The Life of Henry the Fifth

First, it has taken me almost 30 years to finally get a copy of this play to view again. Previously, it was only available as an entire series (all 37 plays)for libraries or schools ONLY--and since not many libraries could afford the entire series, it was unavailable--even at the university libraries I also checked. Thank goodness for Ambrose, since PBS has been horrendous in not making it available earlier. Finally audiences could see accurate productions with excellent casts. So...know that:

1) These were NOT film productions. They were part of an ambitious project to VIDEOTAPE the ENTIRE canon of plays. Therefore, they were shot on sets--RARELY on location. If you are producing all 37 plays with some of the best talent, you don't spend it on frills. Because these were 'filmed' stage plays, the sets were minimal--but tapestries, arches, crenelations, and some grassy knolls sufficed. The costumes were, with the possible exception of Olivier's film, the most accurate--and obviously derived from the 15th c. Duc de Berry's Hours. Kenneth Branagh's had hardly any costumes, and NO ARMOR! Leather armor on the king?! How ridiculous was that? Branagh's film costumes were historically inaccurate, though the french knights did sport some real armor. And the only location filming was the same muddy field for Harfleur and Agincourt.--See Branagh's autobiography for why: Budget mattered here too, just as it did to the BBC in 1978/79.

2)David Giles, directed "I Claudius" about the same time for the BBC, then did "Julius Caesar", and soon after, this cycle of history plays with Derek Jacobi as Richard II, and an interesting Jon Finch (who did a memorable Macbeth for Roman Polanski)as Henry IV. And unlike later producer/directors for the series, he stayed in the historical period of the action; which makes for a better understanding of that action, than seeing "Anthony and Cleopatra" in 16th century clothes. This production also had a lead actor who looked more like the real Henry V (if the NPG portrait is to be believed) and the attention to detail of Henry's scarred cheek from Shrewsbury.

3)David Gwillim not only had the continuity of playing Prince Hal in the series immediately before doing "Henry V", he had also seen Anthony Quayle's Falstaff as a child when his father, Jack Gwillim, was in the play. So there was a rapport. But doing the plays as a continuous series, and viewing it as such, it is easy to see how the portrayal built on what came before. And how bluff, jolly Hal, becomes serious, wary Henry V; who yet still remains approachable and likable as king.

4)Like Branagh's ten years later, this production tried to show a conflicted king, as well as a calculating one; a stickler for the accuracy of his claim to France (witness the close questioning of the prelates' long-winded reasoning), and yet one who could feel both the traitors', and then Bardolph's deaths, and a guilty conscience the night before Agincourt. Okay, so Branagh's and Olivier's Crispin Day speech is more inspiring--they also were enhanced by music. David Gwillim's first act--the tennis balls,and later traitors scenes have never been bettered. Gwillim didn't just glare at the French Ambassador like Branagh; you actually saw the king's surprise, rueful acknowledgment of his own past actions having caused the false impression, and an attempt to control his temper all within the space of a few seconds before he replies. Branagh's scenes were rather more histrionic. Ditto, the traitors scene. Branagh attacked so you saw the anger, but the tears did not equal the pain of those "...Why so didst thou(s)" that Gwillim and Giles did. And that closeup when Gwillim's Henry is told about Bardolph still resonates without the flashbacks Branagh had to use. No one has bettered Gwillim's "Upon the King...". Through inflection and expression it was so much more honest and real. Olivier's is almost sleepy--and he cuts a lot out. Branagh's, though beautifully lit and enhanced by music, still sounds like he's reciting--until the final desperation seeps in. Later, I think the BBC production tried to capture the historical Henry's rigorous adherence to rules, but also his religiosity--though it was very subtly done. (I could see this king burning Badby, pulling him out half burned to recant, and then putting him back in the flames when he doesn't.) RE: The glove scene: Henry deflects the challenge to Fluellen because he knows if Williams does hit him as king, it is a possible death penalty--as Fluellen himself recommends. So, for Henry it is not a game, it is an attempt to protect Williams--yet still let him know what he could have faced. And in CU we see both the king's consideration of Williams's excuses and consequent concern about the situation before he capitulates and gives Williams the crowns. And finally...

5)In over 40 years of viewing, David Gwillim is THE most honestly direct actor I have ever seen. Maybe the range and subtlety of others' talent is not present, but that's what made him almost perfect as Shakespeare's Henry V who was such a forthright and direct king. Olivier comes across as overtly regal, and Branagh as younger and more approachable. You never forget Olivier is a king, and Branagh is more like a brother. Only David Gwillim caught the middle ground of both the honest directness and resultant surety of purpose in Henry's authority, and the isolation of self-awareness. So for now, and as I did 30 years ago, I thank Mr. Gwillim (and Mr. Giles) for "the little touch of 'Harry(V)' in the night."

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.

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.

Between 1978 and 1985, the BBC did a series of performances of all Shakespeare's plays. While quality-wise it is not consistent, the BBC Television Shakespeare series is a fascinating one. It is great to see Shakespeare mostly adapted and performed faithfully and with respect, to see all of Shakespeare's work as part of one project and seeing so many talented actors at various career stages either in signature roles/styles or against type. There are so many fine and more performances in the series, though not all have worked, and the production values and stage direction also varied. This 1979 BBC production of 'Henry V' is not one of the best of the BBC Television Shakespeare series, though not quite a lesser one at the same time. It is somewhat of a let down after the wonderful 'Henry the Fourth' productions and do consider the Kenneth Branagh and Laurence Olivier films superior. That is not discrediting the production in any way though because there is a good deal to like here.

'Henry V's' production values may not be lavish or grand, but they didn't always come over as ugly or tacky to me and served their purpose well. Considering that the budget wasn't a big one they could have been far worse. The camera work doesn't try to do too much or anything too fancy that it comes over as chaotic and has intimacy when needed, though it could have opened up more. As an adaptation, there are cuts and abridgements but they are ones that are tasteful and make sense, not affecting the story's coherence.

While the staging didn't blow me away, that it's cohesive and doesn't do anything that's tasteless or gratuitous is laudable. The humour, authority and emotion are generally there and in the right places. Shakespeare's writing shines through with wit, intelligence and emotion, and mostly it is delivered very well with a few disappointments. Found the supporting cast to be excellent, with them being funny and touching in all the right places without mugging or being overwrought. Bryan Pringle (enjoying himself), Brenda Bruce, Anna Quayle and Thorley Walters all deliver, as does Alec McCowen. Jocelynne Boisseau is a touching Katherine. While David Gwillim is not as consistent (his delivery of the Crispins Day speech is agreed anaemic) and was much better in the 'Henry the Fourth' productions, which also did much better with Henry's character growth and conflict, much of his performance is still authoritative and moving.

Did find though that the production was a bit drab and in places static. Liked that the staging was respectful but later on it could have been bolder and had much more tension.

The momentum is not always there and parts were on the too safe and bland side, character development not always growing enough (i.e. Katherine).

Overall though, an interesting and decent production, but there is a preference for the Branagh and Olivier versions. 7/10 Bethany Cox

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.

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.