A creatively minded film student once checked out the videos for the Branagh and Olivier versions of this film, arranged a free public showing of the two in sequence, and billed the event as "A Comparison of Styles." Great fun. Twenty or so of us spent a whole Sunday afternoon-to-late-evening discussing and arguing the merits and demerits of both versions. I recommend the exercise for other Shakespeare fans and film fans. (Holms vs. Scofield as Lear, Zefferelli's Romeo & Juliet vs. the one with Caprio, etc. Try it; you'll like it).
Henry V has been read as English triumphalism so often that this bad-war era version was probably NECESSARY in order to show folks how subtle Shakespeare can be even when he seems to be tooting a patriotic horn! We are shown a very complicated (and very disturbed) king in three fine scenes in particular: (1) Henry slouching on his throne as he hears his ecclesiastical minions telling him what he wants to hear and feeding him the long-shot arguments that speciously justify his claim to the throne of France; (2) the subtle demonstration that his French obsession is partly a way of displacing his guilt about abandoning Falstaff; and (3) his maniacal behavior at Harfleur as he rides around waving his sword and making himself a perfect target with his surcoat decorated with the royal arms! Shakespeare makes it impossible to doubt Henry's courage and military genius, but he also appalls us: "My God," we think, "it's nuts like this who still rule the world and cause most of the problems thereof!"
I have a few bones to pick. Branagh is trying to keep the film from getting too long, and he is sometimes sloppy about what he cuts. Here are a pair of examples:
(1) The film movingly depicts a French atrocity, namely the killing the youngsters who guarded the English luggage ("Directly against the laws of war" as the lovable fussy legalist Fluellen puts it). But Shakespeare puts this in perspective by highlighting Henry's equally atrocious violation, when he orders the mass killing of French prisoners. BRANAGH IGNORES THAT, AND LEAVES OUT THE British ATROCITY WHILE INCLUDING THE FRENCH ONE! In the play as Shakespeare wrote it, Fluellen (displaying his unconquerable admiration for the king) has to force himself, in his "Alexander the Pig" scene, to rationalize Henry's atrocity as a response to the French atrocity which hadn't happened yet. The stickler Fluellen, in other words, is disingenuous with himself as the price of keeping Henry in the right. Ouch! But the ouch would actually have strengthened Branagh's interpretation.
(2) Branagh is gorgeous in his handling of the scene where Henry disguises himself as a common soldier in order to hobnob with his men, and loses his cool--throws a tantrum, in fact--while listening to soldier Williams' good and honest anti-war talk. But another sequence, without which the foregoing scene can really not be understood properly, is cut!!!! The scene in question, which isn't in the film, shows Henry revealing himself to the honest (or lippy?) Williams and demanding satisfaction for the latter's supposedly insubordinate and disloyal talk. Williams stands his ground like a man, and tells Henry respectfully but firmly that if he wants to be treated like a king he shouldn't disguise himself as a buck private. The King, thus put in the wrong in front of his officers (and shown the flip side of the thoughts he himself expressed in his "Upon the King!" soliloquy a few scenes earlier), cuts his losses, tells Fluellen to make up for the deception by giving Williams his (Henry's) glove filled with money, and hurriedly exits. Williams refuses the money along with Fluellen's patronizing b.s., and we are left to contemplate the fact that we have just seen an unpleasantly catty side of Henry. As in the other case, Branagh's cutting of one scene rather makes hash out of the other.
There is one scene where Branagh unnecessarily remains in Olivier's shadow. Branagh was quite aware that he couldn't speechify like Olivier (nor could anyone else, actually), and that he would therefore inevitably suffer if he tried to declaim the "Once more to the breach" Harfleur set piece, he somehow couldn't resist trying, which resulted in the only lame acting in the film. Branagh would have made more sense if he had just allowed the mounted, renzied Henry to shout himself hoarse, almost unheard over the noise of battle, while urging his men to this crazy suicide attack, and to eschew such stagey hamming as we end up seeing here (and nowhere else in the film).
Finally, a bow should be made toward the supporting cast (especially Holms, Blessed and Scofield), who are splendid. About Scofield: the history books say that Charles VI was subject to migraine headaches and fits of depression, and that due to the absolutist nature of the French state, the whole mechanism of government ground to a halt when the King was suffering in this way. Scofield's brilliant performance shows that there is no such thing as a minor role.
