Shakespeare's Fifth

Henry V is the film that put Kenneth Branagh on the map. Originally released in 1989, I first saw it years later, while I was in college -- as part of a class, actually. It had been such a long time, though, that my memory of it had faded almost completely. Because of that, and just to watch the film without any thoughts of a grade riding on it, I recently decided to check it out again.

The play by William Shakespeare mainly surrounds the Battle of Agincourt, during the Hundred Years' War. It's an area of history that I'm not very well-versed in, but it's interesting to view it through the lens of this play. As one would expect of an English playwright, the play trumps up King Henry, showing how noble and heroic his invasion of France is.

Branagh's presentation on film, however, emphasizes another facet. It's hard to say just how much of it is there in the actual text (though make no mistake; not a word is altered), but there's something decidedly ignoble about the whole endeavor. "The horrors of war" is a major theme in this version, and Henry almost comes off like a bully. A charismatic leader, but a bully at the same time.

It's a hell of a cast. Branagh himself plays Henry. Derek Jacobi is the Chorus (a device from the play to explain the rapid scene changes and sweeping battles that could not be presented on the stage). Ian Holm, Emma Thompson, Robbie Coltrane, Judy Dench, and even a very young Christian Bale all show up in various roles. As always, when Shakespeare is in the hands -- and mouths -- of such skilled actors, it isn't difficult to follow.

But nevertheless, I find Henry V far below the quality of Shakespeare's best. First, the play relies on a great deal of historical knowledge and context the audience is expected to have. I suppose you really can't fault Shakespeare for not anticipating that his works would still be performed four centuries later, but it's nevertheless harder to access than his more well-known (and "timeless") tragedies.

Secondly, the film comes at the end of a cycle of plays about Henry IV. Again, Shakespeare probably isn't to blame if somebody decides to read "The Return of the King" first and then whines about the missing context from "The Fellowship of the Ring" and "The Two Towers." But there it is, that without more background, certain moments fail to land, chiefly the few scenes with Falstaff.

Finally, there are bits that feel extraneous, such as a subplot that involves courting a princess of France. Two long scenes, both almost entirely in French, drag on uncomfortably, and do little to inform our understanding of the title character. (I even recognize just enough French to follow the scenes, but still found them a strange diversion.)

So in the end, while this adaptation is as well presented as I think one could be, I'd still call the film only an average one. Well, a bit above average -- a C+.

Will they be coming to revoke my theater lovers' card now?