Branagh's "Henry V"
Gary Kosinsky
In his sombre interpretation of "Henry V", a very young
Kenneth Branagh portrays the English King who was victorious at
Agincourt.
Overall, the movie is well worth viewing. Branagh is an
excellent actor, and he surrounds himself with other accomplished
actors including Paul Scofield, Derek Jacobi, Emma Thompson and
Ian Holm (who I thought did an excellent job in his portrayal of
Fluellen).
I was surprised, however, at the aforementioned 'sombre' tone
of the movie. A 'sad-seriousness' seems to pervade it (also reflected
in the film's sets - has the colour 'brown' ever been used so
much in one movie?). Director Branagh intensifies this 'seriousness'
by cutting most of the comic parts of the play (ie: Fluellen's clash
with Pistol over the leeks). In fact, so sombre is the majority of
the movie that the 'lighter' parts involving Thompson as Katherine
do not seem to fit in.
Also cut out, I noticed, was Henry's order to kill all the
French prisoners in retaliation for the slaughter of the children
at the supply wagons. I suppose Branagh felt this might darken
the impression of Henry a bit too much.
Any actor's portrayal of Henry V, of course, depends heavily
on his Saint Crispin's speech. While the overall effect of Branagh's
speech was good, I'm uncertain whether this was, in fact, due to his
delivery or to the stirring background music which at times nearly
overwhelmed his speech. (Speaking of which, the music in this movie
is very good). Also, in his minor exhortatory speech before Harfleur
("Once more unto the breach, dear friends..."), I didn't think Branagh
carried it off that well. His voice just didn't command that
respect/enthusiasm that such a speech should have, at least IMHO.
An interesting problem raised in any production of Henry V
is the death of Falstaff. As most on this newsgroup know, Henry V
is the culmination of a series of three previous plays, two of which
prominently feature Falstaff and his relationship with young Hal.
The problem, it seems to me, is that when you are producing the play,
do you assume the audience is familiar with the three previous plays
(or at least Henry IV 1 & 2)? If 'yes', then there is no problem,
and Falstaff's death can be included, the play adhered to, and everything
is fine. If, however, you assume the viewers are either unfamiliar
with any of the plays (including 'Henry V'), or are only familiar with
'Henry V', then you have a problem. Will the death of Falstaff
add anything to the production/movie, or will it unnecessarily confuse
the audience (ie: who is Falstaff? So what if he is dead?). Branagh
attempts to bridge the gap between the two groups by including some
flashbacks of the tavern scenes involving Hal and Falstaff, hopefully
giving needed information to those unfamiliar with the preceding plays.
Being familiar with the history series, I can't be sure if this approach
really worked, however. Perhaps someone who has seen the movie and has
not read the previous plays can say whether the scenes involving Falstaff
added anything to the movie, or could simply have been left out.
These objections and notes aside, I enjoyed this production
and for those few in this group who have not seen this movie, I
recommend doing so. For those many who may not have seen it in awhile,
it may be time to watch it again.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Kosinsky gk...@vcn.bc.ca
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah G. Buckner
Gary Kosinsky <gk...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in article
<d1Oh0wyT...@vcn.bc.ca>...
> In his sombre interpretation of "Henry V", a very young
> Kenneth Branagh portrays the English King who was victorious at
> Agincourt.
>
> Overall, the movie is well worth viewing. Branagh is an
> excellent actor, and he surrounds himself with other accomplished
> actors including Paul Scofield, Derek Jacobi, Emma Thompson and
> Ian Holm (who I thought did an excellent job in his portrayal of
> Fluellen).
> I was surprised, however, at the aforementioned 'sombre' tone
> of the movie. A 'sad-seriousness' seems to pervade it (also reflected
> in the film's sets -
Branagh wrote in Beginning that he wanted to convey clearly the message of
the devastation of war. In contrast to the political battle cry that was
Olivier's film, I think the Branagh film demonstrates that victory in war
still has its price and still leaves lasting scars.
> Any actor's portrayal of Henry V, of course, depends heavily
> on his Saint Crispin's speech. While the overall effect of Branagh's
> speech was good, I'm uncertain whether this was, in fact, due to his
> delivery or to the stirring background music which at times nearly
> overwhelmed his speech. (Speaking of which, the music in this movie
> is very good).
This was the speech that made me a committed Branagh fan. I found watching
it to be the most exciting, most beautiful dramatic moment I have ever
experienced. Without really understanding exactly what I was feeling, I
sat watching with tears streaming down my face.
Also, in his minor exhortatory speech before Harfleur
> ("Once more unto the breach, dear friends..."), I didn't think Branagh
> carried it off that well. His voice just didn't command that
> respect/enthusiasm that such a speech should have, at least IMHO.
When I saw this speech for the first time with Branagh on the rearing white
horse, I thought, "If Errol Flynn had been permitted to do Shakespeare
films (which he dearly desired to do, having acted in the London West End),
this is the way he would have done it." I would have charged once more to
the breach for him!
> An interesting problem raised in any production of Henry V
> is the death of Falstaff. [, , , ,] Branagh
> attempts to bridge the gap between the two groups by including some
> flashbacks of the tavern scenes involving Hal and Falstaff, hopefully
> giving needed information to those unfamiliar with the preceding plays.
> Being familiar with the history series, I can't be sure if this approach
> really worked, however. Perhaps someone who has seen the movie and has
> not read the previous plays can say whether the scenes involving Falstaff
> added anything to the movie, or could simply have been left out.
