Henry V (1946)

I will readily confess that the so-called history plays are not my favorites among the works of William Shakespeare. I'd much rather see a tragedy (King Lear or Macbeth, perhaps) or a comedy (A Midsummer Night's Dream) than to try to decipher the political and historical context of a history play like Henry V, the film version of which was nominated for Best Picture of 1946. I will also admit that, even after watching the movie, I'm still not entirely sure what all was going on. I didn't drag my copy of the Riverside Shakespeare out to give myself some background knowledge. I watched the movie hoping I could follow along. That I couldn't is less the fault of director-producer-star Laurence Olivier than my own failings as a Shakespearean scholar.

Having said that, I found several elements of this film to be fascinating to watch, regardless of whether or not I could understand what the performers were discussing. I love that the first third or so of the movie is played as if we are witnessing a production of the play in 1600 at the Globe in London where many of Shakespeare's plays were first produced. There's even a flier that drifts down from the heavens to announce the production. We are at various times in the audience or on stage or even backstage as the performance unfolds, and I think Olivier has chosen a most intriguing way to call attention to the dramatic qualities of Henry V. I wish the film could have maintained that vision throughout, but it does shift to become more like a traditional film in order to show us the battle sequences. Those are staged with actual horses and lots of land rather than whatever gimmicks the stage might have allowed.

Olivier's genius is in showing us some of the smaller aspects of stage production. For example, before he makes his entrance as the title character, he coughs to clear his throat and then he puts on his "actor face" to walk on stage and wow the audience. In fact, we get to see the audience's reaction to him as if we are watching from the wings or backstage. There are also a couple of goof-ups with two actors in the roles of an archbishop and his assistant, letting us acknowledge that not every performance in a play is always top-notch. I even enjoyed the interruptions by the audience, the members of which applaud loudly at times, and the sudden rainstorm that forces many people in the standing room only section to leave the theater. Many of the difficulties an open-air production might face are here.

I know that most of the film is about the attempts by King Henry V to conquer France and claim what he considers to be his rightful title as heir to its throne. I suppose my studies of English history should supply a ready answer for why he thought he was also the king of France, but frankly, that was too long ago and I couldn't follow the dialogue here to ascertain it either. We viewers do have the sense that some in France will be happy to see him succeed while others are more resistant. Many of the English soldiers who fight for Henry are also torn. Some think they are wasting their time in France, but others are intensely loyal to the king and his cause. Olivier, who was always credited with being the greatest of stage actors, delivers some rousing speeches here. Some of them are rightfully well known for their lyricism: "Once more into the breach," for example. I have always enjoyed seeing performers tackle the so-called St. Crispin's day speech--"we few, we happy few, we band of brothers"--and Olivier's rendition of it is the best I have ever seen.


The staging of the historically significant Battle of Agincourt is likewise impressive. After the perfunctory "negotiations"--really just some chest-thumping in which "civil" warriors of the time liked to engage--the French begin a charge against a vastly outnumbered English. However, the English are prepared. They are, for example, using longbows instead of crossbows, and the swish of those arrows in the air can make your blood run cold knowing how destructive they will be. And I loved the moment when the English leap from the trees to attack the French soldiers. The element of surprise certainly works in your favor when you're seemingly overwhelmed by superior forces.

As is somewhat typical in the history plays (or most drama from that time period, to be honest), women play only minor roles here. The Queen of France (played by Janet Burell) gets a few lines to demonstrate her sharp tongue, but much of the women's dialogue is left to Princess Katherine (Renee Asherson) and her lady-in-waiting (Freda Jackson). Their attempts to learn English are particularly delightful, but at the end, Katherine is merely expected to marry Henry and unite the two countries and be happy. Not exactly a challenging role for an actress, is it? I almost hoped that Olivier would have maintained the Elizabethan tradition of having men playing the female characters. That would have made for an intriguing film in 1946.

Actually, the film was completed in 1944 in England before the end of World War II. Many have claimed that Olivier's version of Henry V was an inspiration to the English people fighting against the Germans. The Battle of Agincourt is one of the greatest English victories in history, so what better way to get the people of England to have an optimistic attitude than with a return to an earlier victory which occurred despite what seemed like overwhelming odds? I would imagine that the St. Crispin's Day speech spurred on many an Englishman and woman. By the way, the film was nominated for Best Picture of 1946 because that's when it was released in the United States. Never let it be said that the Academy can't be parochial. ("It doesn't count until it plays in Los Angeles," or something like that, seems to be the mentality.)