Customer Reviews

Henry V (The Criterion Collection)

5 star:		(20)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This is a brilliantly conceived movie-within-a-play-within-a-movie that showcases the genius of Laurence Olivier. Today's audiences are exposed mainly to Olivier the movie star. But if you want to see a purer form of acting, see Olivier the stage actor. This is possible by watching his Shakespeare plays on film. And these films are by Olivier the "auteur," long before the title was coined. Olivier's is the legacy to which Branaugh, the darling of the current generation, fancies himself the pretender.

And lest you're expecting a camera pointed at a stage, don't worry. Olivier, who produced and directed most of his Shakespeare films, has actually used the film medium to enlarge his plays' visual scope, while maintaining the intimacy that is the essence of live theatre. Moreover, Olivier is mindful of how daunting the language of Shakespeare is for modern audiences and has modified much of the original script to be more comprehensible, while preserving the feel of Elizabethan English.

Olivier's "Henry V" was to England what Eisentein's "Ivan the Terrible" was to Russia - a familiar history rendered as a national epic, for morale purposes, while audiences were fighting off the Germans during World War II. There are other parallels. For example, both use static, formalized composition, in Henry V's case, meant to resemble the images in medieval illuminated manuscripts and books of Hours. (In Ivan's case, according to Kael, like Japanese Kabuki.) Thus, a soundstage "exterior" backdrop becomes a tableau that serves to enhance, with its flat perspective and subjective scale, the view we have of that fabulous Age of Chivalry, for which the play's Battle of Agincourt was the closing act.

I've always sneered at the extravagant accolades which show business gives its own. But after seeing this film, or the equally brilliant "Hamlet," I can understand why this man was so good that a knighthood wasn't enough, and why he was raised to the peerage.

By the way, the Criterion DVD is beautiful.

From various reference sources, in brief, here's the historical background both to Shakespeare's play and to this film. Henry V, the eldest son of Henry IV and Mary Bohun, was born in 1387. An accomplished and experienced soldier, at age fourteen he fought the Welsh forces of Owen Glendower; at age sixteen he commanded his father's forces at the battle of Shrewsbury; and shortly after his accession he put down a major Lollard uprising and an assassination plot by nobles still loyal to Richard II . He proposed to marry Catherine in 1415, demanding the old Plantagenet lands of Normandy and Anjou as his dowry. Charles VI refused and Henry declared war, opening yet another chapter in the Hundred Years' War. His invasion of France served two purposes: to regain lands lost in previous battles and to focus attention away from any of his cousins' royal ambitions. Henry, possessed a masterful military mind and defeated the French at the Battle of Agincourt in October of 1415. By 1419 he had captured Normandy, Picardy, and much of the Capetian stronghold of the Ile-de-France.

By the time when the Treaty of Troyes was signed in 1420, Charles VI not only accepted Henry as his son-in-law but passed over his own son to name Henry heir to the French crown. Had Henry lived a mere two months longer, he would have been king of both England and France. However, he had prematurely aged because of having lived the hard life of a soldier, became seriously ill, and died after returning from yet another French campaign. Catherine had given birth to his only son while he was away but Henry died without ever seeing the child.

The historian Rafael Holinshed, in Chronicles of England, summed up Henry V's reign as follows: "This Henry was a king, of life without spot, a prince whom all men loved, and of none disdained, e captain against whom fortune never frowned, nor mischance once spurned, whose people him so severe a justicer both loved and obeyed (and so humane withal) that he left no offence unpunished, nor friendship unrewarded; a terror to rebels, and suppressor of sedition, his virtues notable, his qualities most praiseworthy."

It would be a disservice to compare and contrast this film with the version which Kenneth Branagh directed 45 years later. Each has its own unique strengths and both are worthy of high regard. The year is 1413. As Shakespeare's play begins, newly crowned Henry V (Olivier) attempts to resolve animosities between England and France. In the film, however, Olivier creates a truly magical introduction which enables us to wend our way out of London and across the fields to a performance at the Globe Theatre. Once inside, we observe the audience around us but he also takes us backstage as the actors prepare. Following a welcome greeting by Chorus (Leslie Banks), the brief portrayal of a live performance continues as a film in 15th century England. This is a brilliant device. For many years, I showed this opening sequence to my English students before their reading of one of Shakespeare's plays. The "You Are There" effects are compelling and unforgettable.

The quality of acting throughout the cast is outstanding, notably Olivier, Robert Newton (Pistol), Renee Asherton (Princess Katherine), Esmond Knight (Fluellyn), Leslie Banks (Chorus), and Felix Aylmer (Archbishop of Canterbury). Special note should also be made of the cinematography (Jack Hilyard and Robert Krasker) and production design (Carmen Dillon), given the severe limits on what could be done (and what could not be done) when producing a film in England during World War Two.

Whereas Branagh chose to film Shakespeare's play in intensely human terms, and does so with great skill, Olivier takes a more formal approach after the initial scenes discussed earlier. His is a more regal Henry V, cunning as well as eloquent to be sure, but (or so it seems to me) a far more mature, self-assured monarch. Stated another way, Branagh's style reminds me of Mel Gibson as Hamlet or Braveheart whereas Olivier's style reminds me of, well yes, Olivier: In total self-control and of all he surveys. Never for a single moment did I doubt that his Henry V would conquer the French and wed Katherine. And so he did.

As usual, Criterion has delivered a package that is well worth the money. The transfer is excellent, the colours vivid, and the feature-length commentary by Bruce Eder is a treasure trove of background information. Also included is a picture gallery from the Book of Hours, which inspired many of the scenes. This is a disc that will give pleasure for years to come.

