In any of Shakespeare’s works much is left up to interpretation. His plays, though teeming with masterful dialogue, are severely lacking when it comes to stage directions. Seldom can any stage directions, aside from ‘enter’ and ‘exeunt’, be found; furthermore, there is rarely, if ever, any mention of a character’s emotions. Because of this distinct feature of Shakespeare’s plays, directors are essentially given carte blanche regarding set design, actions, and character emotions. Kenneth Branagh makes many interesting decisions in his interpretation of Henry V. Some of the most important decisions made by Branagh are in regards to the character development of King Henry, played by Branagh himself. Two scenes in particular stand out: Henry’s …show more content…
From the beginning Henry is displayed as a mature ruler, committed to his country and duties. He’s made an effort to distance himself from his rambunctious youth, which makes the Dauphin’s jest all the more insulting, and Henry’s response all the more powerful. The young king responds to the ironically immature jest at his youth without blinking; sternly delivering an intimidating response that crescendos (with Henry and the rest of the room literally rising) into a declaration of war. Branagh seems to make these direction choices in an effort to display Henry as a strong king; one that is politically savvy, wise beyond his years, and in control of his emotions. In reading the original dialogue from Shakespeare, some of which Branagh omits, I did not imagine King Henry remaining so stern throughout the entirety of his response. While the speech clearly crescendos, unlike Branagh’s interpretation, it seems to do so from a seemingly good tempered and almost playful tone into the austere one found throughout the movie’s scene. I believe Branagh directs the scene in the way he does for the purpose of showing Henry’s sternness as a sort of mask that begins to fall apart after facing war, and for this reason I prefer Branagh’s version to how I believe Shakespeare meant for the scene to be acted …show more content…
Unlike Shakespeare’s original text in which Henry is simply told that Bardolph, an old friend from his rambunctious youth, has been hung for thievery, Branagh decides to force him to look Bardolph in the eyes while he sentences him to death and subsequently watch the hanging. In the movie, as soon as Henry realizes it is his old friend that is to be hanged, his stern mask can be scene to falter. He knows that as King he must sentence Bardolph to death but he is clearly sad that his old friend is about to die. While keeping eye contact with Bardolph the entire time leading up to the hanging (with intermittent flashbacks showing their friendship) Henry begins to tear up with a few rolling down his cheek by the end. Branagh’s version is a stark difference to the original text in which due to the lack of stage directions, King Henry doesn’t seem to bat an eye when told that Bardolph has been executed. Despite the lack of any indication from Shakespeare I believe he would have intended at least a pause and break of character by King Henry, but Branagh takes it to the opposite extreme in this case. While I enjoy that Branagh chose to direct the scene in such a way that Henry shows emotion, as any human realistically would, I think he took it a little too far. Regardless it fits the character development of King Henry he seems to be going
For hundreds of years, those who have read Henry V, or have seen the play performed, have admired Henry V's skills and decisions as a leader. Some assert that Henry V should be glorified and seen as an "ideal Christian king". Rejecting that idea completely, I would like to argue that Henry V should not be seen as the "ideal Christian king", but rather as a classic example of a Machiavellian ruler. If looking at the play superficially, Henry V may seem to be a religious, moral, and merciful ruler; however it was Niccolo Machiavelli himself that stated in his book, The Prince, that a ruler must "appear all mercy, all faith, all honesty, all humanity, [and] all religion" in order to keep control over his subjects (70). In the second act of the play, Henry V very convincingly acts as if he has no clue as to what the conspirators are planning behind his back, only to seconds later reveal he knew about their treacherous plans all along. If he can act as though he knows nothing of the conspirators' plans, what is to say that he acting elsewhere in the play, and only appearing to be a certain way? By delving deeper into the characteristics and behaviors of Henry V, I hope to reveal him to be a true Machiavellian ruler, rather than an "ideal king".
Henry excites fear by stating he is passionately ready to sacrifice for his country. This play towards pathos, or appealing to the audience’s emotions, is an effective way of trying to convince the House to go to war against Britain. This pathos, combined with the logic of Henry’s speech, makes for a convincing argument. Logically taking the House step by step from stating that because he has an outlook on their situation, he should express it to them, to stating his argument before the House, to saying that lacking freedom is worse than death, then taking it full circle pronouncing he would prefer to be “give[n] death” then to have his freedom taken away by the British.
There is quite a lot of turn around and Henry never uses negative comments. Henry has close relationship with his men, by using a variety of strong terms. Henry's lecture has reference to the superior being to give more assurance. Furthermore King Henry gives divine inspiration to many leaders now days.
then when your next in line for the throne, to bare the weight of a
Henry in Henry V The bishops refer to Henry in the first scene as "a sudden scholar" who can "reason in divinity. " Canterbury says, "The king is full of grace, and fair regard. Ely quotes "and a true lover of the holy church. The two bishops, pretty much have the same view on Henry, they think highly of him.
