I watched both of Olivier's and Branagh's versions of Henry V and can't believe there would be any debate that Olivier's is the BEST!!! To newer generations, Branagh might be more alluring in more sophisticated technical cinematic special-effects but Olivier's version is much more in line with what "The Bard" had in mind. I have read reviews by peers of my own generation (I am in my early 30's) and constantly hear a critique of Olivier as appearing too "stagey". COME ON PEOPLE, Shakespeare IS ALLLLLLL ABOUT "THE STAGE"--and the interaction of that Stage with a theatrical audience--after-all, Shakespeare was not meant to be viewed in MEGA-CINEPLEX 10-- I think that Branagh's version falls short exactly because it takes it off the stage and tries to make it into a movie..it truly loses something in the process. Olivier's brilliance is that no one/BAR NONE had a more comprehensive command over Shakespeare's language, intonation, and intention in acting, which is perhaps exactly why-to this day-his vision was so "right-on" as a director. With Branagh, I was always aware I was watching a film whereas with Olivier, I became so absorbed in the play that I forgot what medium I was watching it through. This is extraordinarily helped by the fact that Olivier really puts this in historical context for us-i.e, opens his film up ON THE STAGE OF THE 16th century GLOBE THEATRE...he takes us down from an aerial view (with the surrounding architecture of a 16th century English hamlet) into the intimacies of the stage, behind the stage, and ultimately the "players" interaction with the almost bawdy 16th century audience -whose permission to imagine/visualize the story they were about to weave before our eyes was humbly asked of its participants common audience.) Olivier also reminds us (through this) that though today we tend to relegate Shakespeare to "high-fallutin' types, thus preempting the fact that the audience of the day and age was anything but-which really humanizes the experience for us-makes it more tangible-Shakespeare was (at the time) truly written FOR and given permission to exist BY "the more common masses". Even Branagh's revisionist version of Henry V had to acknowledge Olivier's brilliance in this transition between theatrical illusion and audience acknowledgment except Branagh uses the much darker interior of a Hollywood-like studio, which though it might make it more accessible for a younger audience more accustomed to movies than theater (in my opinion) falls short of giving us the true ambiance of how Shakespeare was intended to be seen. BUT THE TRUE SUCCESS OF OLIVIER'S SUBSEQUENT EXECUTION of the play is that he VERY SEAMLESSLY transitions off the stage and into the countryside of England, crossing the English Channel to France, and finally the culminating battle of Agincourt without the viewer even being aware this has happened. But every brilliant writer knows that he must bring his subject back full circle to where it opened-and subsequently Olivier brings us back onto the stage of our 16th century Globe theater before humbly addressing the audience upon whose success or failure of the plays ability to have conjured their imaginations solely relies. Of course Olivier's "prop-technicolor- 1940's and 50's backdrops might seem too unsophisticated for a younger audience but how he executes the play (and most important) where he takes our own imaginations in the process is why this version will always provide the penultimate experience.
