Henry? Is That You?

Before I begin, I just have to say that I've always been a fan of Kenneth Branagh and I look forward to really diving into his interpretation of Henry V (the character, mostly). I've always said that Shakespeare has reincarnated himself into three people of the twentieth century: Branagh, Laurence Olivier, and Orson Welles (that last one may be controversial). It's one thing to play Hamlet for a little while on stage or in a movie, but these men seemingly lived and breathed Shakespeare. Honestly, I love Branagh and am excited to see the film (I've only ever seen the St. Crispin's Day speech, which was gorgeous by itself). Now, onto the blogging.

I was rather shocked by this Harry when comparing him to the Prince Hal we came to know and love in 1 Henry IV. The speeches he gives are just gorgeous (did I say that already?), particularly the one he gives after fooling the soldiers and is left alone in IV.1 (which I saw as VERY reminiscent of, ironically, Richard II's speech when he was imprisoned in the castle) and, of course, the St. Crispin's Speech in IV.3. As I read these speeches (and felt an overwhelming sense of English pride, despite myself being both English and obviously French), I couldn't help but lose track of the character. Is this what a perfect redemption looks like? Was Harry really such a lovely and eloquent person underneath all of that debauchery? Is it even possible to make such a one-eighty and be the same person? I honestly find it hard to believe that this is the same Hal. I understand he's older and now he has quite a bit of responsibility on his hands, but it seems to me that Shakespeare has either overinflated the virtue of Harry as King, or exaggerated his vices as Prince. Then again, this could be all apart of Shakespeare's plan to show the "like father, like son" aspect of the Henrys. This shining individual that Harry has become shows his near-perfect acting ability he inherited from his father, who was also presented as a near-perfect individual. Henry IV's kindness towards peasants and support from the people disgusted Richard II, who, until his death, saw royalty as far above the common swill that was a subject. Harry, too gained support from the people by living with them in the taverns, while at the same time building up a rather sour reputation so he could prove himself by renouncing the tavern life upon becoming king. This way, Harry gains the support of the people as king tenfold when compared to his father. He even goes so far as to banish Falstaff, who dies of a broken heart. It's this conniving nature that runs through the Henrys, seen first in the father's outward desire to cleanse the land and help and love the people, then seen in the son's outward fall from grace and rise to redemption. Once again, the Henrys rely on their subjects being very stupid and it works for them.

Another part of this play that had me thrown off was the final scene between Harry and Catherine. Since when was this a love story? The whole scene felt like an afterthought. I will admit that Catherine's English lessons provided some foreshadowing, but it still seemed like a very strange scene to end the play with. Once again, here's Harry as the suave, pure man, sweeping Catherine off her feet. It's one of those moments when the character could just jump off the page and yell, "I'm acting!" but Harry's too good at what he does for that. This scene seems to be symbolic of unity of the two countries, expressed through the purity of love and marriage, but it almost creeps up on you at the end, especially since it comes after a rather ridiculous scene depicting three morons arguing over leeks (and the unfortunate death of Pistol's wife through syphilis, which is still a rather unsavory sentiment).

Of course, one must not overlook the humorous undertones of this scene. This reminds me of the scene between Mortimer and his wife in 1 Henry IV, in which neither one could understand the other. That scene was meant to show the foolishness of the rebels, but now this scene at the end of Henry V is very much in conflict with itself: Harry is pure, suave, and uniting the countries, but he's also trying to sweet-talk a woman that barely understands him. Was this scene purely meant for laughs so the play could end one a happy tone? Well, the epilogue certainly kills the mood with its foreboding message of the loss of a kingdom. Perhaps this comedic scene depiction of a language barrier is foreshadowing to Henry VI's loss of France: England and France cannot be together because they will never understand each other. Quite eloquent, if you ask me.

"If we are marked to die, we are enough to do our country loss; and if we live, the fewer men, the greater share of honor." -Henry V

-Sarah Bras