BACK-STORY: “Henry V” is a masterpiece acted, directed , and produced by
Laurence Olivier. His work was so amazing
he was awarded an Academy Honor Award at the Oscars. It was nominated for Best Actor, Score, Art
Direction, and Picture. (It lost to
another war film – “The Best Years of Our Lives”). It was designed to be a morale booster for
WWII Britain. Mission accomplished. It was specifically dedicated to England’s
commandoes and airborne troops. What
better subject than the battle that is considered the greatest upset in
military history? The story of a small,
exhausted army defeating the cream of French knighthood certainly resonated
with a Britain facing the supposedly all powerful Wehrmacht.
The movie was a box office
success and inspired the British people to carry on. It was the most expensive British film up to
that time. Wartime shortages impacted
production. For example, shortages of
metal led to the decision to “make” the chain-mail out of hand-knitted gray
wool. Many of the extras were
servicemen. The official title – “The Chronicle History of King Henry the Fift
with his Battell Fought at Agincourt in France by Will Shakespeare” – is the
longest title to be nominated for Best Picture.
OPENING: The movie is set in 1600.
We get a bird’s eye view of London as we zoom into the Globe
Theater. We are inside the theater as
the actors prepare for the play. The
Chorus (played by Leslie Banks) urges the audience to use its imagination. Two clergymen recap Henry’s evolution from a
wastrel to a moral leader. There is some
humor as the Archbishop of Canterbury explains how Salic Law justifies Henry’s
claim to the French crown. French
ambassadors arrive with their famous tennis balls insult and we are off to war.
SUMMARY: The movie now moves out of the Globe to a series of movie
sets based on the medieval Book of Hours.
Falstaff dies and the band of rogues formerly Henry’s “posse” leave to
join the army with dreams of glory and spoils.
At the French court, the Dauphin is overconfident and the King is
fearful.
At Harfleur, Henry passionately
urges his men “Once more into the breach…” which they do off camera. The action is being saved for Agincourt. Meanwhile, at the French court the Princess
Katherine gets an English lesson (parts of the body) from her maid. In a nice touch, there are no subtitles for
the French. The King sends off an army
of French knights to destroy the victors of Harfleur.
The British army is moving
toward safety at Calais when its path is blocked by the much larger French
force. The British are not only greatly
outnumbered, but exhausted and in ill-health.
The night before the battle, Henry walks disguised through his
camp. His men are gloomy and pessimistic. He has to control his temper as some of the
men are critical of the king for getting them into this mess.
The day of battle dawns and
Henry gives his famous “Band of Brothers” speech. Who better to orate it than Olivier? Archers pound in their stakes while the
French laugh it up in overconfidence.
The French Harold comes and demands Henry give up for ransom. No thank you, sayeth Henry.
The battle scene is one of the
greatest in war movie history, especially noteworthy considering the technology
available in 1944. Olivier did have
access to an aerial view which nicely shows the wedge shaped formations of
British archers. He was also able to
film the knightly charge through a half-mile tracking shot. We follow along and then feel the blizzard of
arrows coming down. The battle devolves
into a bloody melee with even the archers wading in with their daggers. At one point a flanking attack by French
knights through some woods is blunted by archers jumping out of trees in
ambush. The French prove their villainy
by treacherously attacking the British camp, killing boys in the process. This enrages Henry who returns to battle for
a duel with the French Constable. The
army forms a circle like in a schoolyard to watch as Henry dispatches the enemy
commander with a blow from his gauntlet.
(The next one’s for you, Hitler.)
The Harold arrives to cry “oncle”.
Henry’s bedraggled, but victorious army marches into the sunset to
Calais.
The movie naturally suffers from
an extended denoument after the battle.
(Reminiscent of “Braveheart” after the Battle of Stirling.) Henry woos Katherine with a lot of words to
someone who does not understand them. He
has a strong love for someone he has just met.
Is it BS? Shakespeare seemed to
think he was sincere and not just
Macchiavellian. Kate buys it (as
though she has a choice) and they kiss.
CLOSING: Henry and Katherine are married. We are back in the Globe for “The End”.
RATINGS:
Acting: B
Action: 6/10
Accuracy: C
Realism: B
Plot: A
Overall = B
WOULD CHICKS DIG IT? This is one war movie that women would probably like more
than men. Women tend to like wordy
movies more than men and this movie has a lot of words. You also have to concentrate on what is being
said. The Shakespearean dialogue is
easier to follow than the unsubtitled French, but not by much. Women will be less frustrated than your
typical male war movie lover. You also
have the romantic subplot to appeal to women.
ACCURACY: The movie is very faithful to the play. Only one line is not from Shakespeare. The movie does not cover the whole play, by
the way. It leaves out some material
that tended to show Henry is less than a saintly light. For example, Olivier omits a scene where
Henry hangs one of his old buddies for violating his ban on looting.
When examining “Henry V” for
accuracy, let’s look at whether Shakespeare got it right. The background to the invasion is accurate in
its portrayal of Henry’s motivation.
Even the tennis ball incident apparently occurred. Shakespeare goes off the historical path a
bit when the army reaches France. The
audience is led to believe that “once more into the breach” resulted in the
fall of Harfleur, when in actuality the next assault failed and the city gave
up when word arrived that a relief army was not coming.
