in their speeches, but the Chorus of Henry V without limiting the audiences thinking, “…shows us and in his words tells us the spirit in which we are to understand Harry’s plays-both the one he writes on Crispin’s Day and the one Shakespeare and history wrote for him.” (Danson 35). The audiences’ interpretation of the play is a major theme of this article and how the Chorus creates ambiguity yet guides us in the right direction of how all audiences should view King Henry.

This article paints Henry V in a light that is critical yet praising because of its limiting factors that may hinder the audiences’ imagination, but the playwrights’ ability to overcome that.  Danson praises the apologetic voice of the Chorus which successfully puts the audience in the right train of thought while leaving room for all to interpret the play as they please. As Danson states, “It is Shakespeare’s celebration of theatricality, on stage and off.” (Danson 43). This article praises Shakespeare’s ability to overcome apparent physical limiting factors and success in delivering the play in the way it was intended to.

Works Cited

Danson, Lawrence. “Henry V: King, Chorus, Critics.” Shakespeare Quarterly 34.1 (1983): 27-43. www.jstor.org/stable/2870218.

Short Assignment: The Canterbury Tales

One very important aspect of Chaucer’s culture is the food and drink consumed during this time. The diet of Chaucer’s England is rather unique because of what was consumed and by whom. Social class played a major role in the everyday diet, in fact, it is argued that lower classes had a healthier diet than the higher classes. The daily diet for an upper-class member of society, such as knights, consisted of high amounts of red meat, fat, and sugar. While member of lower social classes might have consumed nutritional foods such as vegetables and foods high in fiber (Forgeng and McLean, 183). One common denominator amongst food consumed was bread. While different styles of bread reflected social status, it was nonetheless a staple in almost every medieval diet. An average aristocratic diet usually consisted of meat, especially beef, followed by pork and mutton, as well as dairy and egg products (Forgeng and McLean, 183). On the other hand, “A prosperous peasant might consume two or three pounds of bread, eight ounces of meat or fish, and from two to three pints of ale per day.” (Forgeng and McLean, 183). While it is a simple diet, it is clear to see how lower social classes may have been healthier based on diet alone.

One unmistakable feature of the diet in Chaucer’s England is the amount of alcohol consumed. The very basis of this story revolves around the consumption of ale in the tavern of the Host and the tales that ensue are often told in a drunken manner. At almost every meal, no matter the social class, ale was consumed which is the unhopped version of beer, and consumption was not limited to anyone including women and children. Typically, a gallon of ale per day per person was consumed, however, it was not as strong as common beer is today. The lack of hops made it difficult to store ale for long periods of time which is why it was so often consumed in large quantities (Forgeng and McLean, 190). While it might seem odd, water was usually only consumed by those of the extreme lower classes which was less flavorful, nutritious, and safer than alcoholic beverages (Forgeng and McLean, 191). Due to poor sanitation systems during this time, water pollution was prevalent throughout England especially in cities. Other alcoholic beverages such as wine, mead, cider, and perry as well as distilled liquors were available, but rarely consumed and often had to be exported.

Diet played a very important role in Chaucer’s England and was unique by its simplicity and the fact that it denoted class. Chaucer’s tales cover a broad spectrum of social class and as each tale is told it is interesting to note the social status of the characters by the way they eat and drink. The Canterbury Tales revolves around people from different walks of life and distinct social classes joining together for one common purpose and it is clearer now to see their backgrounds and better understand the culture of this period of time.

Works Cited

Forgeng, Jeffrey L., and Will McLean. Daily Life in Chaucer’s England. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1995. Print.