The King's Character in a Cinematic Production of Shakespeare's Henry V

when he came to the throne. He had advisers to help him with the day

The purpose of this report is to compare and contrast two movies made about Hamlet. I will present and discuss different aspects of the version directed by Kenneth Branagh to that of Franco Zefirelli. During this paper you will be presented with my opinions in reference to determining which version of Hamlet best reflects the original text by Shakespeare. I will end this paper with my belief and explanation of which movie is true to the original play.

Henry V, a play narrating King Henry V’s journey to invading the French throne and take what is ‘rightfully’ his. The five act drama had been written by William Shakespeare, whose work had consisted of unrivalled plays and poems. This play, acts as a sequel to Henry IV, viewing Henry’s drastic growth from a reckless Prince to an unforgettable King. Like many other plays, Henry V consists of many major themes that shape the story; one being betrayal. This essay will further discuss the theme of betrayal and its impact on the play.

Kenneth Branagh’s interpretation of Hamlet emphasized different importance's of the play. His version differs from that of Zeffirelli’s because; he makes use of the entire text from Shakespeare’s original work. Branagh also does not hold the time period authentic. Although his version of the play was not altered as much as Zeffirelli’s, he is still able to hold the attention of modern critics and viewers. However, by transfiguring the play into a Victorian background, Branagh’s film completely alters the mindset and feel of a true Shakespearean play.

Hamlet, a tragedy by William Shakespeare shows a lot of adaptations to movies. Hamlet by Mel Gibson (1990) and Kenneth Branagh (1996) interpret and portray the play by Shakespeare in different ways. The two film versions of Act IV of Hamlet have many differences and similarities. Kenneth Branagh’s version of Hamlet is seen covering most of the original text of Shakespeare’s play of Hamlet unlike the Mel Gibson version which omits many scenes and dialogues. The film version of Hamlet featuring Kenneth Branagh is a more successful production of Shakespeare’s play of Act IV according to its setting, editing choices and character portrayal.

Henry V, written by William Shakespeare, is by far one of his more historically accurate plays. This play is the life of young King Henry V, who ascended to the throne after his father, Henry IV's death. These times were much different for England, as Henry V was a noble lord whom everyone loved, whereas angry factions haunted his father's reign. Shakespeare portrays a fairly accurate account of the historical Henry V, but certain parts are either

The differences in styles of language truly brings alive the plays' various characters, from the lowliest drawer to the noblest knight. The playwright's audience would have been composed of a similarly diverse spectrum of society, from the groundlings at the foot of the stage, to the members of the court in attendance, and these disparate members of the audience might very well have come away from the plays with different interpretations of

To examine Shakespeare’s exploration of identity as a means of control, it is important to understand what all constitutes each character’s identity. In the case of Henry, for one, it is apparent that the actions of his past alter his perceived identity throughout the play. Before Henry speaks his first lines in the play, the Bishop of Ely calls Henry a “true lover of the holy Church,” to which the Archbishop of Canterbury replies, “The courses of [Henry’s] youth promised it not” (1.1.23-24). This reckless reputation follows Henry further into the play when an ambassador from France delivers a message to Henry from the Dauphin: “…the prince our master says that you savor too much of your youth and bids you to be advised there’s naught in France that can be with a nimble galliard won: you cannot revel into dukedoms there” (1.2.250-254). Along with this message, the Dauphin included a gift of tennis balls meant to further insult Henry. Even later in the play, after the English won the battle at Harfleur, the noble Frenchmen continue to underestimate Henry’s ability as a leader: “What a wretched and peevish fellow is this King of England, to mope with his fat-brained followers so far out of his knowledge” (3.8.120-122).

King Henry V, is one of the only successful monarchs in Shakespeare’s plays. He displays great strength and intelligence. King Henry V is capable of uniting all of his people in his St. Crispin’s Day speech as they prepare to go to battle. The troops were greatly outnumbered and believed they had no chance at winning. But King Henry makes them feel like they are part of something important, and by doing this he motivates them to fight their hardest.

William Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part 1, composed during the last years of the 16th century, is as much as character study as it is a retelling of a moment in history. Though the play is titled for one king, it truly seems to revolve around the actions of the titular character's successor. Indeed, Henry IV is a story of the coming-of-age of Prince Hal and of the opposition that he must face in this evolution. This process gives narrative velocity to what is essentially a conflagration between two personality types. In Prince Hal, the audience is given a flawed but thoughtful individual. Equally flawed but more given over to action than thought is his former ally and now-nemesis, Hotspur. In the latter, Shakespeare offers a warrior and a man of action and in the former, the playwright shows a politician in his nascent stages of development. The contrast between them will drive the play's action.

The last genre Shakespeare uses is History; an example of this is ‘Henry V’ where he bases this play on actual historic events. The play is set around the year 1420 and King Henry is faced with the difficult decision, whether to attack France or not. There are a lot of incidents in this play where Shakespeare exaggerates the qualities/attributes of King Henry; he changes the way we think of King Henry. The attributes of King Henry are exaggerated to such an extent we believe that he must have been ‘the perfect

Henry V is a wise and loyal king, changing from a wild youth to a mature king. He is described to be an intelligent, thoughtful and an efficient statesman. He thinks carefully whether to invade France or not which represents his responsible character. King Henry gives a very strong speech which gave courage and confidence to his army that they could win the battle. This character describes him to be a king of great ability to fight and having good administrative skills. Throughout the play Henry’s nature is religious, merciful and compassionate.

Additionally, the plot of the play portrays a turning point for English history, the rise of the Tudor dynasty. In combination with Machiavelli’s tenants, the fact that Elizabeth was the patron of the arts also influenced Shakespeare’s piece. Shakespeare evidently courts the Queen with the twisted characterization of Richard that leads to her current role as Queen of England. For example, in Act V scene V Richmond exclaims,

The catalog of characters from different countries both emphasizes the diversity of medieval England and intensifies the audience’s sense of Henry’s tremendous responsibility to his nation. For a play that explores the nature of absolute political power, there is something remarkably democratic in this enlivening portrayal of rich and poor, English and Welsh, Scottish and Irish, as their roles intertwine in the war effort and as the king attempts to give them direction and momentum. Interestingly, we could see that this disparate group of character types is not unanimous in supporting Henry.

There are three distinct levels of action during the play. Firstly, we as the audience see the characters play out the main narratives. Secondly, Shakespeare introduces a play-within-a-play during which the audience observes the mechanicals acting out their tragedy, and thirdly, as part of an epilogue, we are addressed directly by Puck. These differing levels of viewing the play encourages the audience to reflect upon, and compare, the interplay between the levels of address; when the three levels are compared to each other a deeper reading of the play becomes possible, even though the structure is irrational with regards to rational narrative structures. The dramatic conflict is resolved after the fourth act, begging the question of why Shakespeare opted for a play-within-a-play for his final act. The effect of “Nature” (V.i. 278) is contrasted between the main