Have you tried larping? If you’ve never heard of it, it stands for live action role playing, a hobby where enthusiasts recreate famous battles. With all its gruesome boys’ toys, the medieval period is one of the most popular.
It’s generally regarded as a bit of harmless make believe, but when you take part and someone thrusts a weapon at you that could skewer a manatee, you get a sense of the very real thrill and terror of 15th century battle. It was with this in mind that I sat down to Shakespeare’s bloodiest play of all, expecting “the widows’ tears, the orphans’ cries, the dead men’s blood, the pining maidens’ groans for husbands, fathers, and betrothed lovers” in all its glory.
Sadly, in this department director Thea Sharrock’s Henry V isn’t up to scratch.
Where Laurence Olivier’s 1944 adaptation propagandised the play to rouse Allied troops before the invasion of Normandy, and Kenneth Branagh pointedly exposed the other, horrifying side of war in 1989, here the battle scenes play out like a cheap aside. Gone are the mounds of bodies, there’s barely a head on a spike to speak of and, at times, the fighting looks as unprofessionally calamitous as that famous cheese rolling competition in Gloucestershire.
With Sam Mendes as an exec producer on the project I’m surprised this happened. As a director in Hollywood, Mendes earned plaudits for his films’ visual beauty and accuracy (barring that floating plastic bag against brick wall of course), but now it seems the text takes precedent, which I guess is fair enough when it comes to the Bard. But, if the BBC is to compete with say, the likes of Game of Thrones and its luxurious cinematography, it’s going to have to learn to put more money into production. After all, The Hollow Crown’s next stop is the US
Still, this being Shakespeare and the climax of the Beeb’s offering to the Cultural Olympiad, it’s forgivable. Henry has now grown out of “the neighbourhood of fruit of baser quality”, into an imposing king. Bounding around on a decidedly more sunny set, he’s now sporting a goatee and a bit more leather-clad swagger.
But when it comes to business — the impending bloodshed with France, the guilt about his father’s original seizure of the crown, the cost of war, the ruthlessness of the Crispin Day’s speech — Hiddleston is in tune to what Branagh once called “the idea of a man in a state of agitation”. This Henry wills his men unto the breach with the teeth of an agitated pitbull, throttling the men around him, but also coaxing them like an American quarterback. A comparison with Olivier and Branagh is unavoidable, and after three long films in his company, I can safely say Hiddleston, with his Cheshire Cat grin, should have audiences enthralled in much the same way.
Ample support is provided by John Hurt as the Chorus (after what sounds like 200 cigarettes). Julie Walters shines brighter than ever, delivering the aching news that our friend Falstaff is no more, and Tom Georgeson, who as Bardolf has staggered through three films with a rosy hue, continues to be a welcome presence.
But towering above all in this series is the sense that Shakespeare has been made more accessible. In interview, Hiddleston revealed that making these films was like the story of Benjamin Button - he started filming the final scenes of Henry V’s life and worked backwards, finishing when Henry is at his most giddy and most unpredictable.
And like the film, this adaptation takes the Bard on a similar journey. The fusty, sometimes convoluted old tetralogy comes out looking and smelling fresher than a… well, you know the rest.
Seriously?
I cannot believe we watched the same production. I was bitterly disappointed in this Henry V.
The direction was clumsy, the acting too self-aware and the cuts unforgivable - what happened to the killing of the boys for instance? Its absence made Henry's 'I was not angry' speech seem histrionic. And so many other moments that make this one of Shakespeare's greatest plays were similarly excised.
Tom Hiddleston is generally a fun actor to watch yet somehow he robbed Henry V of all charisma. Worse than that, his Henry V was unlikable. He did the impossible and had me close to rooting for the French.
The St Crispin's Day speech felt like Henry was whispering in the ears of his closest companions, 'Psst, I have a motivational speech for you. Pass it on!' Where was the passion?
I liked John Hurt's Chorus though, again, why so many cuts to his speeches? Paterson Joseph did a good job as York. Julie Walters tried hard but it felt very much like 'Julie Walters does Shakespeare.'
Thanks all the same, but I'll stick with Branagh.
I have to agree with Geri's assessment. I was really looking foward to watching this production and found Tom Hiddleston rather lack-lustre I am afraid. As did my husband.
And as we are both Battle Re-Enactors (not LARPers - LARPing is usually fantasy re-creations using plastic weapons. Battle Re-Enactors use real but blunted weapons) we were very disappointed with the battle scenes.
