Olivier's Henry V and Branagh's Henry V - A Comparison

Disclaimer: This essay / commentary is bred from entirely my own thoughts, opinion, and interpretation. It is not to be regarded as authoritative.

     Laurence Olivier's Henry V  opens with a flyer advertising the play hovering around the skyline of 1590-1600s London. The movie's opening sequence shows wonderful shots of the Globe, of the boisterous groundlings, the aristocrats taking their places in a dignified manner, of fruit-sellers taking advantage of the hustle and bustle to sell their produce. What was really interesting was that, from the onset, it was already made clear that what the audience - the ones at the Globe and the ones watching their TV sets - is seeing is a staged play.

     Thus, modern audience would have an inkling of what a Shakespearean play would have look like back in the 17th century. A layer of richness is sewn into the film as the modern audience not only watched the play, but witnessed the whole process of its production - how the actors are dressing up and getting ready, what the actors would've done when rain starts to fall on the open air Globe Theatre. There is also a comical and lighthearted tone injected into the film as well, with the Archbishop of Canterbury botching up his lines, and the Bishop of Ely leaving his hat offstage.

     In stark contrast, Kenneth Branagh's Henry V is treated almost like a gritty, realistic historical drama. This King, compared to Olivier's Henry, is less sure of himself, is more intense and brooding of his responsibility as King. The king is all fury and righteous anger in one moment, and in the next he is racked with guilt, broodingly carrying the burden of the throne on his shoulder. He speaks softly and dangerously at some points, and the next he is mad with rage, knocking his bedfellow Lord Scroop down onto the table, anguished with the latter's betrayal.

     Branagh deliberately takes pains to dial up the emotions, feelings, fears, insecurities of the characters. Even to the point, admittedly, of being a little melodramatic and hammy. Each character is lovingly given a backstory, with flashbacks in order for the audience to truly empathise and connect with them. Henry, though obviously the protagonist in the play, is portrayed in an ambivalent light. He is tortured by his two selves - Harry whose roots he has not forgotten, and the King of England, who needs to be the model and example of the army and indeed, of the nation.

     The agony of being king, whilst present also in Olivier's Henry during his soliloquy and prayer, is rather fleeting as opposed to Branagh's Henry. Perhaps part of the reason why it was harder for the audience to establish a deeper emotional connection to Olivier's Henry is because we know that it is a theatrical play. Hence it put forward an additional layer which creates an emotional distance between the audience and the characters (whom we know are play-actors).

     Olivier's version, produced in 1944, has a political factor influencing its treatment. Produced just after the Second World War, it is a movie that sought to boost patriotism and national morale. (Davies, The Shakespeare films of Laurence Olivier)  Hence, we could see that the movie was leaning more towards the potential and possibilities of a new start. When the Duke of Burgundy gives his speech about the cost of war, we see the desolation of the French lands, but it soon pans up to a regal, beautiful castle. The possibilities and prosperity the marriage of the two kingdoms yielded are emphasised. On the other hand, Branagh's Henry focused on the consequences and heartache of war that are borne by both parties. The audience is stirred up as they see the bodies of young boys laying strewn across the muddy plain. But there is also the feeling of empathy for the enemy, as the French also gathers up their dead, and as the Frenchwoman attempts to assault King Henry for the loss of her loved one.

     All in all, a very interesting contrast seen between the two films. Olivier's Henry is self-assured and more kinglike in his mien, and we gain a certain insight to the historical context of staging a Shakespearean play. While on the other hand, Branagh seeks to be authentic in that he wishes to unveil the complexities, tragedy of war, and of being King.