WS ABC Temporary intermission notice

To all my faithful readers, please note that as from today, February 27th, until the Ides of March, this blogsite will not be showing any new blogs as I am going to the UK for two weeks.

I just hope that I have a better time than Sir Thomas Lovell who remarked to the Lord Chamberlain in Henry VIII 
(Act 1. sc iii) that:
                      
                                 "Travell'd gallants
That fill the court with quarrels, talk, and tailors."

and that my journeys are more like:

"The west yet glimmers with some streaks of day;
Now spurs the lated traveller apace
To gain the timely inn."

                                        &&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 

WS ABC Henry V Films

The iconic film image of Laurence Olivier playing Henry V.

During the past 73 years the play Henry V has been filmed twice: once in 1944 directed by Laurence Olivier and once in 1989 directed by Kenneth Brannagh. Both of these directors also played the leading role of Henry V.

The 1944 version opens with the cast appearing on the stage of the Globe theatre and then as the plot develops the film moves into a more 'natural' cinematic format. Olivier not only directed, co-produced (with Filippo Del Giudice) and starred in this production but he, together with Dallas Bower and Alan Dent adapted Shakespeare's play to fit the screen. In an effort to 'close the dramatic circle' the film reverts to the stage of the Globe at the end.

This film was shot in 1943, and the wartime Prime Minister, Winston Churchill told Olivier to make it a morale-booster for the troops who were due to invade Nazi Europe in the D-Day campaign. The film was shot in County Wicklow in neutral Ireland although the inner sets were made at Denham Studios, Bucks., UK. According to Wikipedia, hundreds of the local Irish population were hired to take part in the Battle of Agincourt scenes and those who brought their own horses with them were paid extra.     

This film remained quite faithful to the original text except that Olivier deleted three scenes: (1) Henry V's speech about how his troops will commit rape and pillage in Harfleur if its citizens don't surrender, (2) the beheading of the three rebellious lords who were responsible for the Southampton Plot and (3) Henry's refusal to stop the hanging of Bardolph for looting. This end of this film also differs from WS's play in that Olivier leaves out Henry's speech at the end warning the French about any further rebellious behaviour. The reason for this last change was simple. In 1943-4 England and France were allies and it didn't make sense that a film which was partly bankrolled by the British government threaten their French allies.

In contrast to Olivier's version, Kenneth Brannagh's production of Henry V was made as a purely commercial venture. It made over $10 million in the USA alone. Another difference between the two versions is that the opening Chorus, spoken by Derek Jacobi wears modern dress although the rest of the actors wear the clothes and uniforms of 1415. Jacobi continued to do this during several other parts of the film where the Chorus explains how the play/film is progressing.

In an effort to put this film in its historic setting, Brannagh included a few flashbacks at the beginning with references to how Henry V's friend, Falstaff, died. Also, unlike Olivier, most of this film was shot inside, at Shepperton Studios, including the great Agincourt battlefield scenes.

The battle scenes in Brannagh's version are much more bloody and gory than Olivier's and are more realistic as a result. Brannagh also filmed his Agincourt with a rainy background as opposed to Olivier's more sunny background. Historically Brannagh was more correct in this and his film certainly removes any idea that there was no glory to be had on the battlefield. If you look at the victorious Brannagh/Henry V at the end of the battle, you can see he is covered with mud and blood. 

A very muddy and bloody Brannagh at the end of shooting the Battle of Agincourt

Personal observation:While I think that Brannagh recreated this Medieval battle as realistically as possible, I do not think that this proud king would ever have helped his exhausted men carry the dead and wounded off the battlefield as we see in the 1989 film.

Both of these films were well received. Olivier's film showed that it was possible, despite previous moderate attempts, to make good films out of WS plays According to Wikipedia, in 2007, Military History Magazine listed Olivier's film as 75th among the "100 Greatest War Movies." In addition, Olivier received a special award and the film was nominated for the Best Picture, Actor, Musical Score, Interior Decoration and Colour.

Olivier: "We few, we happy few..." 
Note:By the way, the scene showing the fully-armoured Olivier being winched onto his horse is completely incorrect. If the knights' armour had been so heavy, they would have never have been able to fight in battle.

Brannagh's film was so well-received that it holds a 100% rating on 'Rotten Tomatoes,' a rating that had been equalised by the earlier 1944 version. Variety magazine wrote that this film was a "stirring, gritty and enjoyable pic which offers a plethora of fine performances from some of the UK's brightest talents." In addition to Kenneth Brannagh, these actors included Derek Jacobi (Chorus), Paul Scofield (French king), Judi Dench (Mistress Quickly), Ian Holm Fluellen), Emma Thompson (Princess Katherine), Brian Blessed (Earl of Exeter), and Geraldine McEwen (Alice).

Renee Asherson as Princess Katherine with Henry V, (Olivier.)

(Right) Emma Thompson as Princess Katherine with Henry V (Brannagh).