I had not read the two preceding plays before seeing the film. After the
film, I did read them, specifically looking for the flashbacks. I thought
the inclusion of the tavern scenes helped a great deal, giving a good view
of the man Falstaff was and the relationship Hal had enjoyed with him
which, too, added poignancy to the scene where Bardolf is hanged. Like
many thousands of others, I fell in love with Falstaff and launched a
search for a print of Orson Welles' "The Chimes at Midnight" in the
aftermath of seeing Branagh's Henry V and then being led back to the books.
> These objections and notes aside, I enjoyed this production
> and for those few in this group who have not seen this movie, I
> recommend doing so. For those many who may not have seen it in awhile,
> it may be time to watch it again.
I now have my second copy of the film, having worn out the first!
Deborah
Anita Hook
Gary Kosinsky wrote:
> In his sombre interpretation of "Henry V", a very young
>Kenneth Branagh portrays the English King who was victorious at
>Agincourt.
[nice post snipped]
Interesting Gary.
Since this was a low budget film (relatively speaking), that might explain
the cuts you mentioned.
About the Falstaff problem. My initial introduction to Henry V was through
the Branagh film. There were a couple of times I was a bit at sea about what
was going on, particularly near the beginning. But that could be because of
my lack of understanding of Elizabethan language, Shakespeare in general and
the fact that I hadn't read Richard II, 1HIV or 2HIV at that time. But I
think I have a thought about why Branagh brought part of the tavern scene
from 1 Henry IV into the film. One might be that, as Deborah so insightfully
put it, it helped those unfamiliar with Shakespeare's earlier history plays
to understand just who Falstaff, Bardolph and Nym were. Not only did it help
explain the dialogue surrounding Falstaff's death but, more importantly I
think, its a reminder to the audience of the growth of the character from the
carefree tavern days to the heavy weight of responsibility Hal assumed when
he became King.
As to the St. Crispian's Day Speech, I have to agree with Deb on this one
also. As I said, I was very unfamiliar with Shakespeare when I watched this
production, and nothing ever moved me in a film before as much as Branagh's
delivery of that speech. Of course, Shakespeare's words are like music in
that scene. Placed in the right mouth, the notes of the speech soar, as it
did in that film.
I've since seen Olivier's version of the play and in fact have seen the
Crispian speech side-by-side with Branagh's. It's a very interesting
comparison. Olivier's delivery of the speech, as well as the entire play, in
my opinion, was very stagy. Of course, there's nothing wrong with that
approach. I just prefer the more human delivery of the Branagh version.
Branagh's Henry agonizes more and, it seems to me, grows more than
Olivier's. But more on the character in a later post.
But the scene that solidified my admiration of Branagh's artistic superiority
was the Non Nobis scene. The music and the long tracking shot absolutely
drove home the high price of war, even during the days of chivalry.
Regards
Anita
volker multhopp
Karon L Adams wrote:
> And later when Exeter is talking to the king of France and explaining
> that he would see a change ;
> "as we in wonder have noted
> gainst those he mastered in his younger days"
> Of course, my love for trivia of nearly all kinds gave me a clue when
> I saw the Tennis balls <giggle> I broke out laughing and everyone
> around me looked at me like I was NUTS!! They didn't get the joke<G>
Of course, we know that Oxford was a tennis player. Since it was a
game of the nobles, we can be almost certain that Shakspere of Stratford
never played, almost as certain that he never even saw it. Tennis
appears 7 times in the canon, from very brief allusion to extended
metaphor. Stratfordians will claim that this is element Shakspere threw
in to sustain the impression of the noble class in his plays. But those
7 appearances do not feel like they are thrown-in bits, they are the
utterances of who understand tennis as a natural part that world of
power-broking which he inhabited.
"What a disgrace is it to me to remember thy name, or
to know thy face to-morrow, or to take note how many pair of silk
stockings thou hast- viz., these, and those that were thy
peach-colour'd ones- or to bear the inventory of thy shirts- as,
one for superfluity, and another for use! But that the
tennis-court-keeper knows better than I; for it is a low ebb of
linen with thee when thou keepest not racket there; as thou hast
not done a great while, because the rest of thy low countries
have made a shift to eat up thy holland. And God knows whether
those that bawl out of the ruins of thy linen shall inherit his
kingdom; but the midwives say the children are not in the fault;
whereupon the world increases, and kindreds are mightily
strengthened." [--WS, Henry 8]
--Volker
Karon L Adams
Gary, asdie from a 9th grade, stiltted reading of R&J, and the
Moolighting version of Taming of the Shrew, this was my first
experience with Shax. I enjoyed it very much and it has made me a fan
of Kenneth Branagh as well as Shax. I am now attempting (without as
much success as I'd like) to keep up with the POTM, as well as seeing
as many film verison of the plays as I can.
Anyway, I had not seen any other plays, nor had I read any of the
hisories when I saw H5. The flashbacks were WONDERFUL! It was
actually some time before I realized they were excerpts from the H4
plays. They went a long way towards explaining Flastaf's place, as
well as giving a picture of the libertine Hal was before comng to the
throne. Makes a lot of other lines make a LOT more sense :
"How he comes o'er us with out wilder days,
not knowing what use we made of them"
And later when Exeter is talking to the king of France and explaining
that he would see a change ;
"as we in wonder have noted
gainst those he mastered in his younger days"
Of course, my love for trivia of nearly all kinds gave me a clue when
I saw the Tennis balls <giggle> I broke out laughing and everyone
around me looked at me like I was NUTS!! They didn't get the joke<G>
So, all in all, the flashbacks were a good idea for those of us new
to shax.
karon
gk...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary Kosinsky) wrote:
> In his sombre interpretation of "Henry V", a very young
>Kenneth Branagh portrays the English King who was victorious at
>Agincourt.
>
> Overall, the movie is well worth viewing. Branagh is an
>excellent actor, and he surrounds himself with other accomplished
>actors including Paul Scofield, Derek Jacobi, Emma Thompson and
>Ian Holm (who I thought did an excellent job in his portrayal of
>Fluellen).
