The Life of Henry the Fifth

Although this BBC televised play would as a matter of course lack the production values that Laurence Olivier and Kenneth Branagh brought to their films of Henry V, this adaption is second to none in the quality of the performance. In fact David Gwillim who had played Prince Hal in both parts of Henry IV grew into the role in a way that Olivier and Branagh never did.

It is interesting to speculate how history might have changed had Henry V gotten a few more years. While British historians proclaim one of the greatest of monarchs, the French see him as slightly below Hitler as one of the greatest enemies of their country. As well they should, the English got battlefield glory, the French buried battlefield dead as the 100 Years War was fought in their country. He died a couple of years older than that other conqueror Alexander the Great and had both of them lived who knows what they might have achieved.

Henry V is fulfilling the promise of greatness that he showed so little of as Prince Hal. The play concerns itself with his taking full command of the throne, executing some conspirators who were planning to assassinate him, and then achieving one of the great battlefield triumphs of the Middle Ages, the English victory at Agincourt over a French army that outnumbered them. Gwillim plays Henry with authority and decisiveness that rank with what Olivier, Branagh and others have done with the part.

The BBC series of Shakespeare plays were productions of the highest quality. I only wish that they were all available in this country as this one was. I saw it when it first aired on American public television back in 1979 and it is still as good as I remembered it from then.

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'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.

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.

Alec McCowen's Chorus triumphantly opens the play with a summons for a Muse of Fire, but unfortunately someone handed this Muse a fire extinguisher, and flashes of insight, or even energy, are few and far between.

The usual small budget and brief shooting schedule forced videotaping in the studio, but the absence of grand vistas and real battles is not really a problem. Shakespeare's text has the Chorus apologizing for the inadequate scale of combat simulation in the confines of the Globe, and we are instructed to use our imaginations.

This video is a distinct notch below the preceding two Henry IV plays, even though it shares the same director, David Giles. Playing off Anthony Quayle and Jon Finch, David Gwillim's Prince Hal was forced into some level of theatrical vitality. Here Gwillim's weepy, whispery Henry is the whole show, and he doesn't carry it comfortably on his shoulders.

The supporting cast is notably weak, with such accomplished scene stealers as Thorley Walters, Julian Glover and Anna Quayle uncharacteristically ineffective. And both the Fluellen and Pistol are actively annoying.

Individual scenes may work well, like the exposure and condemnation of the regicide plotters or the final scene with Henry and Katherine, but all too often the pulse stops completely, and we sit there with mild hostility, waiting until someone finds a way to switch it on again. Not recommended for classroom use, as it may provoke small arms fire and lifelong hostility to the Bard.