Shakespeare's Globe: Henry V

Ever since studying 'Macbeth' and 'Twelfth Night' in Year 6 (consisting mostly of reading the text out aloud and analysing it), there has been high appreciation, and even love, for William Shakespeare's plays and his mastery of language. 'Henry V' is not one of my favourites of his, though am not sure whether it would be counted as a lesser play in my book because it does have a lot of powerful text (the Crispin's Day speech being one of the bard's finest) and an interesting titular character.

This is a solid production. 'Henry V' has been adapted and captured on film/transmissions (including Olivier's, Branagh's, BBC Television Shakespeare's and 'The Hollow Crown's', all recommended by the way) a sizeable amount, mostly between very well and brilliantly, and while not one of the best productions this production still has a lot to like and will be of real interest for anybody interested in seeing it in historical form.

A lot is good here. It looks great, with sumptuous costumes and atmospheric sets and lighting. Enhanced by the intimate but never claustrophobic photography, which also captures the authentic and interactive audience reaction very well. The music isn't obtrusive and fits well within the period. The stage direction is tasteful and also accessible, it didn't have a try too hard quality on the whole and the spirit of the play is evident throughout.

It, the stage direction that is, is also quite thoughtful. Loved the sensual wooing scene, and it is one of the better interpretations personally seen of that scene. Some of the comedy is funny. The performances are uniformly good, with Jamie Parker making for a conflicted, energetic and nuanced Hal/Henry, it was genius having him back after the wonderful 'Henry IV' productions. Olivia Ross is another strong standout and Pistol is a lot of fun.

It is not a perfect production of 'Henry V' though. Did find the St Crispin's Day speech a little too restrained, then it may be just me having a slightly stereotypical view of what a certain speech etc should sound like from a profound past experience.

Did find that there was a little too much emphasis on the comedy, and while some of it was funny other parts felt forced and try too hard-like.

Concluding, very impresisive if not mind blowing production. 7/10.

I love these staged productions that also include the audience and this is one that completely does that. The actors talk to the audience and also come out of the audience at times creating constant dynamic with the audience. The audience is right up to the stage and the live performance benefits from this interaction.

I saw this as part of the Shakespeare 400 anniversary presentation on the BBC so didn't see it live but in my living room many years after the event. However nothing was lost on me, and I still enjoyed the performance and marvelled at the quality of authorship of Shakespeare and how he can manipulate the audience at all levels and have them eating out of his hands.

Writing at a time when there was no encyclopaedia or accurate historical accounts, Shakespeares historical plays are propaganda for the masses and gave him his celebrated status with the monarchy.

I've seen a couple of versions of this play – most of them on film, but at least once I have seen this on stage, so this filmed performance was not my first time with the text or characters. This film was my first time seeing it played so much for the laughs though and it did quite throw me. The play's opening scene once the stage is set, sees the Bishop and Archbishop having a discussion; it is not a piece of dialogue that makes specific reference to tone or location, so it is telling that this version chose to set the scene in a privy, with both men taking their moment to void themselves and wipe afterwards, while delivering the dialogue. The audience seemed to get a good laugh from it, but at the time it seemed unnecessary and odd to me.

At the film of the film this scene made more sense because, although this was the most obvious and crude example, the majority of the presentation very much played to the opportunity for laughs. There are characters and scenes that of course funny and should be presented as such, but it surprised me how far the film pushed it – because there rarely seemed to be a chance missed to go for a laugh. This is seen in the choice of accents and general design of the characters and their delivery – including the scene all in French, where the English words are spoken with a broad, disdainful pronunciation. This scene is actually a pretty good one to point to in making it clear that this is not all a bad thing – because that scene was better for the comedic interpretation of it. This is the way in many of the scenes; that they often are better for the comedy element being played deliberately for.

It is not always the case though and the problem I had with this version was that it played for the laughs too hard. So, like with the example of the Bishops at the start, there were lots of touches that seemed to have been done to draw a crude laugh rather than being part of the scene or character, and I didn't always appreciate these. The reason for this is partly that I am not used to the play having this tone as much as it did here, so I was a bit put off by that; but more so because some very famous scenes and lines were rather undercut by the search for comedy. The same applies to the performances, and it is rare to see the title character almost be presented as a supporting one – in this production it is really Fluellen, Pistol and Nym that get the audience going; mainly because they fit the comedy best whereas Harry himself does not. Yes it is good that their scenes are complimented, but it does detract from the more serious content.

