Henry V, Part 1

Well, you have to see this.

Even if you don't watch the three prequels, The Plantagenet Identity, The Plantagenet Legacy and the Plantagenet Ascendancy (RII, HiVi & HIVii).

It's classic Shakespearean filmmaking with a superb cast, mostly excellent direction, great cinematography and an absolutely outstanding central performance from Hiddlestone, which finally stepped out of the shadows of those of his famous predecessors as the play reached its climax. And there are other actors turning in their film-career best here too, Anton Lesser and Melanie Thierry for example.

All in all, the best Shakespeare the BBC has ever done. Hiddlestone may take the laurels for his three performances as Hal, the not-so-callow, not-so-innocent teenage chrysalis who turns into a malevolent Machiavellian butterfly but Whishaw's utterly brilliant Richard II is a very good reason to start the cycle from the beginning, as intended.

The quartet of plays builds on the Shakespearean tradition of adapting for cinema while retaining as much as possible of Shakespeare's imaginative manifesto as we have it in the play's Prologue, demanding imaginative effort of the part of the viewer rather than supplying every conceivable horse and nail.

The drama is built with a theatrical approach to casting and mise-en-scene, resisting (mostly) the temptation to colour the action with simulated CGI reality. Shot entirely in the UK, the outdoor locations are always beautifully chosen but never needlessly populated with thousands of digital soldiers. There are CGI glimpses of mediaeval England and French armies here and there but they never dominate the theatrical requirement to distinguish drama from scene-setting. Olivier's version started in the theatre and then cut away, wider and wider until the famous charge and the immense Agincourt scenes. Here, the camera stays focused on the main players throughout and even the famous 'band of brothers' speech, though spoken on an outdoor battlefield, manages to retain a theatrical intimacy.

Hats off to the BBC who, whatever I or anyone else says about them, can still deliver when it matters.

Henry V (2012) was directed by Thea Sharrock. This movie is the final episode of Season I of The Hollow Crown TV Series. As with all the previous episodes, the BBC has brought great production values to to the screen.

The acting is excellent. Tom Hiddleston, who starred as Prince Hal in Henry IV parts 1 and 2, stayed on to portray King Henry V. Henry V will stand by itself, and another actor could have portrayed Henry V. However, it worked better to keep the same protagonist in all three plays. Hiddleston is a great actor, and it's a pleasure to watch him bring his role to life.

Edward Akrout as Louis the Dauphin and Mélanie Thiérry as Princess Katherine were also excellent.

Henry V is a brilliant war story. (Henry IV Parts 1 and 2 are dominated by Falstaff's story. Henry V is about war.) As with most war stories, the play works well in a movie.

The scenes between battles are part of theater history--the tennis balls, "Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more . . .", St. Crispin's day, Princess Katherine learning English, the wooing scene, and on and on. Shakespeare was truly a genius, and the becomes even clearer when you watch a play like Henry V.

At the beginning of Shakespeare's play, an actor called Chorus tells us that we have to rely on our imaginations to see great battles, castles, and warships. If I had been director Sharrock, I would have deleted that part.

Shakespeare was writing for the theater, and his audience needed their imaginations to see what we can see on screen. We can see the scenes that Shakespeare envisioned. Absolutely true, but I still prefer the stage for Shakespeare.

This film was made for TV, so of course it works well on the small screen. Henry V has an impressive IMDb rating of 8.4. I thought it was even better than that and rated it 9.

As I being, I should warn you that my opinions are heavily biased in favour of the Branagh adaptation, as it is my favourite adaptation of Shakespeare.

Let's see. Comparing the Duke of Exeter in this version to Brian Blessed in the previous, I can easily say that Anton Lesser looks like a weak push-over compared to Blessed's menacing executor of Henry's will. He's the one that bugged me most.

Hiddleston does not give a bad performance, but his speeches are completely robbed of passion, evident from his soldiers' reaction to them (they couldn't look less impressed). Removing the Southampton scene was also a bad idea - Only thing I liked more than Branagh was the Harfleur speech, adding civilians to it made it much more menacing (although again, there is not much passion to the speech).

