Laurence Olivier’s 1944 Henry V:A great piece of propaganda, a poor showing of Shakespeare
Laurence Olivier’s 1944 movie Henry V was his directorial debut, and so I can firmly lay all my critiques at his feet. Funnily enough, everything that I feel the need to comment on in this movie are the sole responsibilities of Olivier. In brief, it is a wonderful piece of propaganda (thanks Olivier) and wonderfully acted (thanks Olivier), but as a work of Shakespeare it is exceedingly shallow (thanks Olivier).
Henry V is a very patriotic play, which is why the British government in 1943 commissioned a movie to be made of it. The goal was to boost the morale of soldiers preceding the invasion of Normandy; I am sure that the decision to do Henry V, a play about the English invading France, was entirely based on the upcoming invasion of Normandy. The government budgeted 350,000 pounds for the production (though it ballooned to 500,000 pounds) and even pulled Olivier out of Navy service in order to run it. This was his second filmed performance of a Shakespeare piece, but before that he had made a name as the premier Shakespearean stage actor. Filling the role of King Henry V was an average day for him, but directing was not.
Obviously, you cannot make a Shakespearean play into a movie without cutting out quite a lot (the stage plays tend to run three hours long). There is quite a lot cut from this, and the decisions of what to remove were solely made by Olivier. Before I go into what was removed, allow me to explain the setup and crux play.
Henry V begins with two bishops discussing the new king, the titular King Henry V, and how it would be in their best interest that he invades France. They mention at length how, in his youth, prince Henry (or Hal, as he was called) was riotous and spent his time with ne’er-do-wells, and caused mischief in London’s seedier areas. But now that he is King, he is poised, intelligent, and a firm ruler whose conduct is beyond reproach. He plans to invade France because he is distantly descended from a previous French ruler and does have a tenuous claim to the throne. An insulting gift from the French prince drives Henry into an invasion, and all of his lords applaud this move. The play then splits into it’s second plot, where we see some of Henry’s old friends. They are thieves and cowards, and quite upset that their bosom friend has turned their back to them. Falstaff, Henry’s mentor and closest friend, dies of heartbreak after being repudiated.
This sets up the main point of the play (not Falstaff’s death, but the circumstances that lead to it); what is the difference between being a good king and a good man? King Henry is a great king, but a ruthless and cold man. He repudiates his old friends. One tries to assassinate him, and Henry executes him. Two others break a law, and Henry executes them. He is a wonderful orator who can spur his men to victory, and then he will turn around and use those speaking skills to convince a French town to surrender by promising to raze the town to ashes and slaughter all of the citizens. He shows great tactics in battle and leads his army to victory, and when the opposition angers him, he slays all of the enemy prisoners. Henry does show guilt and worry over his decisions but recognizes that as King he needs to do whatever is necessary in order to strengthen his realm.
This moral dilemma makes for great drama, and even great cinema, but not great propaganda. The British government did not want to create a movie about a strong yet ruthless king who advances the state of his nation at the cost of his morals and friends, they wanted a movie about a God ordained king on a holy quest, exacting righteous fury against an enemy whose hubris will be their undoing (by the way, for a time period where the British are trying to free the French from the Nazis, this movie is strangely obsessed with making you absolutely hate the French). A whole essay could be written on the differences between the French lords and royalty in the play and the movie, but that is not the goal here.
The main point of this essay, which I have been teasing yet have not stated, is that all the scenes where King Henry does anything ruthless or immoral are cut out. The execution of his previous friends, the threats against the French town of Harfleur, the slaying of the French prisoners, even a small prank at the end where King Henry orchestrates an uppity soldier to challenge a captain and get his ass kicked. All of these things have been removed. The entire moral dilemma of “good king vs good man” is gone; Henry is now a noble king on a righteous quest for justice against a slight from the boastful French. He prevails against all odds, he is gracious, intelligent, and honorable, and it is a given that he will defeat his enemy (God is on his side).
This is exactly what makes this movie great propaganda. All those who watch it know that Henry will prevail. By all accounts it worked beautifully as a morale booster (it netted one million in revenue at the US box office and earned many awards and accolades). It was filmed in technicolor by using the only technicolor camera in the entirety of England. The actors were superb, and Olivier does a phenomenal job of being King Henry. The acting is stellar, the score is bombastic, the sets and staging expansive and eye catching. As a piece of cinema, it is a landmark case. As a piece of propaganda, it is a primary example of what to do right. As a piece of Shakespeare, however, it is shallow. They sacrificed the depth and dilemmas of the plot in order to make it propaganda. Should it be disappointing because it did its job well? The goal was to be propaganda, and it succeeded. If an audience had never seen or read the original, they would eat it up. But when compared to the original, it is depressingly shallow. So there is the main question; is it good because it did its job of being propaganda, or is it bad because it removed the thought and plot out of Shakespeare’s work?
