people, but not in the reader’s eyes. Because of modern society it has become human
instinct to question others motives for their actions, and this is what we must do when
analysing Henrys character. However, before doing this we must discuss Henrys
actions, and thus discover his motives.
One of the most important and outstanding point that Shakespeare wished to
put across was Henry’s constant blame passing. There are many examples of this in
the text, he achieves this mainly, by putting important decisions in the hands of
others, such as Canterbury, the French and even God, “But this lies all within the will
of God”. Although he consistently employs this method, he still wishes to be seen as
responsible in the eyes of his peers, for example using again the quote, “ May I with
right and conscience make this claim?” He wants to make it seem as though he is
taking on the French by himself by using the word “I” as opposed to “we”, he gives
the impression of being a solitary fighter, as well as one that is apparently more than
willing to accept huge responsibilities.
Henry seems to have no problem with abandoning and betraying his friends,
to the extent of ordering ones death. This lack of compassion can be seen in two ways,
through these decisions, Henry was again seen in a favourable light by the Tudors, but
modern readers often see the decisions he made as cold and heartless, as well as
calculating and manipulative. Henry’s ruthless determination at Harfleur was seen at
the time, as a masterful display of power, and outstanding observation and execution
tactics. But did Henry do the best he could for his countries benefit, and were the
decisions he made for the wellbeing of the majority? Perhaps all the decisions he
made and lives he terminated were acts of simple showmanship. This strong sense of
willpower is made very explicit in his speech he made to his men before the battle
“Well have we done, thrice-valiant countrymen. But all’s not done, yet keep the
French the field”. We can observe he wants to encourage his army to possess the same
ambition he himself appears to retain. He demonstrates his power once again by
showing mercy to the French messenger that arrives with a message for Henry from
Harfleur. This in my opinion is simply done for effect, mainly because, as we have
already observed, Henry showed a great lack of compassion when it came to dealing
with even his closest of friends. Another example of Henry using people as objects
would be from the beginning of the text, before the battle. Henry successfully and
tactfully manages to use the Christian church, of which he is believed to be the most
honourable member, to his advantage. By utilising the church, through Canterbury
and Ely, he can justify his actions, again to make him appear to be a law abiding
Christian to his people. Because, if god justifies it, Henry can make it appear he is
doing the right thing.
Henry appears to be a very well educated person, although he appeared to be
some what of a rouge in his youth,” Hear him debate of commonwealth affairs, You
would say it hath been all in all his study”. He displays his wisdom, and incredible
control over language “To steal his sweet and honeyed sentences.” through speeches.
One excellent example of such a demonstration would be the speech Henry made to
his men just before the battle. The purpose of which was to instil in them a sense of
patriotism honour and courage. The main point he wishes to make, is that although
they are massively outnumbered, he does not want anymore men than he already has,
“Gods will, I pray thee wish not one man more.” Creating a tremendous sense of
community between them. His main speech starts at line 18 and finishes at line 67, the
sheer size of this speech, tells us how much convincing Henry believes he has to do.
The King employs a clever use of propaganda throughout by using such stirring
sentences as, “But we in it shall be remembered. We few, we happy few, we band of
brothers”. The speech served its purpose at the time, and was an inspiration to
Henry’s men, although today this could be seen as underhand and immoral, as he is
obviously manipulating the men, and using them as objects be it for personal gain or
otherwise. Taking all of these points into consideration many modern day directors of
productions choose to portray Henry as a very negative character, often making him
into the evil side of the story, and the sinister corruption that lurks behind
Shakespeare’s story, if it is studied. Often described as a “thug” in recent versions of
the play, this is the way most people would tend to view Henry. I believe that by
looking at Henry’s character in general throughout, he could be seen as an honourable
character, with a few simple flaws, although the genuine Henry, is what we find
behind this mask. A manipulative identity, who views the people around him as rungs
in a ladder, that are simply there to aid him.
Ultimately we can see both sides of Henry, indeed at some points in the work,
we can begin to admire and respect him, he does but amazing amounts of effort into
persuading his men and justifying his causes. His displays of oratory throughout seem
genuine, and meaningful. Apart from this there are numerable occasions in which we
see Henry fulfilling his role as a good Christian, and as a good leader to his people.
