TNMC

This site’s design is only visible in a graphical browser that supports web standards, but its content is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Shakespeare Gimmick Films (part 1)

Hollyfeld, here, and boy do I have an apology to make. Two, actually. First and minormost, I must apologize for the extreme lateness of this article. Secondly, I must apologize for its subject: I had originally intended for this article to be about some unfortunate decisions made by the Academy at Oscar time, with an especially long discourse on Lasse Hallstrom’s The Cider House Rules, but this is not the case. Unfortunately, I could not procure adequate time with the film to cover it in any fashion that would suit me, and I would rather not do something at all than do it in a manner that I consider sub-standard. Hence, this week will be the first in a line of what will come to be a great many theme weeks on Look Closer... where we take a closer look at two films with a unifying factor. This week: Shakespearean Gimmick Films.

William Shakespeare’s plays are among the more adapted stories in film history, but usually are done so without much panache. Straightforward retellings are prominent, and often quite excellent, such as Kenneth Branagh’s quintessential Hamlet, or Franco Zeffirelli’s Romeo And Juliet, but among the more memorable Shakespearean films are those that take a more revolutionary stance on the bard. Usually, less traditional takes on Shakespeare’s plays involve a critically simple twist – Baz Luhrmann’s modern setting of Romeo + Juliet, or the lifting of the storyline into a more contemporary tale (Ten Things I Hate About You, West Side Story). Occasionally, though, there are films that attempt to revolutionize the way in which his plays are perceived. Doing so often results in a somewhat spliced version of the original material, leading purists to look elsewhere on the video shelves, but it is this kind of daring that no doubt would have excited Shakespeare had he been alive today. Often it is forgotten how revolutionary (and edited) his plays were upon their initial performances – the unedited Hamlet had not been performed, let alone filmed, for generations until 1996, and (although this information is often neglected to be mentioned) the ending was often changed to be less down-beat.

But I digress, for today’s subject is not Hamlet in any of its incarnations, but Sir Laurence Olivier’s Henry V (1944), a classic film which was so appreciated in its own time that it garnered Olivier an honorary Oscar for his triple achievement as lead actor, director and producer. Henry V is among the more beloved of Shakespeare’s historical plays, and chronicles the war between young Henry (Olivier) and France, culminating in the bloody Battle of Agincourt. Will England’s small band of weary soldiers be any match for the thousands of French troops that face them? And will the King overcome his own doubts and be able to fuel the morale of his men?

What makes this film more than just another Shakespearean adaptation (aside from the presence of Olivier, in one of his most perfect performances) is the unique way in which it is structured. The film opens with a poster advertising the latest play by Will Shakespeare (Henry V, naturally), then features a long panning shot of England at the time of The Globe Theater. Ignore the fact that it is only a model, please (budgets were low). As we sink into the theater, we find ourselves among the audience, waiting to be entertained. The first several scenes of the play are depicted as being played out on the stage of the classic theater itself, and we are privy not only to the audience, but backstage as well, where we get to see Olivier himself prepare for his performance. In all its splendor we see the opening of the play, equipped with audience participation (or, more accurately, hecklers), set changes, actors fumbling with their lines, and (most memorably) rain – the Globe was an open-air theater after all, and the actors just have to work with this limitation. Then, just as the viewing audience is fully acclimated to their surroundings, the curtain of the theater is pulled back to reveal the English countryside, and the rest of the film is played out in a more luxurious setting.

We are now part of the action, where every scene is played out with realism... almost. The sets are a little too perfect, the backgrounds typically painted murals, but this effect is lessened as the film proceeds. The Battle of Agincourt is depicted in lavish splendor, shot in a gorgeous field with countless horses and knights in armor, and is a spectacle to behold. Afterwards, the films seeps back into its mixture of theatrical and realistic settings. This makes for some especially interesting viewing, and although I have not asked Olivier personally for his reasoning behind this scheme, I would suspect it would serve to emphasize the reality of that battle as opposed to the dramatic alteration of the rest of the storyline, both on the part of Shakespeare and the director. Of course, Shakespeare’s depiction of historical events is often less than accurate (his physical description of Richard III, for example, is quite an exaggeration from his actual appearance), but it must also be said that Sir Laurence Olivier took an axe to much of even Shakespeare’s text for this version.

Upset about the low turnout for his previous effort As You Like It, Olivier decided to make a film that would both make money and bolster the spirits of England during World War II. Hence, the more upsetting (and less heroic) aspects of Henry’s character were excised, including the execution of his cousin as an example to his troops. The enemy, too, are depicted as weak and comical – not a threat at all. The outcome of the climactic battle is hardly ever in question. We are treated to a colorful pageantry, filled with white steeds and shiny armor, as opposed to the more gritty realism of Branagh’s 1989 version (also quite excellent in its own right). It should also be said, however, that the irony of the play’s sickly sweet ending is thusly lost in this transition, playing more as a justified union of young love than as a counterpoint to the violence in the rest of the story.

I consider Sir Laurence Olivier’s Henry V to be one of the finest Shakespearean adaptations on the silver screen, and it is an opinion shared by many, often making those oh-so-debatable "Best Of All Time" lists, due both to the talent with which it is performed and imagination with which it is staged. Henry V is available on video and on a very nice Criterion Edition DVD.

Next Week! Part Two of our Shakespearean Extravaganza... but what is it?

As always, Hollyfeld can be reached at hollyfeld_@hotmail.com

You there! You think you could do this job better than I can? Well, you might be right! Look Closer… is always looking for guest columnists, and you might as well be one of them. Just write a review of reasonable length for a movie that you think is under-rated, over-rated, no one knows, etc., and if it makes the grade we will print it in an edition of this column! Those whose reviews are published will also receive a free piece of (slightly cheesy and really inexpensive) promotional merchandise from a movie, to be sent when their review is published, courtesy of me. Just send any and all reviews to the above address. Thank you for reading and participating in the site!

Lazlo Hollyfeld is the pseudonym of an aspiring writer/actor/director located in Southern California. With one screenplay under his (collaborative) belt and more to come, he is sure to work his way up in the world with the help of his talented and close-knit group of friends, co-workers, and penguins. Yes, you heard me, penguins. A film student since before he can remember, he has devoted much of his life to the study of the silver screen and its related art forms.