The Battle of Agincourt is
significantly different than depicted.
The play and movie makes little reference to the really deplorable state
of the British soldiers. They were
suffering from dysentery (which we can be thankful is not graphically depicted)
and exhaustion. The battle itself is
fairly accurate in a simplistic way. The
first attack was by cavalry, but the subsequent one was by knights wading
through the mud on foot. There is not
nearly enough mud in the movie! The
melee aspect is realistic, but clearly there was no duel between Henry and the
Constable (that is pure Hollywood).
There was also no ambush of French cavalry in the woods by archers
leaping from trees.
The French attack on the baggage
train with its killing of the innocents was accurate (even though the movie
falsely implies that the French leadership was behind the assault), but Henry’s
response was not. In fact, he did not
respond by returning to the battle.
Instead, he gave the infamous order to kill the French prisoners (who
were being held for ransom) out of fear that they might rearm themselves and
return to the fight. You can debate
Henry’s decision, but it is no surprise that Shakespeare (ever the patriot) and
Olivier (making an inspirational movie) chose to omit this facet of the battle.
The aftermath of the battle is
pretty spot on. Henry did marry
Katherine and was promised the throne when the king died (which did not happen
because the much younger Henry died first).
I find it hard to believe the wooing scene actually happened, but it’s a
play.
CRITIQUE: This is an amazing movie.
Olivier does an amazing job – possibly the greatest all-around
performance in movie history. He justly
deserved the special Oscar. One wonders
if the Academy felt guilty for choosing an inferior film (“The Best Years of
Our Lives”) for Best Picture (guess which one was a patriotic American film). He was already a renowned actor, but this was
his first directing job. (He modestly
looked for others to direct it until he was persuaded he was the best man for
the job.) His decision to start the
movie in the Globe, then shift to sets, move on to the great outdoors for the
battle, then back to sets, and end back at the theater , was nothing short of
brilliant. The audience gets a taste of
an Elizabethan play and the action of a movie.
The use of The Book of Hours as the inspiration for the set designs is
awesome. But the kicker is Olivier made
a Shakespeare movie that audiences and critics liked. This was a first and is still a rare
accomplishment.
The only flaws are some
inaccuracies in the military aspects.
However, Shakespeare did do research for his plays, so any discrepancies
are for entertainment purposes or to advance the theme of the play. Olivier’s decision to downplay the negative
aspects of Henry’s personality (he could be a jerk and ruthless) are
understandable given the patriotic purpose of the film. If you want to see the warts, see Kenneth Branagh’s
1988 version. Speaking of which, I will
be posting soon on which version is better.
Another slight quibble is with
the acting. Some of the actors chew the
scenery a bit. I know this will be
defended as realistic portrayals of Elizabethan acting, but it still comes off
as over the top.
For those wanting consistent
excitement, this movie is not your cup of tea.
The first half hour is mostly expository. The Battle of Agincourt stands out as a
shining diamond in the middle of the movie.
Then the last part is a return to the more languid style of the first
part. Blame Shakespeare for that, if you
must. But just like Mel Gibson with
“Braveheart”, Olivier might have been wiser to end the movie after the big
battle scene.
Oh, and did I mention that it is
not clearly a war movie. It is more
accurately described as a Shakespeare play with a battle in the middle of it.
CONCLUSION: Every cinemaphile should see this movie because it is a tour
de force by a master movie maker. Every
cinemaphile should see this movie and then Branagh’s version to see how
movie-making and film attitudes changed from 1944 to 1988. It makes for a perfect comparison because the
source material is the same. Every
literature lover should see it because it is arguably the best rendering of
Shakespeare ever filmed. People who do
not like to read books can see it and not have to read “Henry V” (warning to
lazy British Literature students – it only covers about half the written
play). Don’t forget that you can also
learn some French words for parts of the body.
That could come in handy, I suppose.
Unfortunately, not the naughty bits.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGood question! So far I have not found the answer. One theory is Hollywood felt snake-bitten by the flopping of "Romeo and Juliet" and was hesitant to release it.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, it is hard to justify Frederic March ("The Best Years of Our Lives") beating Olivier (and Jimmy Stewart for "It's a Wonderful Life").
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteApril 1946 for a very limited release, then July for a larger one.
ReplyDeleteBtw the movie wasn't a box-office success in the UK. See James Chapman, Past and Present.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI would like to take this opportunity to thank the two of you for participating in my blog. You both bring a lot to the table and I appreciate that. I love the discussions.
DeleteWhen I saw the movie I suspected that there are elements of wartime propaganda in it, given things like the heroic battle-scenes and the rousing song in traditional English style sung by a male chorus at the end.
ReplyDeleteA brief internet search suggests that this was indeed the case. This movie and Alexander Nevsky aside, I wonder whether there were other WWII wartime propaganda films featuring nationally famous historical battles?
I can't think of any. "Sergeant York" fits your qualification except it is about a historical figure, not a battle.
ReplyDeleteGood point! "Sergeant York" is probably close enough.
ReplyDelete