In terms of awards, the 1989 film was nominated for three Oscars for Best Director, Costume Design and Actor {Brannagh} and it also won many awards from the British equivalent of the Oscars, the Chicago Film Critics Assoc., European Awards, and from several other prestigious institutions.

In the earlier version, Felix Aylmer played the Archbishop of Canterbury and Leslie Banks and the recently half-blinded Esmond Knight played the Chorus and Fluellen respectively. 

WS ABC Henry V & Agincourt

AS SHAKESPEARE WROTE, HENRY V's VICTORY AT Agincourt was certainly a great English triumphant defeat of the opposing French army. However, as the Bard was more interested in getting bums on seats in the Globe (of which he was a major shareholder) he was more interested in supplying the groundlings and others with a good show rather than concentrating on historical honesty. This means that the play Henry V is somewhat inaccurate when it comes to telling what really happened on that drizzly but dramatic day: October 25th 1415.

                    Medieval picture of the Battle of Agincourt

This battle happened to be one of a series which happened during the Hundred Years War (actually 116 Years: 1337-1453 when England and France fought over the French throne). The Battle of Agincourt came just over one month after Henry V had captured Harfleur and was on his way back to England.

After Harfleur, Henry had aimed to march his army along the north-east coast of France to the English-held town of Calais and then cross the English Channel (La Manche -the Sleeve to the French) to be home in time for tea and crumpets. Unfortunately for him, the French insisted on attacking and ambushing him en route. The losses that these attacks, together with many of his men dying of dysentery - "the bloody flux" - meant that by the time he reached Agincourt (Azincourt to the French) Henry had only five thousand men left alive. This "few, this happy few" was about one-third of the original size of the army he had brought over to France two months earlier. 

Henry V's route to Agincourt via Harfleur (Aug-October 1415)

The night before the battle had been rainy. This meant that both sides agreed to wait until mid-morning so that the ground could dry out a little, at least on the top surface. This hanging around waiting for the hostilities to break out was somewhat unnerving for Henry's reduced forces, especially when they saw that they were facing a well-armed unknown to them, poorly-led enemy. This was why Henry had to give his men such a rousing pre-battle speech.

      An inaccurate Medieval picture of the Battle of Agincourt

Half-way through the morning, Henry gave the order that his archers should open fire. Immediately, the archers, the bulk of his army, began to rain down thousands and thousands of arrows on the French army which consisted mainly of infantry and heavy cavalry. Henry's archers and arrows - called "the machine-gun of the Middle Ages" by some historians, caused havoc among the crowded French forces. As the unprotected horses were stung by the arrows, they reared up and sent the other horses crashing to the ground in a ripple effect. As a result, the heavily armed knights fell onto the muddy churned up ground with them and found it difficult to stand up as the mud tended to suck their smooth plate armour back down.

Therefore, these French knights were easy targets for the English archers who, having fired off their thousands of arrows, now swarmed in and attacked the fallen Frenchmen with their daggers, swords and mallets. If this wasn't bad enough for the Constable of France and his men, the French knights in the front lines were being crowded by the lines of men behind them who also wanted to push forward to attack the "weak and niggardly" army and win some glory for themselves.

  Battle plan of the battle. Note how the two wooded areas cramp the French army.


Bottom line: the French didn't have a chance to win. Their army was confined between two wooded areas, (see map) and they were being attacked by the English from the front and being pushed and harried by their own men from the rear. In addition, the English archers - about 4,500 of them were firing ten arrows a minute in the opening stages of the battle. This meant that as the 45,000 arrows per minute arrow-storm was raining down, the Frenchmen didn't dare look up for fear of being hit in the eye by an arrow. 

And then from below, once they had fallen down in the sticky muddy or been thrown by their pierced and hysterical horses, they were sitting ducks for the opposing English ex-archers, now infantrymen. The result was that thousands of Frenchmen were killed that day as opposed to tens or hundreds of Englishmen. (I have to be vague here as no strict records were taken at the time.)

                   Street signs in Agincourt today. (Author's photos)

According to Henry V, in the last scene of Act IV, ten thousand Frenchmen were killed and only four English nobles and twenty-five soldiers suffered the same fate. This last number is certainly not true, but it does give an idea of the ratio of casualties that happened on that grim day. Juliet Barker, an Agincourt expert, writes that 112 English casualties can definitely be identified, while other sources claim that the number of English dead ranged from four to sixteen hundred.

Memorials to the battle on the battlefield today. (Author's photos)

Another point where our William strayed from the truth may be seen in Henry's famous pre-battle speech, "We few, we happy few." of the eight nobles the king refers to, only three of them, the Dukes of Gloucester, York and Sir Thomas Erpingham were definitely there at the time. The others were probably left behind as part of the garrison at Harfleur, or they remained in England in order to prevent the Scottish, France's ally from attacking England during the king's prolonged absence.  

(Above) Agincourt Museum today.

