Henry V vs. Henry V
“In the wake of cultural materialism, New Historicism, and performance criticism, we have grown used to thinking of a historicized Shakespeare “reinvented” by readers and players with every age,”[1] writes Douglas Lanier. What Lanier is referring to is the popular phenomenon of reinterpreting Shakespeare; directors who choose to work on productions of Shakespeare plays will often apply their own vision and sensibility to the original text. This differentiation may present itself through the tone of the performance or the depiction of characters, but it is not uncommon for Shakespeare plays to be placed within historical, social and political contexts that are entirely removed from what the general public would perceive to be the ‘original’ setting. As Shakespeare plays are constantly being performed to satisfy a perpetual demand to see them, the variations on his works are innumerable. Indeed, it would be near impossible to find two identical productions of the same. Though both Laurence Olivier and Kenneth Branagh’s filmed adaptations of Henry V are ostensibly set within the same time period, they represent two radically different cinematic experiences resulting from two distinctive creative approaches. One can find no better example of the differences between the two films than by looking at how they choose to represent the central character of King Henry. However, the question must be asked: which director is more successful in achieving their aims in adapting the play? Which film is more faithful to the spirit of the original character and text?
“In the wake of cultural materialism, New Historicism, and performance criticism, we have grown used to thinking of a historicized Shakespeare “reinvented” by readers and players with every age,”[1] writes Douglas Lanier. What Lanier is referring to is the popular phenomenon of reinterpreting Shakespeare; directors who choose to work on productions of Shakespeare plays will often apply their own vision and sensibility to the original text. This differentiation may present itself through the tone of the performance or the depiction of characters, but it is not uncommon for Shakespeare plays to be placed within historical, social and political contexts that are entirely removed from what the general public would perceive to be the ‘original’ setting. As Shakespeare plays are constantly being performed to satisfy a perpetual demand to see them, the variations on his works are innumerable. Indeed, it would be near impossible to find two identical productions of the same. Though both Laurence Olivier and Kenneth Branagh’s filmed adaptations of Henry V are ostensibly set within the same time period, they represent two radically different cinematic experiences resulting from two distinctive creative approaches. One can find no better example of the differences between the two films than by looking at how they choose to represent the central character of King Henry. However, the question must be asked: which director is more successful in achieving their aims in adapting the play? Which film is more faithful to the spirit of the original character and text?
Olivier’s Henry V was first released in 1944, and as such was produced and first viewed while World War II was still ongoing. The influence of this global conflict is evident from the first frame of the film, opening with the epitaph, “To the commandos and airborne troops of Great Britain, the spirit of whose ancestors it has been humbly attempted to recapture in some ensuing scenes, this film is dedicated”.[2] Olivier immediately makes his support for the British troops clear, and establishes a patriotic atmosphere for the film. This jingoistic attitude is no accident, as Douglas Brode notes: “Britain needed political propaganda. A spectacular film, recalling past greatness and the ability to overcome against all odds, would aid the war cause. Winston Churchill suggested to Olivier that a Henry V film would be much appreciated”.[3] It is clear that the manner in which Olivier chooses to present the character of King Henry is very much informed by Churchill’s role as a symbol of morale and unity during his time as Prime Minister. Maurice Hindle characterizes Olivier’s King Henry as “a benign and goodly king whose reign is relatively trouble free”.[4]
From the very start of the film, it is clear that Olivier has not produced an ordinary adaptation; rather than simply creating a film version of Shakespeare’s play, Olivier instead presents Globe Theatre production of the play in 1600, with much of the narrative taking place in this setting before transitioning to a more traditional filming style. This meta-narrative means that Olivier is not merely playing Henry V, but is rather playing an actor who is in turn playing the king. The introduction of King Henry in Act I Scene II is indicative of Olivier’s political agenda; as he takes to the stage as Henry, Olivier is framed in a wide shot against a backdrop made up by a rapturously applauding audience. Brass fanfare accompanies the scene as Olivier grandly bows and basks in the adulation of the crowd. This is the first of a series of scenes intended by Olivier to downplay Henry’s status of power over his subjects. Instead, he shapes the film to embody the spirit of everyone pulling together in the face of adversity, mirroring the attitude promoted by British government propaganda during World War II. Olivier’s rendition of Act III Scene I repeats this technique; as Henry delivers his iconic “Once more unto the breach” monologue, the camera pulls back to reveal that he is surrounded by soldiers, standing close enough to the king that they would be able to reach out and touch him if they so desired. Olivier’s Henry is an ordinary man who just so happens to be king, and his attitude towards his men confirms as much.