When I first saw this film, in about 1948, I only really enjoyed the battle scenes, and then mainly the first flight of arrows streaking into the French cavalry. Since then I have revisited it countless times, most recently just now, and my admiration for it steadily grows. I sympathise with those reviewers who couldn't understand the circumstances of the film's production, were disappointed, or thought the actors foppish. It is true the English stage of the day was somewhat overloaded with old queans, some of whom appear here. But these things are basically irrelevant. Olivier's delivery, his perception of the significance of every word that Shakespeare wrote, is impeccable. Appreciation of it sinks in deeper every time his performance is re-savoured, and the bits I was bored with 50 years ago --- eg the opening, the death of Falstaff, the discussion of "nationhood", and the courtship scenes --- grow more and more enjoyable and interesting. By comparison, Branagh is almost totally insensitive to the rhythms and latent meanings of the text. Both versions are heavily edited: Branagh wallows more in the brutality, but Olivier is infinitely more subtle and perceptive. Branagh tries to be different, but several of Olivier's speeches and scenic exchanges are just so fine and powerful that all Branagh can do is produce pale copies of them. Not everyone will agree. Time will tell. I know the arrows were just scratched into the celluloid.

Sir Laurence Olivier's 1945 version of Henry V was not the first attempt to bring Shakespeare to the screen, but it was the first to be successful. Up to that point, filmmakers had tried to translate the Bard to film, but failed to achieve any success. Sir Laurence was given the task to create a film that would be pro war and pro England in order to bolster the spirits of the people during World War II. While his version of Henry V is far from a faithful adaptation, it captures the essence of the play and was a tremendous critical and commercial success. It showed Sir Laurence's tremendous talent not only as an actor but as a writer and director. The film is a visual marvel, shot in glorious Technicolor, it opens with the play being performed on stage at the Globe Theater circa 1600 and then dissolves into the actual battlefields of Agincourt. Through the years the film has come to be derided as just a piece of wartime English propaganda. The film definitely was made to serve that type of purpose, but to simply classify in that vein is take away from the masterful job of producing a visually stunning and well crafted film that was very much on the cutting edge of filmmaking in 1945. In fact, the Academy gave Sir Laurence an honorary Oscar for his achievements in creating the film in addition to nominating him for Best Actor and the film for Best Picture.

Beginning with a fluttering playbill and a view of 1600 London, we take in a performance of 'Henry V' at the Globe Theatre. Chorus tells us to work on our 'imaginary forces', and we are slowely transported out of the theatre to the 'vasty fields of France'. Even with the restraints placed on Olivier' by the then-current WW2, this movie is head and shoulders above the Branagh version because all the characters are cast with real actors who are speaking to each other as well as the audience. Where the Branagh version is a series of grunts and shouts, this film is truly a living painting of legend. To even compare Robert Newton's Ancient Pistol to the one in the 90's version would be ludicrous.

It's impossible to say anything bad about Lawrence Olivier. For many years this movie represented the best that Shakespeare had to offer the silver screen. It was beautifully staged. Unfortunately, the movie was a victim to its time.

During WWII, Olivier was told to make Henry V into a propaganda film that would boost English spirits during their darkest days. So, there was a little creative editing.

Gone are any lines (in fact a whole scene) that refer to Henry's "English Traitors"...one of which was his first cousin! Gone is the six-month long seige of Hafleur (including Henry's violent but empty threat of doing awful things to old men, women and babies if the town didn't surrender). Gone is any doubt about the struggle and massive odds the English faced at Agincourt. The message is "Rule Britainia" from the start.

I wish Olivier could have made this movie in another time. It would have been one of the greatest movies ever made. However, taking it as it is...it's a great film. But I would take Kenneth Branagh's epic and true version of Henry V first.

Stung by the lack of commercial success of As You Like It, Olivier undertook to make a popular success of a film version of a Shakespeare play. This film is definitely the predecessor of all such undertakings. For fans of Shakespeare or Olivier, this film is a must see. Also, before you watch Branaugh's version, it is most instructive to watch Olivier. That is because Branaugh's version is both a tribute and a reaction to Olivier's.

I saw a modern remake of this film, 1989, recently with Kenneth Branagh. The battle showed sweat and blood, a non-theatrical production in comparison to this 1944, very theatrical, Olivier production. Some reviewers denounce the heavy-handed acting of 1944, but I find it charming.

Olivier has an economical charisma. His acting has few flourishes, but his voice says everything. Olivier in period costume is mesmerizing. As Shakespeare's bad-boy prince turned earnest King, Olivier takes charge and demands the return of English lands from the rather effeminate French nobility. Outnumbered 10 to one, his merry band of Englishmen dispatches the Dolphin at Agincourt. Then he courts the French speaking princess Katherine with broken French and elegant economy.

The recreation of old London and the Globe Theatre was delightful. The audience and players went on in heavy rains without complaint. The mention of Falstaff's name is enough to get applause, though the buffoon has only a short death scene.

I do believe the play has been abridged. Many of the longer speeches seem shortened. Still, this is accessible Shakespeare. How can you go wrong? Never!

As mentioned in other reviews this movie is a MASTERPIECE. I will not go into which one I think is better,wether is this one or the more recent production of Keneth Branaugh, I like BOTH! What I found extremely interesting is the DVD's other material. Very insightful as to the realities of 1943 England and why some parts of the play were highlighted or left out. Highly Recommended!