Comparing the Presentation of War in the Oliver and Branagh Film Versions of Henry the Fifth
Many films have been made of Shakespeare’s play, “Henry V”. The two I
am analysing are by Laurence Olivier (1944) and Kenneth Branagh
(1988). They are made for very different audiences with different
aims. Although they seem very different, in some ways, Branagh’s
version used many techniques of Olivier’s. Both productions were
performed to communicate the director’s feelings on war to the
audience and were performed when war had played a part in recent
history. Olivier’s version is very pro-war in that he glorifies war
but at the same time it lacks realism so that it was not too close to
the reality that people had to endure at the time. The film was
produced in 1944 in the middle of the Second World War so portraying
war very realistically would cause uproar in society. There is no
sense of death in the film. This differs to Branagh’s version which
was produced after the Vietnam War. Branagh’s film is very anti-war in
that it portrays war very realistically. He uses the film to give the
audience an accurate depiction of war. The battles in Branagh’s
version are very graphic and gory whereas Olivier’s is comparatively
light-hearted.
The films were aimed at completely different audiences and had
different purposes altogether. They were set in different eras so the
audience’s response would have been different. Olivier’s’ purpose in
dramatising “Henry V” was to make the English feel good about
themselves. Olivier used this film to form propaganda, creating a
world of pageantry in which England overcame tremendous odds to
gloriously win a ...
... middle of paper ...
...gh used many of Olivier’s techniques and ideas, the purpose of
the film was very different. Both films turned out to be hits even
though Branagh had a restricted budget with few actors and less
advanced sets and costumes than Olivier. The differences in the films
are understandable bearing in mind the difference in the times. If
Branagh’s film had been shown to the 1940’s society, its accurate
depiction of war would have caused uproar. If Olivier’s film was shown
to the 1980’s audience, people would not be shocked by it as it was
too light-hearted for that society who had become more used to seeing
shocking events on the screen.
Both were effective in conveying the desired idea of war relevant to
the times of release and the director’s view. Both were undoubtedly
successful in entertaining their respective audiences.
From different contextual standpoints, both William Shakespeare’s King henry IV part 1(1597) and Barry Levinson Man of the year (2006) both represent a unique similarity in discussing power rather than truth. Shakespeare invokes an appreciation of strategic manipulation for both King Henry IV and prince Hal. King Henry struggles of breaking divine lineage whilst Prince Hal appearance vs reality allows Shakespeare to explore the political strategies upheld by politicians within the Elizabethan era. Similarly, in Man of the year, Tom Dobbs use of short and verbose colloquial language exhibit his demagoguery approach to candidacy epitomizing political succession within the 21st century.
rebellion within the tavern setting as he becomes an adult with the political prowess to
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".
When we look at Henry as a king we have to look in the context of
We learn that when Henry comes home from the war, he is suffering from PTSD. "It was at least three years before Henry came home. By then I guess the whole war was solved in the governments mind, but for him it would keep on going" (444). PTSD changes a person, and it doesn 't always stem from war. Henry came back a completely different person. He was quiet, and he was mean. He could never sit still, unless he was posted in front of the color TV. But even then, he was uneasy, "But it was the kind of stillness that you see in a rabbit when it freezes and before it will bolt"
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.
The elements of staging in Shakespeare's Hentry IV, Part 1 are critically important to the action, theme, and quality of the performance. Elements such as costume, blocking, casting, and even the physical attributes of the stage are, of course, important considerations in the production of a play. But other, less apparent factors contribute to the success of the production as well. For instance, an underlying theme(rebellion, in the case of Henry IV, Part 1) must be, whenever possible, incorporated into the scene. Also the number and complexity of props must also be considered with regard to the financial success of the production. These elements as well as others, such as delivery and movement, must be addressed and accounted for effectively. All of these factors will be considered in this analysis of staging for Henry IV, Part 1, act II, scene iv, lines 394- 476. Since this scene transpires in a tavern it is necessary to maintain the simulacrum while still leaving room on stage for the 'play extempore'. To do this efficaciously it would be wise to keep the props to a minimum so that nothing is in competition with Hal and Falstaff for the true audiences attention, as well as for financial considerations. To create the appearance of a tavern one simply needs four tables, each accompanied by three or four chairs; at least ten or eleven are necessary for this scene. One of these chairs will later serve as a prop for Hal and Falstaff when they use it as a throne. Three of the tables should be approximately four or five feet in diameter and one table slightly larger, perhaps six feet in diameter. This will be the table at which Hal and Falstaff converse in the beginning of th...
Henry V is not a simple one as it has many aspects. By looking into
Henry v (London: Penguin, 1968, 1996). Audio / Visual TV 3: The Authentick & Ironicall Historie of Henry V VC 1: A210 Approaching Literature: The Rover Audio Cassette 6: Henry V AC2125 Audio Cassette 7: Henry V AC2126
Hal’s remark to his father indicates a now strong, independent mind, predicting that Douglas and Hotspur will not accept Henry’s offer because of their love for fighting. Henry’s reply in turn indicates a change in attitude towards his son, a newfound respect. Acknowledging Hal’s prediction, the king orders preparations to begin, and we see he has his own set of solid moral values: knowing that their ‘cause is just’ helps him to reconcile with his highly honourable conscience that there is indeed cause for war. Still maintained is the conflict between the very format of the text, with Hal and Henry’s conversation held in formal verse typical of the court world, in which Hal is now firmly embedded. Falstaff, however, sustains his equally typical prose speech, which indicates to the audience the enduring division between the court and tavern worlds.
Wars of the Roses were not suitably displayed. The participants in Shakespeare’s Richard III were Henry Tudor, Clarence,
Through the four stages of growth and development that Henry overcame, the glorious dreams that he once had were replaced by the more realistic horrors of war. Crane represents courage as an instinct, similar to cowardice. Only when instinct dictates courage, one can be heroic. Along Henry’s struggle to become self-aware, he has discovered new ideologies about war, death, courage, and manhood. He has a realistic image of war, an indifference to death, an instinctive courage, and a quiet manhood.
Every war will have those who support the war and those who are against the war. In 1965, those who were against the Vietnam War made their views known by many forms of protesting such as forming organizations, rallying, and anti-war protest music. Anti-war protest music was an opportunity to put people’s perspectives into song to hopefully spread their message. Buffy Sainte-Marie wrote the song “Universal Soldier” in 1962 and her message was that “Universal Soldier is about individual responsibility for war and how the old feudal thinking kills us all” (Boulanger). The song “Universal Soldier” was used as a protest anthem during the Vietnam War and attempts to untangle one of the paradoxes of life that war never leads to peace through examining a soldier that is representative of every soldier in every nation.
... version of Henry's court and Henry's camp, the dramatic effect constituted, in its way, a reasonably accurate depiction of Henry's achievement in England." (Pilkington 1-2) I believe that Shakespeare's Henry V contains more charm and less fanaticism than the true Henry V. Shakespeare has created a fairly accurate depiction of life in this time period, altering only what he saw fit for his own lifetime.
Book II describes a slight transformation when Henry, wounded, spends time in hospital. He is suddenly more involved with the war, but, as a release from the war, he now acknowledges his great love for Catherine. The war is never far away, though. Protest riots take place in Rome and Turin and there are intimations that the war is becoming a stalemate, the army disillusioned; ”there was a great contrast between his world pessimism and personal cheeriness” (127), the prospects of victory evaporating; ”the war could not be much worse” (129).