The Duke of York, whose change of actor from Richard II is a little bit awkward, dies in the most anti-climatic way possible. Two English commanders and a French commander just quit the battlefield to kill each other?

And of course, the Archbishop of Canterbury. It seemed like he was more forced to delivering his lines, rather than being the manipulating priest he was in the Branagh version. It's a wonder he even managed to sway Henry into a decision.

It's been an orderless review, but I should mention the Battle of Agincourt again. After the battle in Henry IV pt. 1, I expected to see a gritty and muddy adaptation of Agincourt. What I found, instead, was a boring time-filler. Unwise camera angles show you how small the battle actually is compared to what it should be.

Overall, it was a very disappointing adaptation of Henry V, and compared to earlier plays in the Hollow Crown series, it fell short.

With Henry V now firmly on the throne, this drama moves on to challenge not only the robustness of his character but also Tom Hiddleston's characterisation - and I didn't really love the latter. His success in the Henry IV stories was as much to do with his evolving personable playboy persona accompanied by some solidly entertaining efforts from the likes of Simon Russell Beale and Julie Walters. Now he has the top job, the political intrigues at home and abroad take over the story, the humour deserts it and we find ourself in territory that has been frequently covered before. The gist of the plot sees the king rather manoeuvred into a battle with Charles VI (Lambert Wilson) over some claims to the French throne that derived from Edward III of England. It turns out to be the Dauphin (Edward Akrout) who is the main antagonist, but his is just one of the difficulties the new king must face asserting his authority and learning that difficult art of knowing whom to trust. What do stand out here are the battle scenes. The stunt arranging, execution and production design deliver impressively with what must have been a modest television budget and limited numbers - director Thea Sharrock does not resort to endless CGI to pad things out visually. The script adaptation is succinct and effective but somehow this is just isn't so hard hitting. Perhaps that's because the story and characters are so much better known, or perhaps just because the star here hasn't the gravitas to deliver the part compellingly? It's still a very watchable history but perhaps more of a shallow crown than an hollow one.

Despite my initial excitement, this turned out to be the least interesting part of The Hollow Crown. Admittedly, my judgement is somewhat clouded by Jamie Parker's magnificent performance at the Globe Theatre, but I simply did not get the kick out of this production that the play would normally deliver.

Let's get the bad stuff out of the way first. Using Henry's funeral as the opening scene completely altered the tone, bringing one of depression and futility to the whole show. Secondly, I felt the cutting choices were very poor indeed. Cutting out the Southampton scene with the three traitors felt like a mistake, for that scene provides a lot of insight into the brutality of Henry V. This brings me onto my third point: Tom Hiddleston's performance. I understand that with regard to the performance history behind this character, which includes Laurence Olivier, Richard Burton and Kenneth Brannagh, it is very difficult to make this role ones own and by extension do something new with it. Hiddleston attempts this and fails rather miserably. It's just embarrassing when he states that his soldiers 'stand like greyhounds in the slips' and then it cuts to the soldiers looking uninspired and frightened. Similarly, the St. Crispin's Day speech had the potential to be incredible, because the army was standing nearby ready to be inspired. Jamie Parker can afford to underplay this speech due to the theatrical values, having to make the audience his army instead of having a real one. Hiddleston has the men, but instead chooses to whisper to his Lords, thereby completely killing the drama and excitement of the scene.

In contrast to this, I thought that Pistol, Bardolph and Nym were played superbly. The farewell scene outside the Boar's Head almost brought me to tears, with the cold, silent delivery of the lines being totally appropriate to the tone of the scene. Similarly, I thought that the caution of the French King and the petulance of the Dauphin were very well acted and portrayed. The scenery of the campaign was also very well selected and filmed, although frankly the final battle was a bit thin, and lacked the adrenaline and terror that was so well delivered in Henry IV Part I.

On the whole, I found the whole production just disappointing. After the stunningly compelling adaptation of Richard II, Henry V simply doesn't do enough for a finale. The whole thing just feels a bit limp, and in a play of this magnitude and fame, regardless of interpretation, you simply cannot scrimp on production values or acting ability. Intense tragedies can do this and it works, but Henry V is BIG, and as such one should really pull out all the stops when tackling it.