Henry V has always been one of William Shakespeare’s more popular plays, in part because of the different ways that the main character can be presented. The play is essentially a treatise on what it means to be a great leader, yet the definition of just what that entails changes over time. The way the play is presented and how Henry is characterized and portrayed has also changed over time. Nowhere are these changes more visibly present than in the three best known adaptations of the play, Laurence Olivier’s 1944 film Henry V, Kenneth Branagh’s 1989 film Henry V, and the 2012 version of Henry V that was featured as the final part of the BBC miniseries known as The Hollow Crown, with the Henry V episode being directed by theatre director Thea Sharrock. While each version tells the same story and does not detract too much from the original text, there are nevertheless enough differences in the way the play is presented and how Henry is portrayed that it is easy enough to see that each adaptation is a product of its time.
In 1943, the great Shakespearean actor Laurence Olivier was commissioned to direct a film version of Henry V by the British government. The Prime Minister Winston Churchill himself told Olivier that the film should be created in such a way so as to be a piece of war propaganda and to boost morale amongst the British troops fighting abroad and the British at home. The timing for such a patriotic film could not have been more perfect. The Allies were beginning to gain momentum in their fight against Nazi Germany and the invasion of Normandy was being planned as the film was being produced. In fact, the invasion of Normandy actually occurred five months before the film was released, which of course helped the ...
... middle of paper ...
...eches served the purpose of rousing his men, and the British to war. Kenneth Branagh’s 1989 version was more melancholy and definitely had a more antiwar feeling to it. It was not released much longer after the Falklands Island Conflict and was released at a time when the world was tired of war. Branagh’s version also introduced the textual ambifuities that were missing from Olivier’s version but present in the original text. Finally, the version created for the Cultural Olympiad in 2012 was definitely made for a modern audience. The costuming was different and even some important scenes were produced differently, especially the famous speeches. These speeches were staged in such a way that spoke to a modern audience that was tired of rousing speeches and instead wanted a more subdued approach, an approach much more sensible for a world reveling in past glory.
But McKellan's version, while radically different in presentation and style, is true to the spirit of the play, bringing the intrigue and violence to life in a way undreamed of in Olivier's time. The point I am trying to make is that the new version really is very good, and appeals to modern audiences.
Shakespeare constructs King Richard III to perform his contextual agenda, or to perpetrate political propaganda in the light of a historical power struggle, mirroring the political concerns of his era through his adaptation and selection of source material. Shakespeare’s influences include Thomas More’s The History of King Richard the Third, both constructing a certain historical perspective of the play. The negative perspective of Richard III’s character is a perpetuation of established Tudor history, where Vergil constructed a history intermixed with Tudor history, and More’s connection to John Morton affected the villainous image of the tyrannous king. This negative image is accentuated through the antithesis of Richards treachery in juxtaposition of Richmond’s devotion, exemplified in the parallelism of ‘God and Saint George! Richmond and victory.’ The need to legitimize Elizabeth’s reign influenced Shakespeare’s portra...
The fact that Henry V is one of Shakespeare's histories is very significant because history is the backbone of the episode. References to their history with Romulans are made. Such as to events on Galornden Core, in which Beverly the doctor explains that she recently gained a lot of experience with Romulan physiology.
Passage Analysis - Act 5 Scene 1, lines 115-138. Shakespeare’s ‘King Henry IV Part I’ centres on a core theme: the conflict between order and disorder. Such conflict is brought to light by the use of many vehicles, including Hal’s inner conflict, the country’s political and social conflict, the conflict between the court world and the tavern world, and the conflicting moral values of characters from each of these worlds. This juxtaposition of certain values exists on many levels, and so is both a strikingly present and an underlying theme throughout the play.
To play one of Shakespeare’s most complex roles successfully on stage or on screen has been the aspiration of many actors. William Shakespeare’s Hamlet has been the focus on various accounts throughout the 20th Century, each actor attempting to bring something unique and unmarked to the focal character. Franco Zeffirelli and Kenneth Branagh, both film directors, introduce varying levels of success on the screen through downright differences in ways of translation and original ideas. Zeffirelli’s much shorter interpretation of the film is able to convey the importance of Hamlet as a masterwork by using modern approaches to film but still capturing the traditional work behind Shakespeare’s well-known play.
