Henry V
October 1, 2016
Henry V
Help Received: None
Matthew Penaranda
October 1, 2016
Help Received: None
Henry V
This marks my first written analysis of a cinematic adaptation of William Shakespeare’s plays. I chose this prompt because Kenneth Branagh’s Henry V was the first film portrayal of a play I ever saw and the film set a precedent for how I often visualize and interpret the setting of most Shakespearean literature. Henry V is one of my personal favorite characters in all of Shakespeare’s plays because of his development over the course of both Henry IV and Henry V. Whereas many of Shakespeare’s characters represent a specific ideal or archetype, Henry V is a dynamic and complex character that is a holistic representation of an English monarch. This essay will consider how Kenneth Branagh’s depiction of King Henry is faithful to Shakespeare’s representation of English monarchy and their motivations for such matters as war. I will make an argument that Branagh’s portrayal of Henry V effectively represents his dualities as both a war hero and Christian king. The evidence to support my claim that Branagh’s Henry V is intentionally ambiguous will consist of character portrayal by actor and director Kenneth Branagh as well as a comparison of the source versus adaptation Claire McEarhern observes the many dualities of King Henry V in the text itself saying he is “righteous and ruthless, glorious and repellent,” and that this is what is most captivating about this character (xxx, introduction). As a king, Henry is a leader as well as a soldier. Throughout the play, Henry V is in a position of power and struggles to balance the politics of power and control with his own sense of justice.
The film does not open with the private exchange between the clerics, Ely and Canterbury, explaining the Church’s motivations for supporting Henry and advocating his claim to rule of France. Instead, the play immediately opens to Henry’s dramatic entrance into his throne room where his counselors have assembled to hear him address the matter of Salic law and his response to the Dauphin’s messenger. This was an intentional directorial decision meant to emphasize the weight of the king’s decision to go to war as well as make him all the more in control of the events in the play instead of making it seem like the clerics are in control of Henry. There are religious and secular powers at play in the throne room and it is also ambiguous as to who is in control of whom in both the film and the text. While it can be debated that the clerics are manipulating Henry, supporting his efforts in order to earn his favor, there is also the possibility that Henry is aware of their intentions but is open to the rhetorical vindication of God’s favor through the Church’s support of his claim to the French throne. I am inclined to say that Branagh’s portrayal shows Henry in a more commanding air than the text on its own. C. W. Griffin muses whether Henry enters as “a bored young man who flops down onto his thrown” or “a more threatening figure, one not to be trifled with” (102). The film seems to depict the latter with Henry’s dramatic and imposing silhouette that storms the throne room. The intensity and violence of action are balanced by the playful wit of Henry’s dialogue that reminds us of his earlier conflict in Henry IV to become a rightful king instead of the ne’er-do-well Prince Hal. With the beginning of the play, it appears Henry is very much the matured and thoughtful king he dreamed of being. The decision to set a precedence of the new king is important to making the audience more sympathetic to the notion that Henry is a king, one that confronting the decision to wage war; the throne room of Branagh’s King Henry is no place for the Hal of his youth.
Besides the arrangement of scenes, the inclusion and exclusion of scenes are very important directorial decisions. Compared to the earlier Laurence Olivier (1944) adaptation of this play to the cinema, Branagh included Henry’s address to the governor of the Harfleur in act III scene iii lines 1-43. The language of the literal text is itself very aggressive and borderline evil as Henry essentially threatens the governor with the collateral damage that will ensue should the town not surrender. The audience, of course, knows this is a bluff but the confident speech lends a hand to the rhetorical capacity of King Henry and his effectiveness as an orator. Olivier probably chose not to include this scene because Henry becomes darker because of it and the commercially accepted good guy versus bad guy narrative would be compromised. Branagh, on the other hand, remains more faithful to the text by including this scene as well as uses it as a juxtaposition to the glories of the war scenes prior to this scene in order to create a commentary about the nature of war. While the fight scenes themselves seem to romanticize war, the politics behind the war are not prettied and Branagh provides a dichotomy of war by including the conspiring dialogues and aggressive war speeches of Henry.
Through the rearrangement of scenes and limited exclusion of essential dialogues, such as the speech at Harfleur, Branagh provides a comprehensive perspective of war that romanticizes the bravery of the soldier-king and his men through explosive fight scenes as well as criticizes the decision to go to war solely for the sake of power and control. Branagh’s Henry is ambiguous and open to interpretation depending on what scenes affect individual viewers. One constant is the weight of decision making as a leader, especially being a monarch because of all of the lives that are at stake. By including such the moral dilemma in the first scene as to whether or not his claim to French rule is legitimate and scenes marred with death and the threat of ordering more destruction at Harfleur, Branagh’s Henry dances a fine line between being Machiavellian and a devout Christian convinced that his plight is just.
Works Cited
Griffin, C. W. “Henry V’s Decision: Interrogative Texts.” Literature/Film Quarterly 25:2 (1997): 99-103.
Helmbold, Anita. “”Take a Soldier, Take a King”: The (In)Separability of King and Conflict in Branagh’s “Henry V””Literature/Film Quarterly 33.4 (2005): 280-89. Web.
Shakespeare, William, and Claire McEachern. The Life of King Henry the Fifth. New York, NY: Penguin, 1999. Print.