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.
shall firstly do a summery of the play and give a basic image of what
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.
A weekly episodic dramedy based upon Henry IV Part 1, the juxtaposition between comedy and drama as well as the family drama between the Percy’s and the Plantagenet’s provide fertile ground for compelling must-see television. The show will be a modern rendition taking place in modern day London, in the midst of a very unstable political climate. The language of the original play will be kept intact, as it is a crucial aspect in understanding the differences between the two Henrys. The scenery and costumes will be very upscale and luxurious, expensive tailored suits and palaces are the standard due to the wealth and prestige of both families. Regalia such as crowns and staffs are also still utilized. The only departure from the high-class settings
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
Comparing the Ways Michael Herr in Dispatches and Pat Barker in Regeneration Show the Effects of War
Appearance vs. Reality in Henry IV Shakespeare's play Henry IV begins with a king (King Henry) beginning a pilgrimage after killing King Richard II. Henry believes that by gaining the throne of England. He has done an honourable deed, yet he admits that the fighting and bloodshed could continue, A.. . ill sheathed knife. . . @ 1.1.17. -.
...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.
... 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.
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...
The Representation of Masculinity and Violence in Henry V and The Rover Representing violence as an essential tool to gaining control, Henry V is dominated by masculine power, in this case, with the control of France. The cast is mainly male, containing just four female characters, namely Mistress Quickly, Isabel Queen of France, Katherine her daughter and Alice, the attendant. The chorus sets the scene of war in the prologue, with ‘Then should the warlike Harry’ and ‘That did affright the air at Agincourt’. This image is further represented when the Archbishop of Canterbury is conferring with the Bishop of Ely about the King, ‘List his last discourse of war, and you shall hear / A fearful battle rendered you in music.
‘Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more’, one of the most celebrated openings to, arguably, the most famous passage within the entire Henry V Shakespeare play. Through this opening we can tell that Henry is a character of perseverance and fortitude as he drives his troops into war. Shakespeare’s presentation of Henry is without doubt one of a hero and protagonist as he is presented as a man with a degree of intelligence and allure with motives that are not focused on a lust for power, like most kings, but to his obligations and responsibilities as an exalted rank. It is also apparent from Henry’s unquestionably rousing speeches that Shakespeare intends for us to view Henry as a hero, or, at the very least, as an estimable king.
One of the most famous scenes in Henry IV: Part I is the scene in which Prince Hal and Falstaff put on a play extempore. This is often cited as the most famous scene because it is Hal’s turning point in the play. However, the scene is much more than that. The play extempore is a moment of prophecy, not epiphany because is cues the reader in to the play’s major themes, and allows readers to explore the possibilities of the play’s continuance.
Like a tree spreading its roots into the ground, cultural history is something that is deeply rooted in the minds of people. As the significance of Herodotus unravels itself in “The English patient,” Michael Ondaatje touches further upon the idea of how personal history is shaped by cultural history. Ondaatje refers to Tacitus, a great Roman historian, in the third chapter, “Something with Fire” in order to enhance the notion that times of terror can influence the shaping of an individual’s personal history. By focusing on the behavior and habits of the Kip and Caravaggio, he can pinpoint how warfare in cultural history affects the personal history. With the aid of Tacitus’ insight, the use of description, Ondaatje effectively demonstrates how the characters personal history, actions or an inability to act, and habits, are shaped by warfare.
To turn Henry V into a play glorifying war or a play condemning war would be to presume Shakespeare's intentions too much. He does both of these and more in his recount of the historical battle of Agincourt. Although Shakespeare devotes the play to the events leading to war, he simultaneously gives us insight into the political and private life of a king. It is this unity of two distinct areas that has turned the play into a critical no man's land, "acrimoniously contested and periodically disfigured by opposing barrages of intellectual artillery" (Taylor 1). One may believe that Henry is the epitome of kingly glory, a disgrace of royalty, or think that Shakespeare himself disliked Henry and attempted to express his moral distaste subtly to his audience. No matter in which camp one rests, Henry V holds relevance for the modern stage. Despite containing contradictions, Henry is also a symbol as he is one person. This unity of person brings about the victory in the battle of Agincourt.
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).