I don't know what one of the IMDb reviewers means by the complaint that Emma Thompson as Princess Katherine "looks too English." She's great in her "Le foutre et le con" scene.
Henry V has been read as English triumphalism so often that this bad-war era version was probably NECESSARY in order to show folks how subtle Shakespeare can be even when he seems to be tooting a patriotic horn! We are shown a very complicated (and very disturbed) king in three fine scenes in particular: (1) Henry slouching on his throne as he hears his ecclesiastical minions telling him what he wants to hear and feeding him the long-shot arguments that speciously justify his claim to the throne of France; (2) the subtle demonstration that his French obsession is partly a way of displacing his guilt about abandoning Falstaff; and (3) his maniacal behavior at Harfleur as he rides around waving his sword and making himself a perfect target with his surcoat decorated with the royal arms! Shakespeare makes it impossible to doubt Henry's courage and military genius, but he also appalls us: "My God," we think, "it's nuts like this who still rule the world and cause most of the problems thereof!"
I have a few bones to pick. Branagh is trying to keep the film from getting too long, and he is sometimes sloppy about what he cuts. Here are a pair of examples:
(1) The film movingly depicts a French atrocity, namely the killing the youngsters who guarded the English luggage ("Directly against the laws of war" as the lovable fussy legalist Fluellen puts it). But Shakespeare puts this in perspective by highlighting Henry's equally atrocious violation, when he orders the mass killing of French prisoners. BRANAGH IGNORES THAT, AND LEAVES OUT THE British ATROCITY WHILE INCLUDING THE FRENCH ONE! In the play as Shakespeare wrote it, Fluellen (displaying his unconquerable admiration for the king) has to force himself, in his "Alexander the Pig" scene, to rationalize Henry's atrocity as a response to the French atrocity which hadn't happened yet. The stickler Fluellen, in other words, is disingenuous with himself as the price of keeping Henry in the right. Ouch! But the ouch would actually have strengthened Branagh's interpretation.
(2) Branagh is gorgeous in his handling of the scene where Henry disguises himself as a common soldier in order to hobnob with his men, and loses his cool--throws a tantrum, in fact--while listening to soldier Williams' good and honest anti-war talk. But another sequence, without which the foregoing scene can really not be understood properly, is cut!!!! The scene in question, which isn't in the film, shows Henry revealing himself to the honest (or lippy?) Williams and demanding satisfaction for the latter's supposedly insubordinate and disloyal talk. Williams stands his ground like a man, and tells Henry respectfully but firmly that if he wants to be treated like a king he shouldn't disguise himself as a buck private. The King, thus put in the wrong in front of his officers (and shown the flip side of the thoughts he himself expressed in his "Upon the King!" soliloquy a few scenes earlier), cuts his losses, tells Fluellen to make up for the deception by giving Williams his (Henry's) glove filled with money, and hurriedly exits. Williams refuses the money along with Fluellen's patronizing b.s., and we are left to contemplate the fact that we have just seen an unpleasantly catty side of Henry. As in the other case, Branagh's cutting of one scene rather makes hash out of the other.
There is one scene where Branagh unnecessarily remains in Olivier's shadow. Branagh was quite aware that he couldn't speechify like Olivier (nor could anyone else, actually), and that he would therefore inevitably suffer if he tried to declaim the "Once more to the breach" Harfleur set piece, he somehow couldn't resist trying, which resulted in the only lame acting in the film. Branagh would have made more sense if he had just allowed the mounted, renzied Henry to shout himself hoarse, almost unheard over the noise of battle, while urging his men to this crazy suicide attack, and to eschew such stagey hamming as we end up seeing here (and nowhere else in the film).
Finally, a bow should be made toward the supporting cast (especially Holms, Blessed and Scofield), who are splendid. About Scofield: the history books say that Charles VI was subject to migraine headaches and fits of depression, and that due to the absolutist nature of the French state, the whole mechanism of government ground to a halt when the King was suffering in this way. Scofield's brilliant performance shows that there is no such thing as a minor role.
I don't know what one of the IMDb reviewers means by the complaint that Emma Thompson as Princess Katherine "looks too English." She's great in her "Le foutre et le con" scene.