I was still held by the production and it was interesting to watch it do something with it that I was not used to; however at the same time it pushed the comedy too hard, forcing it into scenes and lines where it didn't really fit, and detracting from some of the more weighty content, which I've seen played very well elsewhere. Worth a look for a different take that is done pretty well, but for me the heavy search for laughs did take it away from what my preference would have been, and it damaged material that needed to be better done.

Henry V From Shakespeare's Globe (2012/3) -

I couldn't tell if it was just this version or if the original delivery of 'Henry V' was supposed to be so wordy, but it certainly started with heavy conversation that made it a bit tough to get in to at first.

Brid Brennan as The Chorus was a real struggle to keep up with or focus on and she wasn't the only one, but she seemed to be reciting the lines rather than living them or feeling them. As the introduction to the story that made me question if I'd make it to the end.

I did like Henry V played by Jamie Parker, who was at times quite cheeky. I'd like to see him in other Shakespeare plays where he might be paired up with others to match his talents, in order to appreciate his rendering more.

His comedy bit at the end was good, but I felt that it was delivered a bit too fast.

The Herald was a bit casual with his intonations and emotion too, which was a shame because he was good otherwise. I couldn't work out which actor was playing him from the information on IMDB.

Fluellen (Brendan O'Hea) came across a bit like Rob Brydon performing a Shakespeare play in an episode of 'It A'int Half Hot Mum' (1974-81). I had to wonder how many of his lines were ad-libbed or adapted, because they seemed a bit modern at times and he seemed to be reacting to the others rather than delivering a rehearsed script.

Bardolph (Paul Rider), Pistol (Sam Cox) and so on were at times extraneous to the effect of the story. They seemed to jumble up what was going on and detract from the more serious elements. I wanted more of a focus on Henry himself, because they just irritated me.

I did actually think that a straighter version of the play, seen only from the English perspective, might have been a more enjoyable narrative too, but I supposed that it was too late to suggest that to the bard himself?

I also didn't like the fact that the actors were recycled so often. It made it difficult to know who was who and where they were meant to be based, when one from Henry's court was minutes later seen in France as someone else entirely. I've worked in theatre, I know that this is sometimes necessary and harkens back to the original Shakespearean performances at The Globe, but the changes effected between each character need to be sufficiently different to keep up the pretence that the actors are in fact a new character entirely, but that didn't feel true here at all.

After the first half I was still unsure if I would make it to the end or not and it was mostly Jamie Parker as the King that kept me interested enough to carry on and a partial interest in royal history.

The production definitely did get better in the second half, but I thought that it had ended sooner than it did, maybe I was just hopeful though, because despite the fact that it had improved, it was still a bit of a trial and a tad long to concentrate on.

I was therefore surprised by the last half an hour to wrap everything up in a neat bow and round off some of the lesser characters tales. Frankly I could have done without it, but I suppose that would be another argument to have with the writer himself.

What I really did like was the fact that it was set in its original time frame. I have seen so many "Alternative" versions of the great masters works of late, that it was refreshing to see one as it would have been when The Globe first rang with applause towards the telling of this story.

I myself appeared as Theseus in 'A Midsomer Night's Dream' which was set at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries and I've still yet to actually see a version of that story set when Will intended it. I believe that there is a call for these stories to be retold correctly for the current generation, especially those that study the English language, literature, drama and culture, because these works can offer so much when they are done well. It's time for a revival of the bard on film, done with a modern appreciation of the story, without compromising its basic premise.

Overall, I could cope with this interpretation and if I come back to it again having seen another telling that engages me more, I may find that I find nuances and an enjoyment in this one that I couldn't find this time around, because I do believe that it had a potential and delivered an essence of something well done, but for me coming to Shakespeare fairly recently, I found it hard to connect with on this occasion and not knowing the story previously.

540.39/1000.