Such a pity as Henry V is one of my favourite plays.
I'd say this Henry V is a pleasant surprise for me. Favourite of the series. I was worrying if it would be another patriotic cliches but with grander images to sell, given it advertised as 'the culture Olympic' after all. Rather gladly, it turned out to be nothing but the cliche.
Hiddleston's Henry is doubting the power of rhetoric and the absoluteness of leadership, just like we all do today. And I don't think the 'flawed' leader image made him unlikable, rather, more accessible, more convincing.
Well as a young man, I'm not emotionally attached to the Oliver or Branagh version of Crispin's day speech, maybe that's why I find this 'fewer' 'band of brothers' more sincere and touching.
Some might say this adaption is, like too 'clever' to be a grand piece. probably true, but well sold to me.
Hiddleston was well cast, but- mis directed in this cheap and nasty version. How the bbc can justify only eighty men in the battle scenes with their bottomless pit of taxpayers cash beggars belief. I disliked the Duke of York being blacked up too. If black faces are verboten created from white ones , so should the reverse be true, especially in important historical plays like this.
Important historical plays? It's theatre! Shakespeare and history have very little to do with each other David. Black, white, green or red as long as they can act and Joseph Patterson is a fine Shakesperean actor as seen in the BBC Julius Ceasear.
However, I do agree with the majority of the comments that this was a missed opportunity after the fine work with Richard II and the Henry IV plays. Hiddleston was a great Hal but had no authority as the King. Going to start a class war here no doubt but posh actors from Eton don't do kings very well, which is surprising given their background and social circles! it takes a working class boy like Branagh to get under the skin of real kingship. Also, the direction was clumsy and the play badly edited especially the murdering of the boys which is the spur for Henry. What was missing for me from Hiddleston's performance was the hanuting quality of Henry and the responsibility of war placed on young shoulders. Hard to do when the 'Upon the King' speech was so dreadfully cut.
But some kudos has to go the beeb for FINALLY putting on real drama and stop insisting that Doctor Who is the jewel in their dramatic crown (it was a fun, entertaining kids programme when I was growing up not high brow drama!) But would the plays have caught a wider audience if they had been modern, 'plays for today' brought bang up to date with 2012 settings? I know some people, who are not theatre goers, were put off by the settings. I realise the plays have a place in history, but that's the great thing about Shakespeare they can be done in any era and will still speak to us. Black, white, young or old
Matthew
You didn't read my post, you just reacted as conditioned. Its about the rules being applied equally. If it doesn't matter if someone's face is black, white or green, as you say, drop me a line when Martin Luther King, Mandela, or Paul Robeson will played by a white man, to show how we are all the same, even Othello come to that.
If you think that Shakespeare and English history have very little to do with one another you are sadly mistaken. Indeed the plays shown in the ' Hollow Crown' series are normally known as - the histories, and are the only contact with late medieval English history many youngsters ever get.
David,
You may have a point about equality but I just look at the standard of acting. Although, the adaptation was pretty ham-fisted so not many of the actors were coated in glory.
In terms of history, the point I was trying to make was that Shakespeare used historical facts to use theatrically and took giant liberties! He was also writing in Elizabethan times and the recreation of the medieval was pretty vague with actors wearing 'modern' Elizabethan clothes of the time, as seen in a famous Henry Peachman painting of the time that shows actors wearing Elizabethan garb in a production of the very Roman Titus Andronicus He used such figures as Richard III and magnified them so Richard became an evil crook-back which was not a lot like the real Richard of Gloucester. Which is why I think a modern setting might have opened up the plays a bit more, such as McKellen did with his film of Richard III
Hi
very nice blog !
Keep up with The outstanding posts.
see you,
Firstly, I must say, that I was vary afraid od this "Henry V". I was afraid, because I know, that Banhagh's Henry was good, very good.And I'm not afraid anymore- it was good, in different style, little chaotic, but good. Tom Hiddleston is different Henry, but, still good Henry for me- hi has got charisma, he is a king, THE king, who is a great winner of Agincourt battle. He is shown like a man, who understand a responsibility of being a king. He is still a young man, living in a shadow of his father, full of concerns, but he know, that he is a king, a leader of his country and his men. I wasn' t dissapointed in this point- Hiddleston is a good man in a good place.
The other actors was great too, especially Exeter and, of course Music was brilliant.
Thanks, BBC.