In the historical play Henry V by William Shakespeare, we are introduced to the story of a young and influential King Henry V of England, and his quest to conquer France under the ruler ship of Charles VI of France. This play details Henry’s life leading up to and following the Battle of Agincourt in the year 1415, which according to the “Hundred Years’ War”, was fought between England and France from 1337 to 1453. Now, in the source “William Shakespeare Biography”, it was found that Shakespeare lived from “c. 1564-1616” and is “widely considered the greatest dramatist of all time.” He too is of English descent, which suggests the bias that is present in this play, as according to “Henry V List of Characters”, Shakespeare’s primary purpose
Shakespeare, William. The Life of King Henry the Fifth. New York: Unicorn Publishers Inc, 1950. Pg. 173-295.
...in themes similar to those found in the two Henry IV plays, such as usurpation, rebellion, and the issue of lineage of royal right. But Richard II and King Henry V are decidedly more serious in tone, and in comparing them to I Henry IV and II Henry IV, the argument can be made that it is these two latter plays which resound with greater realism with the broader spectrum of life which they present. Shakespeare carefully balances comedy and drama in I Henry IV and II Henry IV, and in doing so the bard gives us what are perhaps the most memorable characters in all of English literature.
Henry V, written by William Shakespeare, is by far one of his more historically accurate plays. This play is the life of young King Henry V, who ascended to the throne after his father, Henry IV's death. These times were much different for England, as Henry V was a noble lord whom everyone loved, whereas angry factions haunted his father's reign. Shakespeare portrays a fairly accurate account of the historical Henry V, but certain parts are either inflated"deflated, or conflated to dramatize Henry V as a character suitable for a Renaissance audience.
...der to maintain success. King Henry showed that he is restricted to one language which resulted him to not gain the lower class power and it then lead him to focus on his political status. On the other hand, Hal presented himself to the viewers as a friendly character, yet he sustained to manipulate and lie to others to achieve his goals. Henry IV n, Part 1 presents the idea of political power and the different characteristics leaders follow. The lesson for audiences, then, is to develop relationships with different people who will expand one’s area of inspiration and the ability to advance success. One can learn from the mistakes of King Henry and remember to be visible and properly positioned, so society can see one’s strengths and talents.
William Shakespeare's Richard II tells the story of one monarch's fall from the throne and the ascension of another, Henry Bullingbrook, later to become Henry IV. There is no battle fought between the factions, nor does the process take long. The play is not action-packed, nor does it keep readers in any form of suspense, but rather is comprised of a series of quietly dignified ruminations on the nature of majesty. Thus, the drama lies not in the historical facts, but in the effects of the situation on the major characters and the parallels drawn by Shakespeare to other tales. The outrage felt by Richard and his fellow royalists is not due from a modern sense of personal loss, but from the much more important sense of loss of order, which came most predominately from the strictly Catholic sensibilities of the time. In Richard's time kings were believed to be divinely appointed and "not all the water in the rough rude sea can wash the balm off from an anointed king" (III.iii, 54-5). This disparity between the perceived will of God and the way in which the events unfold creates trouble in the minds of the characters and the audience. Shakespeare makes it clear that this is not just a simple switch of power, rather a series of events whose meanings and effects penetrate far deeper than the mere surface of the story.
In the play Henry V written by Shakespeare. Henry was presented as the ideal Christian king. His mercy, wisdom, and other characteristics demonstrated the behavior of a Christian king. Yet at the same time he is shown to be man like any other. The way he behaves in his past is just like an ordinary man. But in Henry’s own mind he describes himself as “the mirror of all Christian kings” and also a “true lover of the holly church.
Shakespeare, William, and Claire McEachern. The First Part of King Henry the Fourth. New York: Penguin, 2000. Print.
Different adaptations of William Shakespeare’s works have taken various forms. Through the creative license that artists, directors, and actors take, diverse incarnations of his classic works continue to arise. Gregory Doran’s Hamlet and Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet bring William Shakespeare’s work by the same title to the screen. These two film adaptations take different approaches in presenting the turmoil of Hamlet. From the diverging takes on atmosphere to the characterization of the characters themselves, the many possible readings of Hamlet create the ability for the modification of the presentation and the meaning of the play itself. Doran presents David Tenant as Hamlet in a dark, eerie, and minimal setting; his direction highlighting the
Shakespeare, William. "Henry V." The Norton Shakespeare: Histories. Eds. Stephen Greenblatt, Walter Cohen, Jean E. Howard, and Katherine Eisaman Maus. London: Norton, 1997. 726-795.