The point of playing him as a petulant, single-minded aggressor in the first part of the play allows for him to transform on the eve of the battle when he realizes his responsibility: He got them into this mess, it's not interesting if he starts out noble and conscientious; I play him as a bit of a gangster because that's exactly what he was; in Shakespeare's play he is redeemed on the eve of battle after much soul-searching.
Hi Medievalgirl, You certainly have a lot to say about our film. First, There is nothing typically American about what we were trying to do with our very modest community theatre budget. This is not anti-British or anti-Henry or anti-Branagh. I am a fan of all three. The medieval world was a brutal one, and threats of terrorism were not considered bad form back then, and this is one example of the ruthlessness of Henry's actual behavior.
Typical American interpretation, over emphasising the 'creulty' of the English campaign, and totally downplaying Henry's order to treat the townspeople with mercy in order to present a deliberately negative image of Henry and the English.
Henry's threat should be taken more in the context of what could happen if the town already beseiged for a long period was forcibly taken by angry troops fresh from the fornt lines, and not what he actually wanted of intended to do.
@mackler No. Shakespeare only wrote *plays* for Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI (and I think Henry VII and Henry VIII too, but they are rarely performed). The movies are *based* on the stageplays.
@Kirkendra Kenneth Branagh is way better, he puts so much more soul and feeling into Henry that this guy, he just seems flat and unconvicing, like some stertypical movie bad guy.
@AN1933 More like a second rate Gothic horror movie. Grittiness is one thing but this is just silly and poorly acted, shots of soldiers pushing people around and grabbing things, all of whom look very clean and tidy after having endured a seige lasting many weeks hardly makes for realsism. Kenneth Branagh's version is so much better, probably because it has a soul and was not made with the intention of demonising Henry and the English.
In fact, refugees were systematically robbed.
The point of playing him as a petulant, single-minded aggressor in the first part of the play allows for him to transform on the eve of the battle when he realizes his responsibility: He got them into this mess, it's not interesting if he starts out noble and conscientious; I play him as a bit of a gangster because that's exactly what he was; in Shakespeare's play he is redeemed on the eve of battle after much soul-searching.
banfus 5 months ago
Hi Medievalgirl, You certainly have a lot to say about our film. First, There is nothing typically American about what we were trying to do with our very modest community theatre budget. This is not anti-British or anti-Henry or anti-Branagh. I am a fan of all three. The medieval world was a brutal one, and threats of terrorism were not considered bad form back then, and this is one example of the ruthlessness of Henry's actual behavior.
banfus 5 months ago
Just to say, the 'History' and 'Shakespeare' links in the website do not work. How ironic.
medievalgirl002 5 months ago
Typical American interpretation, over emphasising the 'creulty' of the English campaign, and totally downplaying Henry's order to treat the townspeople with mercy in order to present a deliberately negative image of Henry and the English.
Henry's threat should be taken more in the context of what could happen if the town already beseiged for a long period was forcibly taken by angry troops fresh from the fornt lines, and not what he actually wanted of intended to do.
medievalgirl002 5 months ago
I love this series. I can find seasons IV, V, and VI, but I can't find I, II or III? WTF?
mackler 2 years ago
@mackler This is because Shakespeare did not write the Lifes of Henry I, II or III.
LestatxLouis1 1 month ago
@LestatxLouis1
Really? Were they on a different network?
mackler 1 month ago
@mackler ... stop joking. These are film versions of Shakespeare's history plays Henry IV (parts 1-2), Henry V and Henry VI (parts 1-3).
LestatxLouis1 1 month ago
@LestatxLouis1
Oh, okay. I understand. They're movies. Like Star Wars where they started with episode IV.
mackler 1 month ago
@mackler No. Shakespeare only wrote *plays* for Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI (and I think Henry VII and Henry VIII too, but they are rarely performed). The movies are *based* on the stageplays.
LestatxLouis1 1 month ago
Who is the actor who plays Henry V here, he is excellent, very sinister.
I like him better than any previous Henry V.
Kirkendra 2 years ago
@Kirkendra Kenneth Branagh is way better, he puts so much more soul and feeling into Henry that this guy, he just seems flat and unconvicing, like some stertypical movie bad guy.
medievalgirl002 5 months ago
Very realistic indeed. It has the feel of time travel to it.
Transports you bacl to the time better than any Henry V I have seen.
Kirkendra 2 years ago
subtle political rendition, most powerful and cruel effect. Feels quite medieval to me, dream-like image.
AN1933 3 years ago
@AN1933 More like a second rate Gothic horror movie. Grittiness is one thing but this is just silly and poorly acted, shots of soldiers pushing people around and grabbing things, all of whom look very clean and tidy after having endured a seige lasting many weeks hardly makes for realsism. Kenneth Branagh's version is so much better, probably because it has a soul and was not made with the intention of demonising Henry and the English.
medievalgirl002 5 months ago
Sinister interpretation of Henry V; more interesting than the Branagh version.
Luthiersarah 3 years ago