Henry V (1989)

Highly Subjective Interpretation
This is a highly subjective, heavily edited version of the Shakespeare play. The playtext was cherry-picked to portray Henry as a pure, virtuous, patriotic leader. However, Shakespeare's Henry was very, very different. In addition to his good qualities, Shakespeare's Henry also made political deals with the clergy, executed enemy prisoners (and his own soldiers), threatened innocent people with rape and plunder, and threw his soldiers headlong into battle for highly questionable reasons--all while neglecting urgent issues at home. (Remind you of a certain US president?) Of course, this film was deliberately made as a WWII propaganda piece, so the English king had to be portrayed in a positive light. However, this film is far from representing the Shakespeare play. The color and inventive staging are pleasant to see. Unfortunately, the extreme departure from Shakespeare's text renders this play extremely dated.

Henry V (1944)
Olivier inhabits the role of Henry with dazzling gusto in this rousing, energetic adaptation of William Shakespeare's play. The world was at war in 1944, and the gifted actor/director hoped the Bard's climactic tale of beat-the-odds triumph would comfort and inspire embattled England. Filling shoes once meant for William Wyler, Olivier's direction of his actors and the Technicolor battle scenes is sharp and inspired (with help from editor Reginald Beck). The movie's stylized opening in a re-created Globe Theater eventually gives way to beautifully scenic realism, an ingenious blend of theater and cinema that helped win Olivier a special Oscar for "outstanding achievement."

Unique
I read the play "Henry V" earlier this year and found parts of it very stimulating and other parts somewhat distracting. I looked forward to see the Olivier film version but I was concerned that it might move along too quickly for me to follow. As I sat back to watch the movie on TCM, I was treated to some background on how the film was produced in England at the height of WWII where just about everything was in scarce supply. The many innovation that enabled the film to come off were impression as was the reminder that "Henry V" was an excellent choice for an audience challenged by the strife of war.

It was the very beginning of "Henry V" that impressed me the most. We view the play being presented at the Globe Theatre in Stratford on Avon and we view it as part of the rauscious audience. The positive effects of this vantage point are numerous; we get a better sense of the humor when the audience periodically breaks out in laughter, we get a better sense of how Shakespeare wrote in various scenes to enhance its' impact on the audiences of his day (which were NOT the tuxedo wearing crowd that dropped a bundle to see Shakepeare at an exclusive theater),but mostly, we see the players playing to the audience. The major problem with film versus on-stage production is the lack of interplay between audience and performers. The actors tend to ham it up more for the humorous scenes and tighten the emotion more for the serious scenes. Each side of the stage feeds on the output of the other and a well-produced play leaves all with a sense of a common-shared experience. Not so when acting before a camera and that is why I was so impressed with this approach.

Eventually the panorama of the battle field leads us away from the audience to the movie sets. I was grateful for the introduction about the play that prefaced the movie because I understood the backdrop to me more of an artistic expression than a cheap attempt to kid us that it was a real background. I suspect Olivier's approach to the play helped to raise the emotional level of the cast. The ability of a leader to command the respect and inspiration of his troops was a major part of the play and it came through very well in this movie version.

My one objection to the movie (and the play since this is how Skakepeare wrote it into the play) was the closing scenes. Maybe it was to woo that same audience that shows up again at the end by adding a romantic angle to the drama. However, I felt that "Henry V" was meant to end on the battle field of victory rather than the wedding chapel of a new alliance. I suspose Shakespeare added that out of concern about how it would play in Paris. Oh well, alls well that almost ends well (as well).