![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Henry V is probably Shakespeare's most popular history, especially today now that the love of Falstaff has dimmed a bit. The combination of the 1944 Laurence Olivier movie and the 1989 Kenneth Branagh movies make it a play many are likely to have seen, and it's very good at stirring the emotions. In fact, is it a bit too good? As this is also Shakespeare's most controversial and criticized history.
There's lots of reasons for this. First of all, at the time, there was the killing off of Falstaff. Henry IV Parts 1 and 2 were incredibly popular, and the end of Part 2, even though it featured Hal renouncing Falstaff, seemed to indicate that they would be back soon. True, there was The Merry Wives of Windsor about this time as well, but since Hal and Falstaff seemed so intertwined, no one was expecting anything less than "Henry IV Part 3", only with a new king.
But Shakespeare had already given signs that he was a bit sick of the Falstaff gang. (I will go into more details when I get to Part 2 of Henry IV.) What's more, the plot was shaping up in such a way that it would be very difficult to use Falstaff. If he reformed, he'd be dull, but if he didn't, how would be be near the King at all? Pistol took his place for most of the comic scenes in Henry V, along with the Welsh captain Fluellen, who was allowed to have most of the jokes *and* be a competent soldier. Falstaff, meanwhile, died offstage. And by the end of the play, Bardolph and Nym were dead, and Pistol mentioned Mistress Quickly dying of syphilis. Really, this is almost Shakespeare kicking his audience in the teeth.
And then there's Essex. I haven't mentioned the Earl in some time, but it's hard to avoid him here. The epilogue to this play is basically a giant paean to Essex's campaigns, comparing his wars against the Irish to Henry V. Of course, a few months later, Essex would return from Ireland defeated. And then conspire to assassinate the Queen. Shakespeare's plays have had their awkward timely references (Richard II is another good example, and almost as controversial), but even in Henry VIII his patronage wasn't THIS obvious.
In modern times, Henry V has also been rather awkward. One of the bigger reasons is one that we've come across many times before - Shakespeare rarely likes to let his character's motivations be obvious and one-sided, always preferring to draw subtle shades of grey to black and white. Of course, here he's doing so in a play whose plot demands black and white. Is Henry an awesome warrior king, restoring England to her rightful glory? Or is he a hypocrite and chessmaster, using his subjects for his own ends? Well, yeah. Certainly fans of Hal were already irritated with him after his throwing off Falstaff in IV-2, and he does a few things here that raise an eyebrow (the tennis balls are hardly a good reason for war, although you can argue he wanted a random excuse; he also tries to bribe divine vengeance).
Modern productions have occasionally chosen to add darkness to several scenes - Bardolph's execution, for instance - which I think fits in very much with the tendency of Henry IV plays to have serious, melancholy Falstaffs these days. Many are simply uncomfortable with the idea of comedy in the History plays, feeling that it makes light of the wars and death that surround them. (What these people make of Hamlet, which is frequently hilarious, is best left for another time.)
In the end, I think Henry V works best on stage or screen, when you can let yourself get carried away by its fervor. On the page, with only cold words to analyse, Henry is a lot less easy to like.
There's lots of reasons for this. First of all, at the time, there was the killing off of Falstaff. Henry IV Parts 1 and 2 were incredibly popular, and the end of Part 2, even though it featured Hal renouncing Falstaff, seemed to indicate that they would be back soon. True, there was The Merry Wives of Windsor about this time as well, but since Hal and Falstaff seemed so intertwined, no one was expecting anything less than "Henry IV Part 3", only with a new king.
But Shakespeare had already given signs that he was a bit sick of the Falstaff gang. (I will go into more details when I get to Part 2 of Henry IV.) What's more, the plot was shaping up in such a way that it would be very difficult to use Falstaff. If he reformed, he'd be dull, but if he didn't, how would be be near the King at all? Pistol took his place for most of the comic scenes in Henry V, along with the Welsh captain Fluellen, who was allowed to have most of the jokes *and* be a competent soldier. Falstaff, meanwhile, died offstage. And by the end of the play, Bardolph and Nym were dead, and Pistol mentioned Mistress Quickly dying of syphilis. Really, this is almost Shakespeare kicking his audience in the teeth.
And then there's Essex. I haven't mentioned the Earl in some time, but it's hard to avoid him here. The epilogue to this play is basically a giant paean to Essex's campaigns, comparing his wars against the Irish to Henry V. Of course, a few months later, Essex would return from Ireland defeated. And then conspire to assassinate the Queen. Shakespeare's plays have had their awkward timely references (Richard II is another good example, and almost as controversial), but even in Henry VIII his patronage wasn't THIS obvious.
In modern times, Henry V has also been rather awkward. One of the bigger reasons is one that we've come across many times before - Shakespeare rarely likes to let his character's motivations be obvious and one-sided, always preferring to draw subtle shades of grey to black and white. Of course, here he's doing so in a play whose plot demands black and white. Is Henry an awesome warrior king, restoring England to her rightful glory? Or is he a hypocrite and chessmaster, using his subjects for his own ends? Well, yeah. Certainly fans of Hal were already irritated with him after his throwing off Falstaff in IV-2, and he does a few things here that raise an eyebrow (the tennis balls are hardly a good reason for war, although you can argue he wanted a random excuse; he also tries to bribe divine vengeance).
Modern productions have occasionally chosen to add darkness to several scenes - Bardolph's execution, for instance - which I think fits in very much with the tendency of Henry IV plays to have serious, melancholy Falstaffs these days. Many are simply uncomfortable with the idea of comedy in the History plays, feeling that it makes light of the wars and death that surround them. (What these people make of Hamlet, which is frequently hilarious, is best left for another time.)
In the end, I think Henry V works best on stage or screen, when you can let yourself get carried away by its fervor. On the page, with only cold words to analyse, Henry is a lot less easy to like.
Tags: