If you know anything about the history of the English monarchy, you probably know two monarchs are known today as England’s great warrior kings. Those would be Richard I, also known as Richard the Lionheart, and Henry V. In the case of Henry, he managed to do what so many English kings before him failed to do by effectively conquering France. And then the whole thing was lost by the utter incompetence of Henry VI.
Shakespeare finished off his second history cycle with that conquest in Henry V, and it wasn’t all flag-waving patriotism.
Notable cast members: Once again, all the actors from the Henry IV plays whose characters are around for this one continue their roles. In some minor roles as various French characters, we see the return of Julian “Grand Maester Pycelle” Glover and Garrick “Biggs Darklighter” Hagon.
Trivia: While the previous two plays were often set in small but detailed sets to show the rooms the actions take place in, Henry V‘s director opted to film in larger, more open spaces. Location shooting for things like the Battle of Agincourt was out of the question on the budget the BBC was using, but oddly enough, the less-detailed, more open sets seem to have impressed critics as more realistic than the more realistic sets built for the two parts of Henry IV.
The play: William Shakespeare, like lad with a decent education in his time, was essentially taught how to argue both sides of a controversial topic. He brings that to bear in his plays sometimes, particularly the ones based on Roman history when there may be antagonists in the play, but few we can look out and decisively call villains. Both Brutus and Marc Antony are somewhat on the right side, though Antony does come across as more mercenary. Arguably, neither is truly on Caesar’s side so much as they are on their own side for what each may or may not think is for the good of Rome. Antony later, with Cleopatra, fights Octavius over the Empire, but who there is the good guy? Antony because he’s half of the title characters? Octavius because he’s the future and he wins in the end?
The same could be said for Henry V. While it would have been easy for Shakespeare to merely paint the king as a hero, he doesn’t do that. Henry’s justification for the invasion of France is at best questionable and at worst hypocritical since the reason he gives for why the current King of France is illegitimate applies just as much to Henry as it does to the French king. Henry at one point goes in disguise to chat with his troops, and he has the longest conversation with a man who believes the king’s reasons for going to war are not just or right. The man will fight, mostly because he has no choice, but Henry’s reasoning is simply that he’s the king so he must be right. Likewise, Henry orders the execution of French prisoners at one point for no good reason, but one comes along afterwards to justify the murders, at least enough to satisfy Henry’s own men.
The point, then, is war is bad and Henry is no saint. Even his wooing of the French Princess Katherine–someone he immediately subjugates with the English nickname “Kate”–though romantic at first glance, is completely undermined by his own nobles coming in with more suggestive comments about how much the king does “love” his betrothed.
If anything, this play underlines how much of a Machiavellian plotter Henry has always been. As far back as Henry IV Part 1, Henry spoke of how he would one day turn on his tavern companions, particularly Falstaff, and much of what he’s been doing was all a plot to make himself look better. Falstaff does not appear in this play. He dies off-stage between scenes, but his presence looms large in certain ways. The men of his gang all go off to war, and only one of them lives through it. One presumably dies in combat, Falstaff’s unnamed page dies with the English luggage, Mistress Quickly (who stayed home) dies of an unnamed disease again off-stage, and Bardolph, the only other one with a distinctive description in the form of his very red face, is executed by Henry for looting a church. Despite the fact we know from previous plays that Henry knows Bardolph, he claims otherwise and has the man hanged. And even then, the somewhat comedic Welsh captain Fluellen compares Henry to Alexander the Great, noting both killed friends and in Henry’s case, that was Falstaff.
By the by, Shakespeare uses the “comedic” Welsh accent (and for one scene and a different character, a “comedic” Irish accent) for Fluellen. We didn’t see that for the Welsh rebels in Henry IV Part One, but that may have more to do with making Fluellen “harmless”. Mostly this involves substituting all his B’s with P’s, and I don’t think it translates as a joke well today with one noteworthy exception, and that being when Fluellen does his Alexander the Great comparison, only he calls the Macedonian “Alexander the Big,” or, in his accent, “Alexander the Pig”. It’s the sort of joke that really doesn’t work today, and that’s the best one right there.
But really, should we expect much from Shakespeare when it comes to making a play out of the Battle of Agincourt? Historians will tell you England won that because it was the only European power that treated archers as better than cannon fodder and the English longbow made mincemeat out of the French forces, leading to a on-sided slaughter and a eventually a treaty where Henry V would be crowned King of France upon the death of the French King Charles VI. Henry died of dysentery six months ahead of his father-in-law, so that never happened, and it wasn’t like the dauphin ever gave up his own rightful throne. All that happens off-stage as Henry hears, to his own shock, that only a handful of his noblemen died and a smattering of commoners compared to the many French dead.
Does that make what he did right? That’s debatable.
As for this version, I did find it interesting that the two best known speeches of the play, the St. Crispin’s Day Speech and the “Once More Unto the Breach” speech are both delivered in a rather lowkey way. Some of that is almost certainly due to budget–this king isn’t addressing a huge army but rather a relative handful of men standing near him–but it is an interesting interpretation. They also gave David Gwillim a wig to match the short bowl cut of the history Henry V, so that was a nice touch. This play also features a narrator played here by actor Alec McCowen, and the production has him appearing frequently in the background before he starts talking, sometimes in a disguise of sorts. And since he ends the play, promising the story of Henry VI has already been told upon that stage, well, it may not be that surprising that McCowen has a larger role in the next play.
That said, the next one isn’t Henry VI Part 1.
Grade: Giving what are usually depicted as fiery speeches in a rather subdued manner aside, this one worked out pretty well. A-
Next: We’ve got a comedy up for the next one, and it’s one of the really good ones. That would be Twelfth Night.
0 Comments