Adaptation of Henry V

Résumé du document

By analyzing and studying the main themes (war, leadership, relationships between human being) developed in both the films (and the interpretation made by the two directors), we will see that, although adapted from the same play, the potrayal of Henry is quite different. In both versions of the play (as in the plays itself!), Henry V, after the intervention of the chorus, begins on conflicts (conflict between the church and the king, conflict between England and France), conflicts that will lead to a war, but this path towards war is different in Olivier's and Branagh's version.

Extraits

[...] It is an homage to the theatre. On the other hand, Branagh is really interested in Henry V and politics. Besides, I think Branagh is more a movie director than Olivier. Olivier's Shakespearian films are usually closer to a form (and a brilliant one) of filmed theatre, in the sense that he scarcely uses cinematographic tools (except for his genial use of voiceover to avoid some monologues such as in the scene before Agincourt, a process that he uses a lot in his Hamlet, and which I think is really excellent). [...]

[...] And nearly nothing else. It is known from the beginning, when the audience applauds at his arrival. He will lead, he will win. His speeches all seem to be rhetorical and conventional. For instance, before Agincourt, we have the feeling that he is just delivering his line and that he had prepared it, knowing that some would wish they were more numerous. Even the revolutionary idea of brotherhood won from fighting on the same battlefield seems to be without conviction at all. [...]

[...] Besides, Branagh's Henry doesn't know who has won the battle. Indeed, in Branagh's Agincourt, there is no real winner; he puts the stress on the roughness of the war. And if he seems to be strongly against war (with the violence shown on the battlefield), he still underlines the excitement and the desire to fight which do exist in a battle (mainly in the St Crispin speech). In this sense, it is uncompromising, because it refuses to show only the good side of it. [...]

[...] At the end, his wife (Queen Isabel) is very present. The different lords seem only interested in games or arms. Katharine seems quite stupid too (at least, in the beginning, when she keeps screaming my On the contrary, in Branagh's version, the French are depicted with a real respect, there are not looked down at. The dauphin is ambitious rather than arrogant, the King seems to be old and tired rather than ridiculous and childish. He still has a certain authority and wisdom. [...]

[...] The army is proud and colourful. Nearly nobody bleeds nor dies. Agincourt is part of a never-contested epopee. The King leads, they follow, they win. The French are easily defeated and their defeat is a sanction against their arrogance. But Henry in his great mercy (already underlined in Southampton) allows them to burry their dead. There is nothing questioning in his vision of war. Everything is neat and clean. In Branagh's version, what dominate are images of blood, dust, dirt, rain. [...]