Media Comparative Essay: Concerning the 2 well known film versions of Shakespeare's Henry V of Olivier (1944) and Branagh (1989)

Authors Avatar

                Anand Pandit

English/ English Literature Joint Coursework Folder

Media Comparative Essay: (in the medium of film) concerning the 2 well known film versions of Shakespeare’s Henry V of Olivier (1944) and Branagh (1989) in the specific scenes of “A Little Touch of Harry in the Night” and “The Crispin Crispian Speech”

A comparison of these scenes in the two film versions of Henry V indicated above in a discussion of all the major cinematic issues in integrating a story like Shakespeare’s and to include some discussion of the relative success in conveying to a cinema audience the director’s message.

“…We few, we happy few, we band of brothers. For he today who sheds his blood with me shall be my brother. Be he ne'er so vile, this day shall gentle his condition, and gentlemen in England now abed shall think themselves accursed they were not here, and hold their manhood’s cheap whilst any speaks, that fought with us upon St. Crispin's day!”

Henry V Act 4, Scene 3

There is no more stirring summons to arms in all of literature than Henry's speech to his troops on St. Crispin’s Day. Such words have been acted and recited to their own epic proportions in the numerous times they have been performed. How could an extract so uniformly expressed since its Shakespearean origin, be modified in conveying a totally antithetical message? What would be the effect in displaying such a contrasting portrayal to cinematic thousands rather than theatrical hundreds? When 2 films of diverse qualities are constructed, both aimed at the same theme of Shakespeare’s illustration of Henry V, a natural comparison is made between them. It is under this comparison we can contrast the various aspects, which the 2 film versions apply to (with respect to their individual histories, styles and purposes.)

Olivier’s version (1944) released in wartime delivered a message that seemed appropriate behind the propaganda cause of WW2. Laurence Olivier directed and starred in it himself as a patriotic call to the barricades. Olivier greatly aspired to become one of the greatest actors of the twentieth century. His attempt in the role of the main character ‘Henry’ was nothing short of this by delivering an epic performance in the midst of a gay, colourful depiction of battle. Kenneth Branagh’s production (1989) attempted greater realism in the battle scenes and focused more on Henry’s inner conflicts. Therefore there was not as much emphasis on the patriotic elements of the play as in Olivier’s. Branagh’s film was constructed many years after Olivier’s predominant original – when it was considered a classic. Olivier totally advanced Shakespearean film and gave dawn to colour filming. A young Branagh would have to direct and act admirably to stand alongside the preceding version. He would successfully have to “take the familiar and make it new”. Branagh heavily scrutinised Olivier’s epic work, employing and enhancing many of the methods Olivier inspired and developed, causing Branagh’s film to be labelled sometimes as an emulation. Still there is an obvious (yet often subtle) extent to which Branagh tries to differ his scenes.

Both versions densely pack broadly filmic effects, which offer interesting contrast and similarity. Conclusively it is only important to consider why such differences and resemblances would be made between the two and ultimately the overall of success in each.

“A Little Touch of Harry in the Night” (thematically) comprises of the night meetings of the disguised king with the various men in his army – each type representative of the different factions within.

The king’s first encounter is with the bombast Pistol who provides for humour (to help lighten the rather brooding and reflective scene). Comical phrases such as “Know’st thou Fluellen” entail each film’s Pistol to act preposterously to generate a loutish Welsh accent. Pistol in his posturing character is played against Henry’s cloaked dignity in both films and both use the diligent method of distance to separate the two characters. A bold decision is carried out by Olivier to cause the camera to be shot in the entire perspective of Henry. Thus we see Pistol in this version as Henry does. The purpose of this is to create a sense of anonymity and hidden authority in Henry that is not conveyed well in the Branagh adaptation. His carries a much more (periodical) mainstream film technique in use with the trio shot of Henry in a half eyed view, a full view of Pistol and a side garment view of Henry. Branagh cleverly bears in mind to separate characters in the shot, again to easily distinct the class difference. Branagh’s character seems too mysterious to fit in with the background, which counters with Olivier who blends well into the background with his faceless approach. Olivier’s more successful style is also able to maintain the effect of intensity throughout this section. His direction of a constant view allows the audience to imagine how concentrated Henry’s focus upon his subjects. There is a very high self-effacement – a king’s desire to be ordinary which is not well carried through in Branagh’s due to its somewhat cryptic overshadowing.

Join now!

Subsequently the comical intricacy is continued further in the stalked meeting of Fluellen and Gower. Thematically the scene represents the faction of the officer class. We observe Fluellen the fiery character who stands on the “ceremonies of war” in a slightly scrupulous and humoresque fashion. As Henry comments Fluellen insists upon the notions of “loyalty, valour and discipline”. The films carry little difference in their dialogue - the main technique that appears in both, is the control and use of a fire that prolongs further on. Olivier uses the effect of a fire realistically in a low visibility environment. He ...

This is a preview of the whole essay