How do Olivier's version and Branagh's version of "Henry V" present the king as a king and as a man? How far do you feel the two interpretations are upheld by the text?.
"Henry V" is Shakespeare's classic play based around the events surrounding the battle of Agincourt. Olivier and Branagh both made twentieth century film versions of the play; the two interpretations of the play can at times appear very different. I shall be looking at the two scenes, which are very important to the play and how the two films interpret these scenes differently and how far they uphold the text.
In Act 3 Scene 3 King Henry makes some very emotive threats to the governor of Harfleur to try and get him to give up the town. These threats are effective at showing us how Henry intends to build himself a reputation as a strong king. This speech shows that he is trying to gain respect as a king, so that he isn't treated in the same way as he had been in the beginning of the play when the French Dauphin had sent him tennis balls as compensation for the French throne.
We know from the previous scenes that the king is a deeply religious man: he shows us this by consulting with bishops before deciding to go to war with France. In this scene however his real skill is as a manipulator as he threatens to allow his troops to carry out atrocities if necessary to gain control of Harfleur. However as an audience we know the king probably would not allow this to happen simply because we have seen how important religion is to him, but we are also aware that the governor of Harfleur has no way of knowing if the king is trying to deceive him. In this scene the king says:.
"What is't to me, when you yourself are the cause, .
If your pure maidens fall into the hand.
Of hot and forcing violation?" .
This is an important quotation because in it we can see that the king is using shocking violent emotive language in order to get his own way.