Shakespeare just doesn't work on screen, at least not in his original, undiluted form.
Laurence Olivier tries very hard to change my mind about that with "Henry V," using an admittedly creative device to highlight what cinema can do for Shakespeare that the stage can't. But despite that, we're still mostly left with a bunch of static speeches delivered reverently. There are just so many words used to express an idea, which worked fine on the stage in 1600 when no one had anywhere better to be, but makes for a dull movie.
I will say that Olivier creates one of the most meta versions of a Shakespeare adaptation I've seen. The film begins with a production of "Henry V" being performed at the Old Globe Theatre in 1600. This shows us what it would have been like for audiences at the time to experience Shakespeare's plays. But it's not just a filmed version of the play. It's more like a documentary of a production of "Henry V," as the camera goes backstage to follow the actors in between scenes, showing them changing costumes, swigging drinks, etc. A narrator comes on stage and asks the audience to use their imaginations in bringing this epic story to life, apologizing for the limitations of the theatre. Then about twenty minutes in, the film opens up to become an outright movie version of "Henry V," moving the action to the battlefields of France.
Cool conceit, but it doesn't help much to bring the story to life. I'd never read this particular play or any of the plays in the series leading up to it, so the first half hour of the film was damn near incomprehensible to me. My takeaway after 30 minutes was that England was declaring war on France, but I was foggy on why, other than that the French king insulted Henry by sending him a box of tennis balls. I didn't even know they had tennis back then, but there you go. After that, it's mostly just battle scenes and soliloquies about the responsibility kings have to their followers. There's a lot about the might of England, to be expected since this movie, like every movie made between 1941 and 1945 or so, was repurposed as WWII propaganda, no matter what the intentions of the source material were.
The film ends with Henry marrying a French princess, which left me wondering whether that meant he was also king of France, and if not, who was? More than anything, this movie made me realize how little I know about medieval history.
I never enjoy Shakespeare adaptations, so I don't know why I keep trying. I was intrigued by this one because it is so famous as a rallying cry to the British people against Germany in 1944, and because it was nominated for four Oscars, a couple of big ones too: Best Picture, Best Actor (Olivier), Best Color Art Direction, and Best Dramatic or Comedy Score. It didn't win any competitive awards, but Olivier was given a special award by the Academy for bringing the film to the screen.
Grade: B-
Laurence Olivier tries very hard to change my mind about that with "Henry V," using an admittedly creative device to highlight what cinema can do for Shakespeare that the stage can't. But despite that, we're still mostly left with a bunch of static speeches delivered reverently. There are just so many words used to express an idea, which worked fine on the stage in 1600 when no one had anywhere better to be, but makes for a dull movie.
I will say that Olivier creates one of the most meta versions of a Shakespeare adaptation I've seen. The film begins with a production of "Henry V" being performed at the Old Globe Theatre in 1600. This shows us what it would have been like for audiences at the time to experience Shakespeare's plays. But it's not just a filmed version of the play. It's more like a documentary of a production of "Henry V," as the camera goes backstage to follow the actors in between scenes, showing them changing costumes, swigging drinks, etc. A narrator comes on stage and asks the audience to use their imaginations in bringing this epic story to life, apologizing for the limitations of the theatre. Then about twenty minutes in, the film opens up to become an outright movie version of "Henry V," moving the action to the battlefields of France.
Cool conceit, but it doesn't help much to bring the story to life. I'd never read this particular play or any of the plays in the series leading up to it, so the first half hour of the film was damn near incomprehensible to me. My takeaway after 30 minutes was that England was declaring war on France, but I was foggy on why, other than that the French king insulted Henry by sending him a box of tennis balls. I didn't even know they had tennis back then, but there you go. After that, it's mostly just battle scenes and soliloquies about the responsibility kings have to their followers. There's a lot about the might of England, to be expected since this movie, like every movie made between 1941 and 1945 or so, was repurposed as WWII propaganda, no matter what the intentions of the source material were.
The film ends with Henry marrying a French princess, which left me wondering whether that meant he was also king of France, and if not, who was? More than anything, this movie made me realize how little I know about medieval history.
I never enjoy Shakespeare adaptations, so I don't know why I keep trying. I was intrigued by this one because it is so famous as a rallying cry to the British people against Germany in 1944, and because it was nominated for four Oscars, a couple of big ones too: Best Picture, Best Actor (Olivier), Best Color Art Direction, and Best Dramatic or Comedy Score. It didn't win any competitive awards, but Olivier was given a special award by the Academy for bringing the film to the screen.
Grade: B-