Description: Olivier mustered out of the navy to film this adaptation of Shakespeare's history. Embroiled in World War II, Britons took courage from this tale of a king who surmounts overwhelming odds and emerges victorious. This sumptuous Technicolor® rendering features a thrilling recreation of the battle of Agincourt, and Sir Laurence in his prime as director and actor.
Amazon.com essential video: If Kenneth Branagh's 1989 version of Shakespeare's tale of conquering greed reflects the post-Vietnam era, Laurence Olivier's version very much mirrored his time. When Olivier gave us his colorful adaptation in 1945, it was vivid, full of pageantry, and most definitely geared toward war. Pretty flags and white steeds, shining armor and theatrical emphasis figure into Olivier's attractive but decorous version, liberally adapted for a pro-war stance. He used the French as comic relief; they appeared foppish and foolish. Their presence implied no threat. If you had not read the play, you would not have to wonder who was going to win. Of course, Olivier wanted England to believe in the justness of war--his country was in the midst of one. The propaganda gets in the way only because it has been filtered through so many decades. His Henry remains, however, a handsome cinematic spectacle. Olivier's performance is gentle and elegant, his imagery rich and colorful. It was considered such a superb film he was awarded an honorary Oscar. He followed this with adaptations of Hamlet and Richard III. --Rochelle O'Gorman
Highly Subjective Interpretation This is a highly subjective, heavily edited version of the Shakespeare play. The playtext was cherry-picked to portray Henry as a pure, virtuous, patriotic leader. However, Shakespeare's Henry was very, very different. In addition to his good qualities, Shakespeare's Henry also made political deals with the clergy, executed enemy prisoners (and his own soldiers), threatened innocent people with rape and plunder, and threw his soldiers headlong into battle for highly questionable reasons--all while neglecting urgent issues at home. (Remind you of a certain US president?) Of course, this film was deliberately made as a WWII propaganda piece, so the English king had to be portrayed in a positive light. However, this film is far from representing the Shakespeare play. The color and inventive staging are pleasant to see. Unfortunately, the extreme departure from Shakespeare's text renders this play extremely dated.
Henry V (1944) Olivier inhabits the role of Henry with dazzling gusto in this rousing, energetic adaptation of William Shakespeare's play. The world was at war in 1944, and the gifted actor/director hoped the Bard's climactic tale of beat-the-odds triumph would comfort and inspire embattled England. Filling shoes once meant for William Wyler, Olivier's direction of his actors and the Technicolor battle scenes is sharp and inspired (with help from editor Reginald Beck). The movie's stylized opening in a re-created Globe Theater eventually gives way to beautifully scenic realism, an ingenious blend of theater and cinema that helped win Olivier a special Oscar for "outstanding achievement."
Unique I read the play "Henry V" earlier this year and found parts of it very stimulating and other parts somewhat distracting. I looked forward to see the Olivier film version but I was concerned that it might move along too quickly for me to follow. As I sat back to watch the movie on TCM, I was treated to some background on how the film was produced in England at the height of WWII where just about everything was in scarce supply. The many innovation that enabled the film to come off were impression as was the reminder that "Henry V" was an excellent choice for an audience challenged by the strife of war.
It was the very beginning of "Henry V" that impressed me the most. We view the play being presented at the Globe Theatre in Stratford on Avon and we view it as part of the rauscious audience. The positive effects of this vantage point are numerous; we get a better sense of the humor when the audience periodically breaks out in laughter, we get a better sense of how Shakespeare wrote in various scenes to enhance its' impact on the audiences of his day (which were NOT the tuxedo wearing crowd that dropped a bundle to see Shakepeare at an exclusive theater),but mostly, we see the players playing to the audience. The major problem with film versus on-stage production is the lack of interplay between audience and performers. The actors tend to ham it up more for the humorous scenes and tighten the emotion more for the serious scenes. Each side of the stage feeds on the output of the other and a well-produced play leaves all with a sense of a common-shared experience. Not so when acting before a camera and that is why I was so impressed with this approach.
Eventually the panorama of the battle field leads us away from the audience to the movie sets. I was grateful for the introduction about the play that prefaced the movie because I understood the backdrop to me more of an artistic expression than a cheap attempt to kid us that it was a real background. I suspect Olivier's approach to the play helped to raise the emotional level of the cast. The ability of a leader to command the respect and inspiration of his troops was a major part of the play and it came through very well in this movie version.
