Part of me wants to call "Henry V" one of the great movies of all time. It was the first ever colour treatment of Shakespeare on screen. More than that, though, it is an approach to adaptation that I have never seen before, not just of Shakespeare but of any play, and this fact really surprised and delighted me.
To explain, the movie isn't merely a film version of the play, but actually takes us back to the year 1599 when "Henry V" premiered at the Globe Theatre. We are shown the London of the late Elizabethan era, and the view zooms into the Globe, where the average person of the day is venturing to watch the new Shakespeare play. Olivier, the director as well as the star, really hammers home here the point that despite the connotation with snooty "high culture", Shakespeare's plays were in fact written for and enjoyed by the citizenry, many of which wouldn't have been able to read, but could certainly watch and listen. We see the play performed on the stage exactly as it may have been in 1599, and the audience is shown to be as participatory as they would have been then - listen to the reaction when John Falstaff, one of Shakespeare's most popular characters, is mentioned. The movie even shows actors preparing behind the scenes while soliloquies are delivered, waiting for their turn to enter stage left.
This approach doesn't continue, however, as the play gradually becomes more realistic, the no-background of The Globe being replaced by false backgrounds that eventually become real as the famous Battle of Agincourt is fought before our eyes in a real outdoor setting. The play transitioning from stage to soundstage to a real-world setting is fascinating to watch.
The movie just wasn't that enjoyable, however. It often caught my eye with a well-lit scene or thoughtfully delivered monologue, but my attention often waned. Perhaps it's just that "Henry V" isn't one of Shakespeare's better plays. I'd never read or studied it, and I didn't recognise many lines from it. It was apparently made to rouse patriotic feelings in Englishmen of the time, and perhaps it did that, but to modern audiences, it may just miss its mark.
To explain, the movie isn't merely a film version of the play, but actually takes us back to the year 1599 when "Henry V" premiered at the Globe Theatre. We are shown the London of the late Elizabethan era, and the view zooms into the Globe, where the average person of the day is venturing to watch the new Shakespeare play. Olivier, the director as well as the star, really hammers home here the point that despite the connotation with snooty "high culture", Shakespeare's plays were in fact written for and enjoyed by the citizenry, many of which wouldn't have been able to read, but could certainly watch and listen. We see the play performed on the stage exactly as it may have been in 1599, and the audience is shown to be as participatory as they would have been then - listen to the reaction when John Falstaff, one of Shakespeare's most popular characters, is mentioned. The movie even shows actors preparing behind the scenes while soliloquies are delivered, waiting for their turn to enter stage left.
This approach doesn't continue, however, as the play gradually becomes more realistic, the no-background of The Globe being replaced by false backgrounds that eventually become real as the famous Battle of Agincourt is fought before our eyes in a real outdoor setting. The play transitioning from stage to soundstage to a real-world setting is fascinating to watch.
The movie just wasn't that enjoyable, however. It often caught my eye with a well-lit scene or thoughtfully delivered monologue, but my attention often waned. Perhaps it's just that "Henry V" isn't one of Shakespeare's better plays. I'd never read or studied it, and I didn't recognise many lines from it. It was apparently made to rouse patriotic feelings in Englishmen of the time, and perhaps it did that, but to modern audiences, it may just miss its mark.