The Life of Henry the Fifth

Reviewer "anne-25" from England was evidently so exercised by what she perceived as shortcomings in this excellent production of "Henry V" that she neglected to listen to the words. In the opening Chorus, we are advised that, since the entire combatants of Agincourt could not be incorporated into the production, we must "into a thousand pieces divide one man." A little further along, the Chorus enjoins us thusly: "O, pardon! since a crooked figure may attest in little place a million." Shakespeare obviously knew something that "anne-25" does not -- it's unfeasible to expect two medieval armies to be incorporated into a humble stage production; therefore, we must use our imaginations, as per, again from the Chorus, "upon your imaginary forces work." Even Olivier's and Branagh's film versions left a lot to be desired in this aspect. Olivier's Agincourt was confusing and brief (although the arrow flights, abetted by Walton's glorious music, were stunning); and Branagh's, although more realistic and bloody (fought in the rain as was the real Agincourt), made us suffer through excruciating and over-used slow motion, a device that never adds to action sequences. And by my count, there were far fewer than sixty thousand French soldiers in either production.

So, "anne-25," a little advice -- listen to the Chorus next time, and perhaps you'll enjoy yourself much more.

I want to reply to one of the claims made by the 2010 reviewer (who puerilely refers to Shakespeare as "Will"). This reviewer states that the play is presented "with minimal, if any cuts." If the reviewer takes the time to read the play instead of making uninformed pronouncements about it, he or she will discover that numerous cuts have been made in the BBC's production. To be sure, most of the abridgments are pretty well judged, and there are considerably fewer abridgments than in the Olivier and Branagh versions. Nonetheless, the claim that the BBC's production presents the text uncut or nearly uncut is flatly incorrect.

As for the production itself, it's quite a good rendering of an uneven play. I agree that David Gwillim is too "weepy" and "whispery", but he performs several of his scenes well (for example, the scene with the tennis balls -- until he starts to throw them -- the scene of the exposure of the traitors, and the scene in which he woos Katherine). His rendering of the magnificent St Crispin's Day speech is very disappointing, but his rendering of the riposte to Montjoy shortly after that speech is excellent. Likewise, although he starts the great "Once more unto the breach" speech quite lamely, he finishes it well. Other members of the cast are generally proficient. In particular, the actors who appear as the French nobles seem to enjoy their roles, and they perform those roles adeptly.

I'll start with a correction to another review: Like most or all of the other BBC Shakespeare productions I've watched, this has some minor abridgments, e.g., the haggling about "Heir to France" in V.2. It's nothing like as extreme as the "Good Bits" approach that Branagh took, and indeed leaves in some passages that suggest that even Shakespeare nods, such as Fluellen's nattering about Macedonian and Monmouth rivers immediately after mourning the massacre of the boys.

Like most of the other BBC Shakespeare I've watched, it's mostly competent, low-key, and not very dramatic. (After Olivier and Branagh, it was kind of interesting to see a sedate Crispin's Day speech.) There are some outright mistakes in the directing, at least in the light of Branagh. I don't see how anyone, for instance, could ever have directed Nym's leave-taking from Mistress Quickly as casual. But there are bits of Shakespeare here you won't see anywhere else, so it's worth watching, once you've seen Olivier and Branagh.

Another BBC take on Shakespeare's histories, this production is of somewhat dubious quality. Completely unabridged, the play can be difficult to follow for those who have not read it, also, the poor camera angles and lacklustre performances from the cast fail to emphasise on certain points. David Gwillim, whom certainly looks more like Henry V than Olivier or Branagh, has a mixed performance in the lead role. His Henry, while amusing and likeable at times, tends to whimper his speeches, most notably when he meekly whispers his way through the St. Crispins day speech before leading his men against three or four pitiful French whom, we are to believe, are actually Sixty-thousand strong. In fact I lie, Henry does not even lead his men, we only see him trudging towards us after the "battle" has taken place. The characters than have the audacity to boast that ten-thousand French have been slain, when we have yet to see one dead body (discounting the solitary dead "boy")

The scenery is poor as well, instead of filming on location, the play is filmed on a horribly unrealistic set, the walls of Harfleur are evidently made from cardboard or some such substance, and the scenic field of Agincourt is in fact a wall. Cinematography does not change, almost all of the play is filmed in bright cutesy colours and Agincourt seems a remarkably pleasant "telly-tubby" place (all we need is the. We just cannot believe for a moment that what we are watching is real. The lack of music as well must be stated, since it strips the play of drama and tension.

This play could have been so good, the cast is capable, but the direction is so poor. If music, on-location sets, and better cinematography (i.e mud, fire, blood at Harfleur and Agincourt) had been used, then for very little extra money, the play could have been brilliant.

The production has been well-covered above. I just want to add that, to me, this is deep Shakespeare without piffle-paffle, as the good Captain Fluellen would say. It presents the full story as Will wrote it, with minimal, if any, cuts.

As an American, I must say that British actors never cease to amaze me. They must get a lot more training than Yank actors do. For instance, Tim Wylton as the 'actively annoying' Captain Fluellen to my mind created a memorable comic character. He made me laugh or at least smile in every speech he made, which is exactly Fluellen's purpose (other than representing the rough, honest courage of the common soldier.) And I woke up thinking about his portrayal this morning, and I was still chuckling.

I particularly wish to thank 'gerlynga' for his or her thoughtful review clearly based on a deep knowledge of the play's many productions. I look forward to reading all her stuff.