My one objection to the movie (and the play since this is how Skakepeare wrote it into the play) was the closing scenes. Maybe it was to woo that same audience that shows up again at the end by adding a romantic angle to the drama. However, I felt that "Henry V" was meant to end on the battle field of victory rather than the wedding chapel of a new alliance. I suspose Shakespeare added that out of concern about how it would play in Paris. Oh well, alls well that almost ends well (as well).
Sir Laurence Olivier. What Else Need Be Said? Besides Sir Laurence Olivier of course, the best thing about this movie is that it alternates between appearing as real and as a play in the Globe Theatre. Only Sir Laurence Olivier could manage this so smoothly and convincingly. That said, it may help to understand what happened before Henry V. Henry IV usurped the crown from Richard II. (Henry IV is of course Henry V's father.) Well, the eventual Henry V had spent a lot of time with rogues Bardolph, Pistol, Nym, and Falstaff (whose death we see in the film). Well, Henry IV faced revolts for what he had done, and he was overcome with sorrow and guilt over what he had done. One of Henry IV's last suggestions to Henry V was to unite England against a foreign foe to help unite them. (This may seem deplorable, but it was accepted in those times, and to some extent still is.) Well, as it turns out, the partially French Henry V IS the legitimate heir of the French throne, but France of course would rather choose someone of lower rank as their king. But France makes the mistake of mocking England and forcing Henry V's hand. This is when the scenery changes from a performed play to more realistic. Sir Laurence Olivier convincingly portrays Henry V's tremendous energy as well as the famous passages. ("Once more unto the breach dear friends....") One scene of horror from the play that is omitted in this movie is when Henry V orders the execution of Bardolph for stealing a mere cross. Moving on, France's plan (in the play as well as actual history) was to let Henry V get so far and then wear himself and his forces out. This helps make sense of the early victories followed by the weakened and vulnerable state of King Henry V and his forces. 4.1 is arguably the best scene in this play. This is the night before battle and Henry V disguises himself and converses with his men. Then comes the battle that is done surprisingly well with the limited resources back then. (And as in history, France's plan to let England wear itself out backfired miserably.) Then of course comes the tastefully funny scene where Henry V meets his to be wife Katharine. SIDE NOTE: In the reign of his son Henry VI, England was to lose all of France except Calais. (England was to hold that one last bit of land in France even in the later reigns of King Henry VIII and his son King Edward VI.) If you like Sir Laurence Olivier in this, be sure to see him as Hamlet in his "Hamlet," as Mr. Darcy in "Pride and Prejudice," and as Abraham Van Helsing in "Dracula" (1979).
Consider this film in the context of when it was made. I have to say right off the bat that I am biased in favor the version Kenneth Branagh made in 1989. When I saw his version of "Henry V" in the theater, it was the first time I really came to appreciate the brilliance of William Shakespeare as a wordsmith. For me it was the way Shakespeare was meant to be, full of gritty realism. And a few years ago when I tried watching Lawrence Olivier's 1944 version on TV, I ended up turning it off after ten minutes or so, it seemed so cartoonish by comparison.
But last night TCM broadcast Olivier's "Henry V" again, and this time I was determined to give it a chance. I'm glad I did. While I still much prefer Branagh's version, this earlier production is a perfect example of how an older film has to be considered in the context of the time it was made, namely during the German blitzkrieg. Under those wartime circumstances this film had to be made on the cheap, and it shows. In this version, Shakespeare's play begins as though one might actually be watching it performed for the first time in 1600 at the old Globe Theater. Eventually, through the magic of cinema, the story FAAAAADES into a slightly more realistic environment, but only slightly. For the most part the sets and painted backdrops retain a very theatrical quality, and only the Battle of Agincourt (filmed in the Irish countryside) has a purely realistic feel to it. And I must admit there were a few shots during that battle scene that I was quite impressed with, particularly the tracking shot of the French army picking up speed while on horseback and one great special effect involving swarms of English arrows.
It must be noted that this production was designed in part to pump up the morale of the British troops during the war with Germany; therefore some of text that reflected a bit more poorly on the British was left out. The treacherous assassination plot against King Henry is gone, as are the king's horrific threats outside the gates of Har Fleur, and the hanging of one of Henry's own men for stealing from a church. Also gone is most of Chorus' denouement at the end of the play, in which he describes how the gains made by King Henry were sadly lost in the years to come.
Still, despite these lapses and a lot of overacting, this version of "Henry V" kept my rapt attention through its nearly 2.5 hour length. I think it takes a lot worse than cheap sets to diminish the power of The Bard.
Anything Goes Trivia
Last Kiss
Megaton Man
Trevor