>
> I was surprised, however, at the aforementioned 'sombre' tone
>of the movie. A 'sad-seriousness' seems to pervade it (also reflected
>in the film's sets - has the colour 'brown' ever been used so
>much in one movie?). Director Branagh intensifies this 'seriousness'
>by cutting most of the comic parts of the play (ie: Fluellen's clash
>with Pistol over the leeks). In fact, so sombre is the majority of
>the movie that the 'lighter' parts involving Thompson as Katherine
>do not seem to fit in.
>
> Also cut out, I noticed, was Henry's order to kill all the
>French prisoners in retaliation for the slaughter of the children
>at the supply wagons. I suppose Branagh felt this might darken
>the impression of Henry a bit too much.
>
> Any actor's portrayal of Henry V, of course, depends heavily
>on his Saint Crispin's speech. While the overall effect of Branagh's
>speech was good, I'm uncertain whether this was, in fact, due to his
>delivery or to the stirring background music which at times nearly
>overwhelmed his speech. (Speaking of which, the music in this movie
>is very good). Also, in his minor exhortatory speech before Harfleur
>("Once more unto the breach, dear friends..."), I didn't think Branagh
>carried it off that well. His voice just didn't command that
>respect/enthusiasm that such a speech should have, at least IMHO.
>
> An interesting problem raised in any production of Henry V
>is the death of Falstaff. As most on this newsgroup know, Henry V
>is the culmination of a series of three previous plays, two of which
>prominently feature Falstaff and his relationship with young Hal.
>The problem, it seems to me, is that when you are producing the play,
>do you assume the audience is familiar with the three previous plays
>(or at least Henry IV 1 & 2)? If 'yes', then there is no problem,
>and Falstaff's death can be included, the play adhered to, and everything
>is fine. If, however, you assume the viewers are either unfamiliar
>with any of the plays (including 'Henry V'), or are only familiar with
>'Henry V', then you have a problem. Will the death of Falstaff
>add anything to the production/movie, or will it unnecessarily confuse
>the audience (ie: who is Falstaff? So what if he is dead?). Branagh
>attempts to bridge the gap between the two groups by including some
>flashbacks of the tavern scenes involving Hal and Falstaff, hopefully
>giving needed information to those unfamiliar with the preceding plays.
>Being familiar with the history series, I can't be sure if this approach
>really worked, however. Perhaps someone who has seen the movie and has
>not read the previous plays can say whether the scenes involving Falstaff
>added anything to the movie, or could simply have been left out.
>
> These objections and notes aside, I enjoyed this production
>and for those few in this group who have not seen this movie, I
>recommend doing so. For those many who may not have seen it in awhile,
>it may be time to watch it again.
>
Caius Marcius
> Any actor's portrayal of Henry V, of course, depends heavily
>on his Saint Crispin's speech. While the overall effect of Branagh's
>speech was good, I'm uncertain whether this was, in fact, due to his
>delivery or to the stirring background music which at times nearly
>overwhelmed his speech. (Speaking of which, the music in this movie
>is very good).
The excellent score by Patrick Doyle is especially noteworthy in that
it was the composer's first soundtrack for a motion picture - this
example of a neophyte composer writing a first-rate score for a
first-class motion picture has IMHO only three precedents: Dmitri
Shostakovich for The New Babylon (1921); Bernard Hermann for Citizen
Kane (1941); and Alex North for A Streetcar Named Desire (1950).
Doyle has scored all of Branagh's directorial efforts, and has become
highly sought-after by other filmmakers - he has also scored Carlito's
Way, Donnie Brasco, Indochine, Sense and Sensibility (for which he
recieved an Academy Award nomination), etc.
- CMC
Caius Marcius
In <6656a8$l...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> cori...@ix.netcom.com(Caius
Marcius) writes:
>
>The excellent score by Patrick Doyle is especially noteworthy in that
>it was the composer's first soundtrack for a motion picture - this
>example of a neophyte composer writing a first-rate score for a
>first-class motion picture has IMHO only three precedents: Dmitri
>Shostakovich for The New Babylon (1921); Bernard Hermann for Citizen
>Kane (1941); and Alex North for A Streetcar Named Desire (1950).
>
Immediately after posting the above, I read on the rec.music.movies NG
that Doyle was recently diagnosed with lukemia - fortunately, it is a
form that is treatable, and his long-term prognosis is good.
- CMC
Caius Marcius
In <348621...@erols.com> volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com> writes:
>
>Karon L Adams wrote:
>
>>
>> Of course, my love for trivia of nearly all kinds gave me a clue
when
>> I saw the Tennis balls <giggle> I broke out laughing and everyone
>> around me looked at me like I was NUTS!! They didn't get the
joke<G>
>
> Of course, we know that Oxford was a tennis player. Since it was
a
>game of the nobles, we can be almost certain that Shakspere of
Stratford
>never played, almost as certain that he never even saw it. Tennis
>appears 7 times in the canon, from very brief allusion to extended
>metaphor. Stratfordians will claim that this is element Shakspere
threw
>in to sustain the impression of the noble class in his plays. But
those
>7 appearances do not feel like they are thrown-in bits, they are the
>utterances of who understand tennis as a natural part that world of
>power-broking which he inhabited.
This powerful argument nearly converted me to Oxfordianism until I
lighted upon the passage from Frank Menke's The Encyclopedia of Sports
(1975) on the history of tennis:
[begin quote] Paume (i.e., tennis) became increasingly popular not only
with kings but also with the [French] masses in the 14th Century. It
became a gambling game, with the public thronging to the court to make
bets and pushing the money under the net. It got so bad that Charles V
issued an edict against the playing of the game in Paris in 1369,
though he had lost none of his own zest for the sport. The edict did
not kill paume, for at the end of the century there was a guild of
1,400 professional masters in Paris.
