I chose to do my blog this week on whether or not Henry V redeems himself throughout this play. In Henry IV we see Prince Hal as a young and careless child. He did not care about ruling or interithing the throne, all he cared about was drinking and being stupid with Falstaff. After reading Henry IV, I really did not think one character could change so much. Henry’s father really wanted Henry to take the throne and be a good leader. Henry IV really never got a chance to show how great of a leader he was, so he wanted Henry to redeem himself not only to be a better person, but to redeem the mistakes that he, himself made. I see both positives and negatives in the way Henry V rules.
The positives that I see in Henry are that he really understands the people surrounding him. Maybe it is from his days in the taverns, or maybe he is just a people person, but Henry V really knows how to talk with his subjects. One scene that I found interesting was the scene when Henry’s subjects disobey him and Henry decides to execute them. This scene, in the movie and in the written text is an intense dramatic scene. One thing that I think shows that Henry is a good leader is that he made these accusations of disobedient behavior in front of others so he had witnesses when these men confessed. This makes Henry look like a strong and diligent king. Also, I think Falstaff being absent from this play automatically helped in Henry redeeming himself. Falstaff made Henry look bad, and his absence in the play really shows Henry’s maturity and growth.
Although this is true, I feel Henry often delicates his responsibilities to his subjects, which is the downside to his ruling ways. Henry V makes others take responsibility so he is not at fault if anything was to go wrong. For example in the first act of this play when Henry is trying to decide if he should invade France he states, “may I with right and conscious make this claim.” This shows that he is looking for one of his subjects to verbally announce that he should; this way, Henry cannot blame him if anything was to go wrong.
Although Henry is not a perfect leader and he does make mistakes, he is a leader that brought his subjects together in battle. Henry’s strong sense of speech really helped him throughout battles to talk his way out of situations instead of fighting. Henry showed to be a good leader. I believe he would have made his father proud. He not only redeemed himself, but he redeemed the mistakes of his father as well.
4 comments:
Lisa, this was a great analysis and I completely agree with both points that you made. I think it’s safe to say like any person in power Henry V has pros and cons. He has shown such a transformation from Henry IV as you have pointed out. He, himself, confesses in Henry IV that he acts careless and interested in the throne so that when he does take it everyone will be that much shocked at his ability to lead and he proves right. Even Henry V’s father shows shock and amazement when Henry V saves his father in battle. That was really the turning point for me since his father has disowned his so much and wished Hal had been switched with Hotspur.
The scene with the three traitors was a very thought out scene. It shows Henry’s intelligence and ability to con and outsmart the enemy. By inquiring of the prisoners release he shows how the real traitors had no mercy or remorse yet were doing the same thing. The audience then feels he is right for returning the favor and not having any mercy upon them.
Even with his flaws Henry really tries to shine light on his heir instead of the darkness his father brought with his inception of the throne. He is not perfect as you pointed out and no great leader is.
I don't think Henry really "redeems" himself because I don't see him as someone who was actually ever "fallen." I see him as a political mastermind who very carefully orchestrated his public identity so as to manipulate public opinion for his own benefit. I remember watching a movie where a character said that "people like stories." Henry knows this: he creates a narrative for himself in which he begins as a lowly, disreputable son, only to emerge victorious in the end. there is not one other character in the play who is not at the complete mercy of Henry's direction or use. I think this is best illustrated at the very beginning of the play when Canterbury thinks he is manipulating Henry when in fact Henry is making use of him. I don't know if a political situation wherein every person is trying to use everyone else for her/his own advantage is any better than one in which the ruler is blatantly corrupt.
Therese, I hadn't thought about Harry plotting his kingship in such a manner, but the way you present it, it certainly could be fashioned in this way.
Whether he carefully orchestrates it or not I think western culture thrives on rebellion. Even today, we often say that someone has to "get it out of their system." It's almost as if we need to exercise our demons so that we might purge all the impure motives and actions to achieve a realization. Shakespeare, like the rest of us, loves a bad boy. Less than 200 years later Sentimentalism thrives on redemption and loves the story of a reformed "rake." As in "Measure for Measure," we're made better for "being a little bad."
I definitely agree with you that Henry’s time spent in the taverns allowed him to relate better to his subjects. In the scene we watched in the movie, he looked just like one of the guys. It kind of reminds me of how Prince William and Prince Harry “slum it” and go to college bars and parties today; it is strange to think that one day they could potentially be in control (although it is really only a title today). Additionally, I liked the scene in the text and the film where he hands the men the notes that let them know he knows they have been going against him. I really enjoyed how it was portrayed in the film; the powerful music accompanying it really served to show the drama in the scene.
Post a Comment