Similarly to many other members of class, as mentioned today and Friday, I was also very inspired by Henry V’s “Saint Crispin’s Day” speech at IV.3.18-67. I was inspired simply by reading the words on the page but viewing Kenneth Branagh’s film version furthered that feeling so I decided to explore other versions of the speech and see how they compare.
Here is a clip of the speech from1989 film edition of Henry V, directed by and starring Kenneth Branagh:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA3gOST4Pc8
Another clip of the speech from the 1944 film edition likewise directed by and starring Laurence Olivier (skip to approximately 87 minutes in):
http://newpaltz.ativ.alexanderstreet.com/video/player/track/3221364079
The third clip comes from a British televised version of Henry V, directed in 1979 by David Giles and starring David Gwillim as the title character (skip to 102 minutes, 50 seconds in):
http://newpaltz.ativ.alexanderstreet.com/video/player/track/3221364456
The most obvious similarities, I believe, lie between the Branagh and Olivier versions of the film. The two actors both star in and direct their films and the blocking, or movement, of Act IV Scene 3 in both versions is very similar. One obvious difference between the two is Branagh’s use of a score, composed by Patrick Doyle, throughout the speech while Olivier’s score cuts off just as Henry begins his speech. Although both deliveries are very rousing, I feel that the use of music adds a heightened sense of excitement to the speech. Similar to Olivier’s adaptation, Giles chooses not to use a score in his Henry V and, unlike both Olivier and Branagh’s versions, the soldiers of England make no celebration nor any kind of cheering after Gwillim finishes delivering the speech. Gwillim’s rendition of Henry V also differs from Branagh and Olivier, in that he delivers the speech in somewhat of a playful manner, while the other two actors tones remain serious throughout.
A vast difference occurs between the two film versions of Henry V in the message that the two stars/directors attempt to deliver. Released in 1944, during World War II, Olivier’s version puts an emphasis on patriotism and was meant to act as propaganda to boost the morale of British troops; it’s release coincided with D-Day, or the invasion of Normandy by the Ally forces. Branagh’s version, on the other hand, places more emphasis on the horrors of war. Although I could not find an on-line video version, I read about an interesting contemporary version of Henry V released by the Royal National Theatre in 2003 that portrays modern warfare and criticizes the war in Iraq.
3 comments:
Dom, I love this blog post. I enjoyed viewing all the Saint Crispin's Day speeches from all the different sources. I think that Kenneth Branagh's version is the most effective and sincere. I love the way this version has Henry saying this speech in a loud and passionate voice. I believe that Henry believes he is one with the people and that he means every word he says. It makes me feel like he would do anything for these men, and these men would do anything for him. When I read the play, my first vision of this speech was how Laurence Olivier shot it in his film. Although seeing both versions, I felt like the King in Olivier's version didn't deliver the speak as well as Kenneth Branagh. I felt like I was just watching a King, who was trying to convince his people to fight, yet Branagh's version truly sucked me into the moment. I also felt that in Olivier's version there were too many people and soldiers in the shot, while in Branagh's version he had the right angle and amount of people to make the speech seem real. I also loved how you connected the Olivier film and his adaptation to this play with WW2. I would have never have though of that. For some reason I couldn't gain access to the last British clip yet I'd love to try to find it and view it to compare it with the other versions.
I agree. When we watched this scene in class, some people had questioned Henry's genuineness when he cried while giving the speech. Branagh definitely makes this speech convincing with the flashback and the fact that he is so emotional during the speech. The tears were definitely genuine and made the scene all the more moving. I have never seen any other productions of this play, but I think that the scene would work very well played out like that in any production.
Dom--I know that Julie, Nikki and I aren't the only ones who appreciate that you took the time to post these clips and observations. Thanks so much!
Post a Comment