Restrictive measures were also enacted against the playing of tennis in
England, also, in 1389. Just when the game was introduced to Britain
is not known, but this edict, designed to promote archery, indicates
that it was well established there late in the 14th Century. Late in
the century, too, appeared the first reference to tennis in English
literature - Chaucer's famous phrase in Troilus and Cresside: "But
canstow playen racket to and fro". Ordinances prohibiting tennis play
in Holland in 1401 and 1414 show that the game had been introduced into
that country before the 15th Century.
Tennis reached the peak of its popularity in both England and France in
the 16th and 17th Centuries.....The Venetian ambassador to France
recorded in a letter that there were some 1,800 courts in Paris around
1600. Not only were there courts in every chateau but the game was
also becoming a big public spectacle and there was so much gambling and
crookedness that tennis fell into disrepute. In England, the game had
a big vogue during the late Tudor period and the of the Stuarts. Henry
VIII built courts at Whitehall, St. James Palace and Hampton Court
Palace. The last named is the oldest in England and is still in use.
Late in the 17th Century the popularity of tennis began to wane in
England as well as France.....betting scandals almost killed the game
on public courts in the middle of the 18th Century. (p. 958)
Since there was so much gambling involved, it was clearly not necessary
a commoner to play tennis in order to understand the game - anymore
than those who place racetrack bets need to actually breed and raise
horses to understand the finer points of horse racing.
- CMC
Wolfgang Preiss
I just watched Branagh's and Olivier's films in comparison, so please
allow me to add a few comments to this article, even if it's already a
few days old. I'd like to discuss the newer film, taking the older one
as a foil for comparison.
gk...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary Kosinsky) wrote:
> In his sombre interpretation of "Henry V", a very young
>Kenneth Branagh portrays the English King who was victorious at
>Agincourt.
>
> Overall, the movie is well worth viewing. Branagh is an
>excellent actor, and he surrounds himself with other accomplished
>actors including Paul Scofield, Derek Jacobi, Emma Thompson and
>Ian Holm (who I thought did an excellent job in his portrayal of
>Fluellen).
Compare to this the cardboard cut-outs Olivier chose as his co-stars.
(Maybe th actors actually aren't that bad, but their interpretations
of their roles was.) The king of France would do well in an Abbot &
Costello adaptation of the play, the "funny" characters (Pistol,
Bardolph, Nym, Quickly) seem to come straight from the Laurel and
Hardy "Fra Diavolo" episode - only that they might have been funny
there, but aren't in this staging of the play.
Only Montjoy and the Connetable in Olivier's film left a lasting
impression with me - perhaps just because they were surrounded by
cartoon characters.)
> I was surprised, however, at the aforementioned 'sombre' tone
>of the movie. A 'sad-seriousness' seems to pervade it (also reflected
>in the film's sets - has the colour 'brown' ever been used so
>much in one movie?).
I agree that the Branagh movie is serious, but I take this as a good
thing. War *is* a serious matter. Dying is not funny. Henry is aware
of his responsibility when he warns the bishop:
For God doth know how many now in health
Shall drop their blood in approbation
Of what your reverence shall incite us to.
...
We charge you, in the name of God, take heed;
For never two such kingdoms did contend
Without much fall of blood, whose guiltless drops
Are every one a woe, a sore complaint,
'Gainst him whose wrongs gives edge unto thwe swords
That makes such waste in brief mortality.
[H5, I.ii]
I believe Henry (and Branagh) when he utters these words. I don't
believe Olivier, however. I understand that Olivier's movie was made
in wartime, when a (as I see it) faithful depiction of war as inhuman
slaughter would have been contradictory to the aim of uplifting the
spirits of the troops. (Olivier's film is dedicated to the British
troops recapturing France at the same time the movie was made.) Yet, I
think Branagh's sombre interpretation fits the subject matter much
better than Olivier's more light-hearted one.
>Director Branagh intensifies this 'seriousness'
>by cutting most of the comic parts of the play (ie: Fluellen's clash
>with Pistol over the leeks).
I admit I have a problem with many of the "humorous" scenes in the
play, no matter what adaptation. Ian Holm as Fluellen would not have
argued with Pistol, he would have run him through with his sword.
After having seen the Olivier film, I am more than grateful that
Fluellen isn't "funny" in the Branagh version - actually, he is a bit
funny in his obsession with antique wisdom of warfare (what a pity he
didn't know Tsun Zu (sp?)), but he isn't Bozo the clown.
>In fact, so sombre is the majority of
>the movie that the 'lighter' parts involving Thompson as Katherine
>do not seem to fit in.
I have to agree and disagree. The "fingers, nails, chin" scene seems
out of place at the beginning, but I started enjoying it after a
while, almost forgetting the cruel scenes of war that preceded it.
Here we have Princess Katherine, shielded from reality in the palace,
having a good time - until she opens the door of her room, just to see
her father's saddened face. What a truly marvellous idea! No, the
scene doesn't fit, but in a wonderful way.
As for the final scene, I find that one just beautiful. Emma Thompson
is believable, and so is Branagh. It takes some time to break the ice
between the two, there is some interesting tension, and the whole
thing isn't just a showing-off of the main character. Compare to this
Olivier's approach, who rushes in in the best Mark Anton manner "I'm
not much of a speaker, but allow me to deliver one of the most
beautiful speeches in the English language!" Again, I don't believe
Olivier here, but I believe Branagh.