He is loved by many of his men, “He is as full of valour as of kindness”, he is honest
to his people, and manages to demonstrate mercy to the French. A good example of
the superior side of Henry is in his conversations with Kate. In one conversation with
the French princess, Henry tells her he is a friend of the French people, “But in loving
me you should love the friend of France.” However, this again may be an intelligent
use of propaganda to persuade Kate to marry him. Although I have already begun to
label Henry as being an unfavourable person, I would not classify him as being
ruthless. I believe he is aware of the consequences of his actions, and there are some
prices he is not willing to pay. Although Henry is in pursuit of victory, and works
both himself and his men extremely hard in order to obtain it, I do not believe he
would do anything to claim it. It is likely that in some cases, such as earlier in the text
where Henry is constantly passing the blame to others, that he is not doing this out of
a callus, and cold disregard for others, but they are simply the actions of a young and
vulnerable king with little to no experience of such troubling times. Again to add
further to this list, we can observe his strength, when not allowing himself and his
kingdom to be ransomed by the French, along with his composure when receiving the
tennis balls from the French, “We are glad the Dauphin is so pleasant with us. His
present and your pains we thank you for.”
Although Henry does use propaganda, and persuasive manipulation when
motivating his men, he is not glorifying war. To his men, he is glorifying, courage,
sacrifice, and the will to fight for ones country by simply listing the personal benefits
and rewards that all these things hold. In Olivier’s film, he chooses to focus in on this
concept, he depicts Henry as a heroic character, and shows the above statement to be
true. However Branagh’s version caters for a more modern audience, twisting this
idea, leading us to believe Henry has a sadistic temperament and ideology, and so
illustrates Henry’s manipulation as glorification of war. If explore these two films in
greater detail we can find that there are very few similarities in the way that the
directors chose to depict Henry. At the time Olivier was making his version of
Shakespeare’s play, the British soldiers were preparing for the Second World War.
Because of this, all of Henry’s actions were that of an honourable and fair king, it is
again because of the time period and situation that war seems to be glorified in
Olivier’s film. We can also notice when comparing the original script and this film
that the director chooses to cut sections that have a traitorous or treasonous content.
The reason for this is simply to avoid instilling such thoughts into the British troops.
Branagh’s version however seems to have a more realistic and grittier tone
throughout, all the outtakes from the original film were kept, it stuck firmly to
Shakespeare’s script and was further exploitative of the depth of Henry’s character.
Branagh, stretched to conceal nothing from his audience, and indeed the way he
actually films his work is a stark contrast to that of Olivier’s. When comparing the
way the two are filmed we can observe that whilst Olivier’s version is set upon lavish
backdrops and begins on a stage before an audience in somewhat of a humorous
manner, Branagh chooses to shoot his scenes on location, giving the dramatisation a
darker semblance. We are shown rain, dirt, bloody battle scenes, and the horrendous
consequences that are laden upon a king and his kingdom. We are shown truth, and
that is why the this version is today consider the best.
In conclusion, through analysing Henry’s character, I would maintain my
original argument. Although through observing what I have said in the main body of
this essay it is possible to deduce that there is an outstanding aspect of all three
original elements contained within him. Nevertheless it is obvious that the strongest
aspect of Henry Shakespeare wished to enforce, was his manipulative, controlling and
often sinister side. Again, it would not, of course be fair to say this is Henry’s only
characteristic, Indeed he shows a somewhat caring and considerate side at times, most
predominantly during the time he spends convincing Kate to be his wife. Finally, I
would like to state that, it is easy to perceive Shakespeare’s Henry as being either a
loyal, and heroic King, or as a dominating, overruling leader. Because of this, the
main difficulty faced by a director of such a play or film, would be the techniques
involved in including all three of these guises in one character. This is why in the two
films I have above mentioned we see two different Henry’s. The directors have
included all three, but one aspect has dominated, leading the viewer to have one fixed
view of Henry. Yet, the ideal compromise would be to encourage the reader or viewer
to determine Henry’s personality through careful character study, thus realising the
true essence of Shakespeare’s character.