The patriotism and sunny optimism of Olivier’s film stands in dramatic contrast to Kenneth Branagh’s dark and gritty take on Henry V. Released in 1989, the film represented Branagh’s attempt to “convey the king as a more complex figure than Olivier’s heroic monarch,” according to Hindle.[5] The film’s production and release fell within the final years of Margaret Thatcher’s divisive and controversial prime ministership, and it is possible that like Olivier, Branagh was influenced by the public perception of the prime minister as he made his film. Consider Branagh’s version of Act I Scene II; while Olivier made his way onto a brightly lit stage to the sound of thunderous applause, Branagh’s Henry first appears in silhouette, shrouded in darkness in a gothic throne room. Olivier attempted to portray Henry as an approachable figure not dissimilar from any other British citizen by repeatedly framing the king standing next to or among his subjects, but in this scene, Branagh emphasizes Henry’s power by showing the king’s advisors only in a series of reaction shots as Henry makes his way to the throne. Composer Patrick Doyle’s ominous strings replace the triumphant brass fanfare of Olivier’s film. This emphasizes Henry’s status as king and his position of power over his subjects, contributing to the depiction of the character as domineering and autocratic. Branagh further exploits this dichotomy between the monarch and his underlings in his version of Act III Scene I. Though the British soldiers are initially seen standing close to Henry as in Olivier’s film, Branagh transitions into a close-up shot of Henry as he recites his speech, punctuated occasionally by close-ups of the soldiers’ facial reactions (Timothy Corrigan refers to this editing technique as “shot/reverse shot”).[6] It is important to note that even when sharing the frame with their king, the soldiers are shown from behind and in silhouette, depersonalizing them. Henry’s vantage point from atop his horse also causes him to appear far more powerful and physically imposing than his subordinates. While this scene took place in bright and peaceful daylight in the 1944 version, Branagh’s version of the scene is set at night during battle, with the shouts of men theatrening to drown out Henry’s monologue and fireballs rising up into the sky. All this leads to a decidedly darker and more pessimistic tone to the scene; Olivier’s Henry delivers the monologue from a position of brave optimism, but Branagh’s Henry is wild-eyed and crazed. He appears to fully expect the deaths of himself and his men, but is willing to make these sacrifices in order to protect his name and legacy.
Olivier and Branagh both make distinct choices in their depictions of King Henry, but ultimately, Branagh’s Henry retains the most fidelity to Shakespeare’s original character. Shakespeare’s Henry threatened the rape of women and the murder of children, and was perfectly willing to execute close friends if he felt they had betrayed him. Due to Olivier’s reshaping of the play as propaganda, these more ruthless and morally gray traits of the character are left out of his film’s screenplay. While this serves the intention of his film well, it ultimately leads to a far less compelling character and performance than in Branagh’s Henry V and as such, ends up being the less successful adaptation out of the two films.
Bibliography
Brode, Douglas. Shakespeare in the Movies: From the Silent Era to Shakespeare in Love. Oxford University Press: New York, 2000.
Corrigan, Timothy. A Short Guide to Writing About Film. Pearson: Illinois, 2012.
Hindle, Maurice. Studying Shakespeare on Film. Palgrave Macmillan: New York, 2007.
Lanier, Douglas. “Encryptions”. In Reading and Writing in Shakespeare. Edited by Daniel M. Bergeron. Associated University Presses: New Jersey, 1996.
Olivier, Laurence. Henry V. Eagle-Lion Distributors Limited, 1944.
[1] Douglas Lanier, “Encryptions” in Reading and Writing in Shakespeare, ed. Daniel M. Bergeron (Associated University Presses: New Jersey, 1996), pg. 241.
[2] Laurence Olivier, Henry V (Eagle-Lion Distributors Limited, 1944).
[3] Douglas Brode, Shakespeare in the Movies: From the Silent Era to Shakespeare in Love (Oxford University press: New York, 2000), p.79.
[4] Maurice Hindle, Studying Shakespeare on Film (Palgrave Macmillan: New York, 2007), pg. 141.
[5] Maurice Hindle, Studying Shakespeare on Film (Palgrave Macmillan: New York, 2007), pg. 147.
[6] Timothy Corrigan, A Short Guide to Writing About Film (Pearson: Illinois, 2012), pg. 177.
No comments:
Post a Comment