> Also cut out, I noticed, was Henry's order to kill all the
>French prisoners in retaliation for the slaughter of the children
>at the supply wagons. I suppose Branagh felt this might darken
>the impression of Henry a bit too much.
I'm surprized too this was cut. It would have fit in the
interpretation. Branagh's Henry isn't flawless; his sacrificing of
Falstaff and, later on, Bardolph is understandable, but morally not
unquestionable IMO. Branagh also leaves in the references to Richard
II and the guilt of Bolingbroke's family. Maybe Branagh felt including
this order might have spoiled the transition to the "non nobis" scene.
The pace of the film is very delicate here. Yet, I would have
appreciated having this order in the movie.
Neither this order, nor the treason of the three peers, nor the
refernce to Richard, nor the manipulation of Henry by the bishops made
it to Olivier's film.
> Any actor's portrayal of Henry V, of course, depends heavily
>on his Saint Crispin's speech. While the overall effect of Branagh's
>speech was good, I'm uncertain whether this was, in fact, due to his
>delivery or to the stirring background music which at times nearly
>overwhelmed his speech.
No dispute here. Although I'd like to take another approach to this
question: To say "the overall effect was good, but maybe this was due
to the music rather than to the delivery" appears to me a bit like
saying "the overall taste of the meal was good, but maybe this was due
to the spices rather than to the quality of the meat." If the meat is
really bad, the spices can't save the dish (except maybe in Indian
cuisine). I didn't feel the music was concealing major shortcomings or
even spoiling the scene (as it often does in potentially moving scenes
in "Picket Fences", to give a low-brow example.) The overall effect
was moving, and that's fine with me when I discuss the quality of the
film. If I was examining the quality of Branagh's acting, that would
be different, though.
>(Speaking of which, the music in this movie
>is very good).
Agree wholeheartedly. I yet have to get "Non nobis" out of my system.
After playing more than 12 hrs. in the back of your mind, even this
tune starts to get annoying... The music of the Olivier film isn't bad
either, btw.
>Also, in his minor exhortatory speech before Harfleur
>("Once more unto the breach, dear friends..."), I didn't think Branagh
>carried it off that well. His voice just didn't command that
>respect/enthusiasm that such a speech should have, at least IMHO.
There is a problem with the setting of this speech in Branagh's movie.
It takes place in the midst of battle, when there wouldn't be much
time for holding speeches *in reality*. Now, Branagh's interpretation
has a rather 'naturalistic' angle, so there is a clash between the
realistic necessity of brevity and the necessity of delivering this
speech. (It *is* a great speech, and it would be a pity to leave it
out.) Branagh chooses to have the soldiers hesitate a lot to make a
long speech (in several parts) necessary. The men don't react when
Henry says "Once more...", so he rides back to them, delivers the
speech up to "To his full height." They still hesitate, so he
continues and they finally join him when he cries "God for Henry,
England, and St. George!" There is a dramatic dilemma: If Henry were
absolutely convincing from the start, his speech would have the
intended effect, but he wouldn't be able to finish it. Yet, if it
doesn't work immediately, it doesn't appear convincing. Olivier's
version suffers from the same dilemma.
(
Just imagine this:
Henry: [very convincingly]
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead!
Exeter:[unsheathes his sword and starts running towards the
walls]
God for Henry, England, and St. George!
Henry: WAIT FOR IT! I wasn't finished yet! And besides,
that's MY line! Where was I? O, yes:
In peace, there's nothing so ....
)
> An interesting problem raised in any production of Henry V
>is the death of Falstaff. As most on this newsgroup know, Henry V
>is the culmination of a series of three previous plays, two of which
>prominently feature Falstaff and his relationship with young Hal.
>The problem, it seems to me, is that when you are producing the play,
>do you assume the audience is familiar with the three previous plays
>(or at least Henry IV 1 & 2)? If 'yes', then there is no problem,
>and Falstaff's death can be included, the play adhered to, and everything
>is fine. If, however, you assume the viewers are either unfamiliar
>with any of the plays (including 'Henry V'), or are only familiar with
>'Henry V', then you have a problem. Will the death of Falstaff
>add anything to the production/movie, or will it unnecessarily confuse
>the audience (ie: who is Falstaff? So what if he is dead?).
The latter is exactly the effect Olivier's version has. Although Act
II, scene iii, arguably is the most moving scene in Olivier's film (at
least as scenes with commoners are concerned), it's still very hard to
understand what importance Falstaff used to have for Hal. BTW, it's
interesting how Branagh, while keeping away from Olivier's film almost
always, virtually copied most of this scene in his movie.
>Branagh
>attempts to bridge the gap between the two groups by including some
>flashbacks of the tavern scenes involving Hal and Falstaff, hopefully
>giving needed information to those unfamiliar with the preceding plays.
>Being familiar with the history series, I can't be sure if this approach
>really worked, however. Perhaps someone who has seen the movie and has
>not read the previous plays can say whether the scenes involving Falstaff
>added anything to the movie, or could simply have been left out.
It works. I tested it on my mother. :)
Technically, I liked the fact that it's more of a 'vision' than an
actual 'flashback'. No time is lost for the usual "going back in time"
effect - instead, the empty tavern fills with noise and Falstaff can
once more deliver some of his best lines. When the prince appears, he
is greeted as part of the scene, yet he isn't a real participant
anymore. His rejection of Falstaff is not as self-righteous as the
voice-over in the Olivier film.
> These objections and notes aside, I enjoyed this production
>and for those few in this group who have not seen this movie, I
>recommend doing so. For those many who may not have seen it in awhile,
>it may be time to watch it again.
Yes. Absolutely.
--
Wolfgang Preiss \ E-mail copies of replies to this posting are welcome.
wopr"at"stud.uni-sb.de \ There is no "2" in my real e-mail address.