Kenneth Branagh creates his own individualistic adaptation of this classic through the use of visual imagery, characterization, and setting. Branagh cut many lines and speeches from the text to better support his interpretation of a more open and informal society of warm-hearted, affectionate characters. Though Shakespeare's mood is more formal, Branagh remains true to the essence of the play as all of the same characters and most of the dialogue are justly included in the film. Although distinct differences can be made between Branagh’s film and Shakespeare’s written work, they both share a common denominator of good old-fashioned entertainment; and in the world of theater, nothing else really matters.
Henry uses metaphors throughout his speech to encourage the audience to take action. “It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope,” Henry states. What he means through the excerpt is it is common for people to try to have hope in hopeless situations so that they won’t be so scared, but now they have to realize that the only real hope they have is to fight back even if there is death and destruction along the way; the hope they have for a bright future will be real and not an illusion to make them feel less frightened. This quote is effective because it makes the audience realize that their only hope is to fight back against Britain. Another use of a metaphor that Henry uses to encourage the crowd to fight is, “We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts.” What the metaphor means is people
After letting the church convince him to go war something changed in henry. His mood changes because he was ready for war after the unexpected gift of tennis balls from the Dauphin. Henry stated whatever happens it’s the will of God. Yes, the childish gift from the Dauphin offends him but instead of conquering France out of anger. The Church influences him to fight with God on his side and God will lead him to victory. As Henry put all his trust in God that demonstrated another characteristic of an ideal Christian king. Regardless of what he might face, he has no fear because he knows that God is with him.
Through high moral character Henry established credibility with the audience through creating a setting that aroused feelings in the people at the convention in order to convince them they had to fight for more than just peace. The goal Henry had when he spoke about war was to be honest with the crowd and point out that they needed to do something now or they would loose not just what he loved, but what they also loved. Henry said “If we wish to be free, if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending...and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight!”. In this quote the tactic of ethics is apparent in that Henry wanted to achieve a personal level of connection with the audience and establish his credibility. By relating losing the war it also meant the lose of their feelings of comfort and contentm...
...ears or express emotions over her death or her madness. Therefore the Kenneth Branagh version of Hamlet was able to show a closer interpretation of the play Hamlet and the significance of the characters.
I side with Loades on this as despite resentment from the nobles, after the Perkin Warbeck imposture there were no more serious uprisings which strongly support the success of Henry’s policies. Whilst most nobles would see his methods as unjust (especially the wide of use bonds and recognisances) Henry succeeded in increasing the crown’s standing at the expense of the nobility, securing his position whilst weakening the nobles. Through most of his policies Henry was successful in limiting the powers of nobility. Henry sought to restrict the noble’s power and yet at the same time needed them to keep order and represent him at local levels, therefore Henry sought not to destroy the nobles but to weaken them enough that they did not pose a threat, he needed a balance of control over the nobles and strong nobility.
his blood with me shall be my brother. Be he ne'er so vile, this day
The prologue to the beginning of this play calls upon the "Muse" to help present the play. The chorus explains to the audience of the difficulties faced in presenting this play. It is difficult to transform a small stage to represent the English or French Courts, or the battlefield in France. They apologize, telling the audience, "But pardon, gentles all, the flat unraised spirits that hath dared on this unworthy scaffold to bring forth so great an object" (li 8-11). It is difficult to depict the life of King Henry V with all the honor and glory that he deserves when presenting it on the stage. ...
Olivier reigned in on his nation’s need for self expression during wartime and Shakespeare fit the bill perfectly. Olivier’s sagacity led him to rewriting and directing Henry V that fused his nation’s need for self expression during wartime and Shakespeare. It did not take much work to trim and style Henry V to relate it to England during World War II. He used this piece to rally and at the same time awareness to the great works of Shakespeare. Olivier also directed Hamlet and Richard III and acted in several Shakespeare films. His Hamlet was filmed in black and white and offered a dark and psychological approach in contrast to the cheerful and patriotic Henry V. Olivier decided to do the opposite of typical films by pulling away from characters as speeches developed, instead of zooming in. This technique offered fresh and visually appealing films and gained much laudatory remarks. Olivier was known for his “physical and vocal power as an actor.” His standing and accomplishments as an actor and director brought “Shakespeare to a wider audience,” and “contributed to making the Shakespeare film a vital
In the trial scene (act 4 scene 1), Shakespeare uses many different dramatic techniques to make the tension in the court room rise and build. He also uses dramatic irony and many other techniques to engage an audience in this particular scene in the play. These techniques would work have worked on an Elizabethan audience or a modern day audience. Although, these two eras do not share the same views on some of the things Shakespeare wrote about, the same mood and ideas are given across through Shakespeare’s use of dramatic techniques.