Even glowing reviews of Olivier's "Henry V" acknowledge that this movie is a simplified, stripped-down version of the classic play; the morally ambiguous elements of Henry's character have been hacked out, and the story has been made more aggressively patriotic to appeal to a World War II audience.
Well...OK...but ain't that rather a big problem? I mean to ask, what's so great about seeing Shakespeare doctored up into war propaganda? Certainly, the original play was somewhat patriotic and gung-ho, but it also contained moral gray area, which is eliminated here. Hence, this is an inferior adaptation that waters down its source material.
OK, so there's no denying that this movie is cleverly staged. The opening scenes set in the Globe are pretty imaginative, and there's an energy to the pacing that works. But still, so many elements strike a false note. Olivier, for instance, seems to shout out his lines without subtlety, as though trying too hard to generate excitement.
I also don't really like the look of the film. The Globe scenes work fine, but once Olivier leaves the theater, the action is staged on large but incredibly fake-looking sets. The whole production looks too phony, too clean, too sanitized. Henry doesn't get a splatter of mud or a drop of blood on himself in the battle. It's all ridiculously pristine, and safe, and not at all daring. In short, it's "feel-good" Shakespeare.
Kenneth Branagh's 1989 film version is, to be perfectly blunt, almost infinitely better than this movie. It's grittier, darker, and closer to the original play (including the moral gray area). By comparison, the Olivier version looks like "March of the Wooden Soldiers." Don't get me wrong, I usually love 1940s movies because I think they have better scripts than contemporary films - but, I make an exception for literary adaptations, which tend to be more faithful and more powerful today than ever before. Thus, the 1980s Henry V can indeed be better than its '40s counterpart.
To me, this film is best understood in the context of World War II. As a wartime production, it's impressive - but it remains tied to that period, and therefore it is fundamentally dated. The original play, on the other hand, is timeless.
Well...OK...but ain't that rather a big problem? I mean to ask, what's so great about seeing Shakespeare doctored up into war propaganda? Certainly, the original play was somewhat patriotic and gung-ho, but it also contained moral gray area, which is eliminated here. Hence, this is an inferior adaptation that waters down its source material.
OK, so there's no denying that this movie is cleverly staged. The opening scenes set in the Globe are pretty imaginative, and there's an energy to the pacing that works. But still, so many elements strike a false note. Olivier, for instance, seems to shout out his lines without subtlety, as though trying too hard to generate excitement.
I also don't really like the look of the film. The Globe scenes work fine, but once Olivier leaves the theater, the action is staged on large but incredibly fake-looking sets. The whole production looks too phony, too clean, too sanitized. Henry doesn't get a splatter of mud or a drop of blood on himself in the battle. It's all ridiculously pristine, and safe, and not at all daring. In short, it's "feel-good" Shakespeare.
Kenneth Branagh's 1989 film version is, to be perfectly blunt, almost infinitely better than this movie. It's grittier, darker, and closer to the original play (including the moral gray area). By comparison, the Olivier version looks like "March of the Wooden Soldiers." Don't get me wrong, I usually love 1940s movies because I think they have better scripts than contemporary films - but, I make an exception for literary adaptations, which tend to be more faithful and more powerful today than ever before. Thus, the 1980s Henry V can indeed be better than its '40s counterpart.
To me, this film is best understood in the context of World War II. As a wartime production, it's impressive - but it remains tied to that period, and therefore it is fundamentally dated. The original play, on the other hand, is timeless.