Uni des Saarlands \ Sorry for the inconvenience. You know why.
Karon L Adams
Volker, As I couldn't care less about the authorship question, I
refuse to comment on whether the mention of tennis gives a clue as to
who 'really' wrote the plays. I WILL tell you that the reason I
giggled when the tennis balls were delivererd is because I had always
heard and read that playing tennis was a rahter risque activity in
elizebethan times. You will remember that in Hamlet, Polonius
mentions is as one of the slights associated with 'youth and liberty'
and of course, liberty menat somethig a bit different then than it
does now (hence the term libertine for a person invilved inthisgs he
should not be<G>)
Anyway, if tennis is a game of power brokers, thent he tennis balls
simply mean go amuse yourself and leave France alone. I f tennis is a
slightly naughty activity (and I never understood why, BTW) then the
tennis balls were about the same insult as sending a guy some dirty
magazines and suggesting that he go find a dark corner. I kinda took
it as the latter and so a REAL good little dig<G>
karon, who REALLY REALLY REALLY does not care who REALLY wrote the
plays
volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com> wrote:
>Karon L Adams wrote:
>
>> And later when Exeter is talking to the king of France and explaining
>> that he would see a change ;
>
>> "as we in wonder have noted
>> gainst those he mastered in his younger days"
>
>> Of course, my love for trivia of nearly all kinds gave me a clue when
>> I saw the Tennis balls <giggle> I broke out laughing and everyone
>> around me looked at me like I was NUTS!! They didn't get the joke<G>
>
> Of course, we know that Oxford was a tennis player. Since it was a
>game of the nobles, we can be almost certain that Shakspere of Stratford
>never played, almost as certain that he never even saw it. Tennis
>appears 7 times in the canon, from very brief allusion to extended
>metaphor. Stratfordians will claim that this is element Shakspere threw
>in to sustain the impression of the noble class in his plays. But those
>7 appearances do not feel like they are thrown-in bits, they are the
>utterances of who understand tennis as a natural part that world of
>power-broking which he inhabited.
>
Karon L Adams
caius, would you happen to know where one could drop this incredibly
creative man a note of support?
karon, who also adores this music
volker multhopp
Karon L Adams wrote:
> karon, who REALLY REALLY REALLY does not care who REALLY wrote the
> plays
Unfortunately, you attend a ng where many participants really do care
who wrote the plays, so be prepared to see issues turn on this matter.
--Volker
Marilyn Mosher
Karon,
If you wish to write to Patrick Doyle, you can use the following
address:
Air-Edel Associates
18 Rodmarton Street
London W1H 3FW
England
I believe these are his agents. They will pass all messages of support along.
Marilyn
In article <348caf19...@news.mindspring.com> sugr...@mindspring.com
Karon L Adams
Well, I htink there is LOT more to be said about SHax than that, a
nd so I tend tp avoid authorship discussions. My point, and I
apologize if my last posting seemed a bit rude, was that I wished to
discuss the relative merits of TENNIS in the 16th Cnetury not whether
or not those self same merits 'proved' who wrote the shax plays. Far
as I'm concerned, they were written, and I would like to enjoy THEM.
However, I completely understand and respect the mind which must
solve a mystery, even if it one which will never be solved. And so,
I do not denigrate your discussions of authorship, I simply had no
liking for this to become one. Or at least, not strictly one.
karon, who doesn't play tennis<G>
Karon L Adams
Thnks Marilyn, I'm popping over to my greeting card program now<G>
karon
Caius Marcius
In <348cad84...@news.mindspring.com> sugr...@mindspring.com
(Karon L Adams) writes:
>
>Volker, As I couldn't care less about the authorship question, I
>refuse to comment on whether the mention of tennis gives a clue as to
>who 'really' wrote the plays. I WILL tell you that the reason I
>giggled when the tennis balls were delivererd is because I had always
>heard and read that playing tennis was a rahter risque activity in
>elizebethan times. You will remember that in Hamlet, Polonius
>mentions is as one of the slights associated with 'youth and liberty'
>and of course, liberty menat somethig a bit different then than it
>does now (hence the term libertine for a person invilved inthisgs he
>should not be<G>)
>
>plays
>
Usually as I'm posting these missives to HLAS, at my heels, leashed in
like hounds, is my Golden Retriever McGee. McGee's greatest joy in
life, next to mealtimes and enthusiastically greeting all visitors is
playing with his large collection of tennis balls (he's chomping on one
even as we speak).
If McGee could read WS, he would find the tennis ball scene in Henry V
to be incomprehensible. To his way of thinking, a gift of tennis balls
would be (next to a large box of milkbones) the most generous present
imaginable, and would immediately lay any quarrel to permanent rest.
- CMC
Mattie16
You are correct in your statement that
> Any actor's portrayal of Henry V, of course, depends heavily
>on his Saint Crispin's speech.
and no one did it like Olivier! Although, I think Kenneth Branagh is
wonderful, Olivier is better. "..........Men who outlive this day and come
straight home will yearly on this vigil feast his neighbor and say........"
Did anyone else notice the likeness of the speech to William Wallace's speech
before the first war on the battlefield in Braveheart?
Karon L Adams
matt...@aol.com (Mattie16) wrote:
>
>and no one did it like Olivier! Although, I think Kenneth Branagh is
>wonderful, Olivier is better. "..........Men who outlive this day and come
>straight home will yearly on this vigil feast his neighbor and say........"
>Did anyone else notice the likeness of the speech to William Wallace's speech
>before the first war on the battlefield in Braveheart?
