Age: 15
Genre/Director: Shakespeare, History, Branagh
Kate says the next two films are far more jolly--I promise!
The thing I like about Branagh's Henry V specifically is how beautifully it is filmed, especially when I remember that it was filmed in something less than a month, using a terrifically small cast, on a small budget. The individual scenes are sparse, yet lush both in lighting and costuming. There are a few places where the lack of extras comes apparent (servants, not clergymen, would put Henry's robes on in the throne room scene). But otherwise, the tight focus on expressions and the use of mood lighting (the dark shadows in the throne room) make for a remarkably professional accomplishment.
And I'm a huge fan of Patrick Doyle's music (he also did the music for Thor).
The thing I like best about Branagh's Shakespeare in general is how everyday and real he renders what is, to all intents and purposes, rather arcane language. Part of this is that Branagh speaks Shakespeare like everyday language--there's no deliberate adherence to iambic pentameter or a sense of "this is Shakespeare" (I'm a big fan of Jacobi and love his voice, but he delivers Shakespeare far more in the "this is Shakespeare" tradition).
Also, in his Shakespeare films, Branagh often includes small but consistent behaviors that turn the language into conversation rather than speech: Brian Blessed's eye-rolling, Stephen Simms (Scroop) crying when confronted with his treachery; Ian Holm (the lovable Fluellen) looking bashful as he speaks to the king; Christopher Ravenscroft (Montjoy the Herald) becoming more and more impressed by the young king, Henry. All these small marks add depth and understanding to the film.
It is a rather sad film though with a far more definite purpose, less documentary feel, than Empire. What does a good king do? How does a good king behave? I had a professor who claimed that Branagh's version is pro-war; I don't think it is pro-anything. I think Branagh, and Shakespeare, were trying to work out the effects that war has, good and bad, on a king and his subjects and their families. It's more a psychological study than anything.
Though it does make me wonder what the world would be like today if France was a permanent extension of England. But history being what it is, Henry died within six years of Agincourt of dysentery.
As for Christian Bale--this movie isn't a showcase for his talents like Empire. Mostly, he is in it as much as he is because Branagh had a very small cast. So--every group scene: hey, there's Bale again! However, it is an interesting early reference to Bale's tendency to skip between Hollywood and more arty films.
I do have a kind of amusing anecdote related to Bale's appearance in this movie. I was showing the St. Crispin's Day speech to a group of student and made an off-hand remark about "Batman" making an appearance. Bale is shown several times during the speech. But when I turned off the DVD, the students were confused. They'd expected to see, well, BATMAN.
Now there's an interesting, Monty-Python type image to contemplate.
Mike says Kate's review totally had me thinking about what a superhero/Shakespeare mash-up might be like.... Then I remembered the awesomeness that is Thor. As such, Branagh is one of the only people on the planet who could get me to watch Shakespeare during my video game time.
As a fan of British television, one of the cool little bonuses that came with watching this film was seeing so many actors I have seen in other works. Also cool was realizing that the second Harry Potter film was a reunion of sorts for Branagh and company, as many of his Henry co-stars would later join the Potter franchise.
The quality of the film is impressive, and the performances human, for the most part. Seeing Shakespeare alive and vibrant is always inspirational to we English Majors, despite the depressing nature of many of his tales.
Perhaps my favorite part of the film was the use of the narrator, which was cleverly used by the Bard as a way to overcome the shortcomings of the stage. While film addresses these shortcomings completely, the narrator's use is still appropriate and brilliant.... plus, I'm a sucker for narration.
As far as Christian Bale is concerned, well, he's in it. As Kate says, the film says far more about his career choices than his style or ability. Though, it is safe to say he likes to act in dramas.
While a very worthy adaptation, I do have to say the battle scene was a bit grotesque.... and even for a guy who enjoys the occasional sword fight, six enemies stabbing one guy to death is a bit excessive, though it pales to the piles of dead teenagers.
The end of the play has always intrigued me. It's almost as if Shakespeare felt bad about how depressing and sad the play was (he killed Falstaff, for goodness sake!) and decided to tack a mini romantic-comedy on the end. It works to lighten the mood, but is still an odd shift in tone.
The funny part about all of this, of course, is that despite these flaws, the film is at least a bit more cheery than the last. WWII trumps Shakespeare in depression-inspiring storytelling... who would've thought?
 |
| Okay, so I couldn't help myself--besides, I think Shakespeare |
| would approve!~Kate |
No comments:
Post a Comment