 Two memorial crosses for 1915
(left) and 1415 Agincourt (below).

Today, when you visit the battlefield, as I did several years ago, it is very hard to imagine this scene of mass death and pain that happened some six hundred years ago. The sun was shining, the birds were singing and the wheat was swaying gently in the breeze. The small village of Agincourt with its special museum was going about its quiet rural business, while in the centre, another monument to the fallen French of 1915 stood there, a grim reminder that fighting still goes on. Except this time, the English and French were allies, not sworn enemies.  

                                 The battlefield today

The author with a full-size bow similar to that Henry's archers would have used. (Photo: Derek Greenacre)

Next time: "Henry V" Films.
For comments: Facebook  or:  wsdavidyoung@gmail.com 

WS ABC Henry V

I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE NOBLE HENRY V.
As Shakespearesbestfriend, I enjoy reading and watching the play, but on the other, my knowledge of history and my desire to see the heroes as 'good guys' means that since I know that our Henry was a religious fanatic and a particularly cruel king and warrior, I am having problems relating to him.

What do I mean? After beating a much stronger army at Agincourt, he returned to England to great acclaim, as truly reflected by WS at the end of the play, but then had to go back to France to finish off some unfinished business, i.e. regain the rest of the land there that he thought was legally his.

                         Tom Hiddleton playing "Henry V."

This meant, that after conquering Lower Normandy, with relative ease, he set out to besiege Rouen in order to consolidate his gains. The net result of this long and miserable campaign was that he starved the townspeople and finally forced them to leave the city. There, 12,000 people, mainly women and children were forced to live in a ditch which surrounded the town during the autumn and winter of 1418 -1419. Many of them starved to death, their only relief coming on Christmas Day when Henry allowed two priests to bring them food.

Following this unChristian behaviour, Henry severely punished/executed all of the French lords who had opposed him
before going on to capture Paris and marry Princess Katherine Valois in 1420. This lady later became the grandmother of King Henry VII through her second marriage to Owen Tudor. Incidentally, WS does a great job in compressing and erasing five years of history (1415-1420) when he has Henry V woo and marry Katherine immediately after the Battle of Agincourt.

Henry V on a British postal stamp showing the iconic portrait of this king. It is said that he had this portrait painted of him in profile as he didn't wish an ugly scar from the of Battle of Shrewsbury (1403) on the other side of his face to be visible.


However, before carrying out any of the above nasty deeds, Henry also acted viciously at home in persecuting, imprisoning, burning and executing the Lollards, a Christian movement which had been established to reform the Catholic Church. One of its leaders was Sir John Oldcastle who was a friend of the king. But this didn't save him in the end when he organised a rebellion. The king put this down and Oldcastle was executed since 'justice had to be seen to be done.' (Incidentally, it is claimed that Oldcastle who was alleged to have been a good friend of Henry while he was a prince was WS's model for Falstaff while the stern king was a rumbustious Prince Hal.) 

Finally, in Act V, scene vii, it is reported that Henry has had many of his prisoners of war killed when he suspected that they may rise up and attack his men from the rear. According to the medieval (and current) rules of war, such behaviour was forbidden, and for this allegedly God-fearing king to have done so was a truly shocking event. As Fluellen the Welshman comments, "Kill the poys and the luggage! 'tis expressly against the law of arms..." WS included this to show that however good a king Henry was, his character (like all of WS's heroes) was flawed.
  

OK, now that I've got that off my chest, Henry V has proved to be one of the more popular historical plays that WS wrote. After a slow beginning with a stress on the situation which eventually leads to Henry taking his army to beat the French at Harfleur ("Once more unto the breach, dear friends...") and Agincourt, ("We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...") and the pace for the second half of the play picks up.

What appeals to the English audiences is that the English are shown as brave, patriotic and manly as opposed to the French who come through as vain, boastful, argumentative and useless warriors. In addition, there are several scenes of light relief, including a 'French vocabulary-challenged' king trying to woo Princess Katherine as well as a scene or two involving the devious foot-soldiers, Nym, Bardolph and Pistol.

Kenneth Brannagh (actor & director) of the 1989 film "Henry V" at the end of the bloody and realistic section showing the Battle of Agincourt. To me he seems to be relieved that not only is the battle over, but that he has completed the filming of this long dramatic scene.

In addition to the above contrasts, we see other contrasts within the king himself. On the one hand, he is the born leader, the ambitious king standing at the front of his troops leading them into battle, ("Cry 'God for Harry! England and Saint George!'"), but on the other, he is the man of silent pre-battle prayer, ("O God of battles! steel my soldiers' hearts...) as well as being the king who disguises himself to see how his men are feeling before setting out to fight the much larger French army. As John Goodwin writes in A Short Guide to Shakespeare's Plays, "Henry V is without doubt a celebration of war. But it is a criticism of war too."

 Next time: The Battle of Agincourt
Comments: wsdavidyoung@gmail.com  and   Facebook