And let us not forget the stirring speech before the battle of ID4<G>
Another echo of the Crispin's speech<VBG>
karon
Mattie16
>And let us not forget the stirring speech before the battle of ID4<G>
>Another echo of the Crispin's speech<VBG>
Only difference, of course, being that William Wallace and Henry V were not
fictional. VVVBG
ECBush
>>You are correct in your statement that
> Any actor's portrayal of Henry V, of course, depends heavily
>on his Saint Crispin's speech.
>>and no one did it like Olivier! Although, I think Kenneth Branagh is
wonderful, Olivier is better. "..........
I couldn't agree more.
I saw Henry V in London last summer at the new Globe Theatre. The St.
Crispin's speech was so humdrum. Was it because Richard Olivier, director
of the production, wanted so much to avoid copying his father's style?
Henry spoke so unenthusiastically that I know I wasn't inspired to join
any battle! Yet the friend I went with thought it was more powerful in
the quiet delivery.
Portions of this production were recently broadcast on PBS Great
Performances here in the U.S., and it reaffirmed my impression. Did
anyone else see that?
Elise Bush
Portland, Oregon
Robert Stonehouse
ECBush <ecb...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>>>You are correct in your statement that
>> Any actor's portrayal of Henry V, of course, depends heavily
>>on his Saint Crispin's speech.
>
>>>and no one did it like Olivier! Although, I think Kenneth Branagh is
>wonderful, Olivier is better. "..........
>I couldn't agree more.
>I saw Henry V in London last summer at the new Globe Theatre. The St.
>Crispin's speech was so humdrum. Was it because Richard Olivier, director
>of the production, wanted so much to avoid copying his father's style?
>Henry spoke so unenthusiastically that I know I wasn't inspired to join
>any battle! Yet the friend I went with thought it was more powerful in
>the quiet delivery.
This speech is often delivered as if it was the Harfleur one - a
continuous shout from beginning to end. Surely it is more subtle
than that. It needs to start on a low note and end on a high one. (I
have posted this point once before.)
Harry has just found four of his top officers wishing, for excellent
reasons, that they had a bit more army, because what they have is
not adequate for the job. That will not do - that kind of thinking
will lose the battle. So he has to restore morale and fighting
spirit. But he does not just storm straight in.
He starts on a lower key and jollies them along with a joke and a
homely image - the old man exaggerating his exploits. That gives him
the chance to begin raising the tone, because he can bring in
everyone's name.
So he puts their names together with his own ('Harry the king' is a
splendid way of saying it) and with other names so famous that it is
an honour to be named in the same breath. Talbot was not even there
- he was in Ireland, much against his will, because he was in
disgrace after the affair of Sir John Oldcastle. Which Warwick is
meant I am not clear, but many of them were famous, from the
legendary Guy of Warwick to Warwick the Kingmaker (not yet born?) -
and of course there was a Warwickshire playwright.
The detailed clue to the lift, I suggest, is in the change from
'Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd'
to
'But we in it shall be rememberEd'
a high rhetorical line with perfectly regular stresses.
I saw a story in the paper that, during a new Globe performance, it
was raining pretty hard and some of the audience were thinking of
calling it a day, but at
'Shall think themselves accursed they were not here'
Mark Rylance gave them a look that persuaded them to stay in their
seats and stick it out.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Ryan McGee
Kathy Li (k...@qualcomm.com) wrote:
: In article <19971216043...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
: matt...@aol.com (Mattie16) wrote:
: > You are correct in your statement that
: > > Any actor's portrayal of Henry V, of course, depends heavily
: > >on his Saint Crispin's speech.
: >
: > and no one did it like Olivier! Although, I think Kenneth Branagh is
: > wonderful, Olivier is better. "..........Men who outlive this day and come
: > straight home will yearly on this vigil feast his neighbor and say........"
: > Did anyone else notice the likeness of the speech to William Wallace's speech
: > before the first war on the battlefield in Braveheart?
: ...or the President's speech before the big push in INDEPENDENCE DAY...? :-)
: <snicker>.
: --Kathy
An even better parody, and one actually intentional, unlike Mr. Pullman's
little genocidal dirge, lies in a play called "The Knight of the Burning
Pestle", written (i believe) by Beaumont and Fletcher. Basically, imagine
Pirandello meets the Zucker Brothers written by Shakespeare's
contemporaries. It makes fun of about 8-10 play contemporary to their
time, H5 being one of them. The last time I read it was two years ago, so
I can't
remember the exact speech, but I do remember comparing the Crispin day
speech with the one in "Knight".
r
--
-----------------------
Once in a while you get shown the light
In the strangest of places if you look at it right
---Grateful Dead, "Scarlet Begonias"
-----------------------
Ryan McGee
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~mcgee
JCMandel
Ryan McGee wrote:
< An even better parody, [snip] lies in a play called "The Knight of the
Burning Pestle", written (i believe) by Beaumont and Fletcher. Basically,
imagine Pirandello meets the Zucker Brothers written by Shakespeare's
contemporaries. It makes fun of about 8-10 play contemporary to their time, H5
being one of them. The last time I read it was two years ago, so I can't
remember the exact speech, but I do remember comparing the Crispin day speech
with the one in "Knight". >
I saw a production of "Knight of the Burning Pestle" at the Shakespeare
Festival in Stratford, Ontario several years ago. It was brilliantly staged
and was hilarious. If there is ever a production near you-- run!
Caius Marcius
In <19971225003...@ladder02.news.aol.com> jcma...@aol.com
(JCMandel) writes:
>Ryan McGee wrote:
>
>I saw a production of "Knight of the Burning Pestle" at the
Shakespeare
>Festival in Stratford, Ontario several years ago. It was brilliantly
staged
>and was hilarious. If there is ever a production near you-- run!
And if you can't attend a performance, the next best thing would be to
check out Peter Schickele's (of PDQ Bach) musical version of Knight,
which is (or was) available on the Vanguard label.
Benjamin Britten's choral Spring Symphony (from 1949) concludes with
one of the apprentice's speeches, and makes for one of the most
peremptory endings in the choral literature:
B& F: Which, to prolong, God save the King, and grant our country
peace,
And root out treason from the land - And so, my friends, I
cease.
Britten: Wham!
- CMC
- CMC
long...@ix.netcom.com
On Sun, 28 Dec 1997 01:18:55 +0000, Marion Aston
<mar...@grast.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Mark Rylance was the worst Henry V I ever saw. No one in their right
>senses would have followed this Henry V into battle. He delivered the
>St. Crispin's Day Speech as if he were having a chat with his neighbour
>over the garden fence.
I only saw a few minutes of it on American television, but I got the
exact same impression! I felt embarassed that having been so
enthusiastic about the new Globe and having taken many people to see
it during its construction that such a LOUSY performance was delivered
at its opening.
>
>Personally I think Kenneth Branagh's Henry V was a cut above Olivier's.
>Although Olivier gave a very fine performance, I think the honours must
>go to Ken for showing us not only the bloody reality of war, but also
>the effect on the men who have to fight it. I also preferred his
>portrayal of Henry the King in fine contrast with Henry the Man.
>
>Marion
I think you'll have to forgive L. Olivier's lack of war's reality in
making the film. After all, it was made during a REAL war, and its
purpose was to inspire, not to expose.
Yours,
Bill Longyard
William H. Longyard
2913 Bradenton Dr.
Winston-Salem, NC 27103-5706 USA
Tel/Fax 336-768-5996
http://pw1.netcom.com/~longyard/longyard/Kayaktour.html
Marion Aston
Robert Stonehouse wrote:
>
> ECBush <ecb...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>
> >>>You are correct in your statement that
> >> Any actor's portrayal of Henry V, of course, depends heavily
> >>on his Saint Crispin's speech.
> >
> >>>and no one did it like Olivier! Although, I think Kenneth Branagh is
Mark Rylance was the worst Henry V I ever saw. No one in their right
senses would have followed this Henry V into battle. He delivered the
St. Crispin's Day Speech as if he were having a chat with his neighbour
over the garden fence.
Personally I think Kenneth Branagh's Henry V was a cut above Olivier's.
Caius Marcius
In <67rogi$qeo$2...@news.fas.harvard.edu> mc...@fas.harvard.edu (Ryan
McGee) writes:
>
>
>An even better parody, and one actually intentional, unlike Mr.
Pullman's
Burning
>Pestle", written (i believe) by Beaumont and Fletcher.
I came across this parody on another newsgroup, of how Woody Allen
might deliver the St. Crispin speech. Take it, Ellen B. Edgerton, for
it is none but thine!
Date: 1997/06/22
Newsgroups: alt.movies.branagh-thmpsn
Look, if you don't wanna fight, you can just leave. Just leave, okay?
I mean, I'm really better off without you if you're just going to, if
you're just going to *stand* there and whine that you wanna go home. I
mean, fighting along side you would be -- well, it would be worse than
the chicken at Tresky's, if you know what I'm saying. I have no time
for somebody like this, it's just so demeaning, it's just so
*annoying*, you know? This is gonna be something you can remember for
a long time, you know, something you can tell the kids. Something you
can give them that's *more* than just your rent-controlled apartment
after you die, you know? Am I getting through to anyone here? Hey --
oh, okay, run. Go ahead, thank you very much. I'll just stay here and
wait for Pierre and Jean-Claude over there to run me over. I mean,
jeez, this is how you obey me? This is how you obey me?
Marion Aston
long...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> On Sun, 28 Dec 1997 01:18:55 +0000, Marion Aston
> <mar...@grast.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >senses would have followed this Henry V into battle. He delivered the
> >St. Crispin's Day Speech as if he were having a chat with his neighbour
> >over the garden fence.
>
> exact same impression! I felt embarassed that having been so
> enthusiastic about the new Globe and having taken many people to see
> it during its construction that such a LOUSY performance was delivered
> at its opening.
>
> >
> >Although Olivier gave a very fine performance, I think the honours must
> >go to Ken for showing us not only the bloody reality of war, but also
> >the effect on the men who have to fight it. I also preferred his
> >portrayal of Henry the King in fine contrast with Henry the Man.
> >
> >Marion
>
> making the film. After all, it was made during a REAL war, and its
> purpose was to inspire, not to expose.
>
> Yours,
> Bill Longyard
>
Yes, I quite agree with you, Bill. Olivier's Henry was made during a
war as a piece of propaganda to inspire the English to fight the enemy
(the Germans) - and as such it worked very well. It is interesting that
any controversial scenes were remored (not traitors at the beginning).
I think we can say that they are both films of their time. I just think
that Ken's version is a more honest portrayal - but I am aware that it
was made in peace time - when he was not under the sort of pressure that
Olivier would have experienced.
Marion
Carrie Pruett
Ryan McGee <mc...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in article
<67rogi$qeo$2...@news.fas.harvard.edu>...
> Kathy Li (k...@qualcomm.com) wrote:
> : In article <19971216043...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> : matt...@aol.com (Mattie16) wrote:
>
>
> : ...or the President's speech before the big push in INDEPENDENCE
DAY...? :-)
> : <snicker>.
>
> : --Kathy
>
> An even better parody, and one actually intentional, unlike Mr. Pullman's
> little genocidal dirge, >
I'm actually skeptical as to whether this was
an accident - the staging is just way too similar.
I think the folks behind that movie were having
a little fun with their audience. IMO,
the complete shamelessness of ID4 in ripping
off anything and everything is the only thing that
really makes it watchable.
Carrie