Henry V

One of the strange things about this project is that I seem to introducing important people in their worst moment. I've mentioned previously how Pixar was introduced with their worst moment, but now we've got Henry V, which features two names seen previously, and not in a great light. The film was made by and stars Laurence Olivier, whose first appearance here was in the 49th Parallel, where he was the most annoying character in the world. It's also an adaptation of Shakespeare, who previously showed up in a really ridiculous adaptation of MacBeth. Here's a much better showcase for both men.

Henry V is about Henry V, if the title wasn't obvious already. He is the king who was in charge in the Battle of Agincourt, wherein the British came from a disadvantage in numbers to kick some serious ass. It's like 300, if it was real and, you know, not shit. Anyway, given that this was war time, and the British could use a morale boost, it seemed like a good idea to remind everyone of a massive victory they once had.

Being Shakespeare, as one might expect, the story is quite good. The strongest moments, however, have little to do with Henry's bravado but instead his quiet contemplation and uncertainty. The best scene overall is one where Henry goes among his men the night before battle. The uncertainty among the men and the mixture of anticipation and dread is deftly handled. As the king confronts what his subject thinks of him, it shows a certain vulnerability and uncertainties in his own character, and keeps him likable and more than just a man with big speeches and a bigger sword. Another great scene is at the end, where Henry tries to woo Princess Katherine (Renee Asherson). Olivier plays on his uncertainty and unfamiliarity with the situation almost as much as Shakespeare does in the play, giving a character played as a hero for two hours some degree of humility, reducing him to a scared teenager in front of a pretty girl. It's a genius moment, and ensures the character never gets too big.

So it should be noted that this is actually a very odd and fairly experimental approach to filmmaking. In the beginning, it seems like a documentary on theatre production, albeit in the 1600s. It begins in the Globe Theatre, complete with audience, characters changing costume behind the scenes, and even a freaking laugh track. It's a bizarre way to begin a film, and completely unexpected. As the film progresses and the drama heightens, the scene gradually gets more realistic and the rest of the theatre fades away steadily. Eventually, we get to the innovative yet imperfect final battle, which is purely on location, before ending in the theatre yet again.

It's a neat trick to use, since it sums up what good theatre can do. As you get into the characters and the story, one begins to feel their imagination take over, and the show achieves a heightened reality. The film is a representation of how good theatre can take hold of an audience. It becomes the most real as the tension gets highest, and comes down as we prepare to leave it behind.

It isn't entirely perfect - the battle scene is quite chaotic, and it becomes clear something like that had never been filmed so they weren't sure what they were doing - but every imperfection brings with it an interesting and influential move - in that same battle scene, there's a cloud of arrows, something seen in every film with archers seen since. Olivier clearly hasn't directed a film before, and uses that inexperience to experiment and try different approaches to making film. He is unencumbered by experience, which leads to many interesting ideas which more established people might feel were a bit too, well, crazy to work. Here, most of the time, they do, and it's quite fascinating to watch.

I've said it before, but Shakespeare needs to be performed for people to really understand it. This adaptation, of the ones I've seen, is one of the better ones, using gimmicks to get past the slower parts and getting to the core of why the play is still interesting. Plus, it was a morale boost when Britain needed it most, there's nothing wrong with that.

Macbeth

One can argue that Shakespeare is the most important English writer. He lived and wrote 400 years ago, but his plays are still performed, his name is still known by pretty much everyone, people quote his lines constantly and he is the first cited source of millions of common words and phrases. Not bad for a funny looking bald guy from England.

However, the problem is that he wrote plays, and plays need to be performed. I realized this recently at a community performance of the Merry Wives of Windsor, which I had never actually liked until then. It worked because a good actor can make words live, and seeing the actions can make a sometimes obscure language come alive and make sense. So, naturally, a film of Shakespeare is a good idea, but somehow the transition gets shaky.

Take Macbeth. Specifically this Macbeth. Someone named Geoffrey Wright in Australia decided that the play needed to be turned into an ultra slick action thriller. Now, initially I was filled with doubt. In fact, opening the DVD envelope and seeing ultra-emo Sam Worthington holding a gun in a gothic setting made me think "Oh lord how bad is this going to be?"

It works better than you might think. No matter what he does, Wright can't ruin Shakespeare. The story is solid, the dialog is incongruous, but it remains fantastic, and the action scenes do fit in to the whole, as surprising as that may be.

If you don't know, Macbeth is about a man who witches convince will be king, and whose ambitious wife convinces to go around killing dudes in order to cement his power. It's better than that short, simplistic synopsis, but I'm not going to dwell on a summary of one of the worlds most famous plays. In short, it's a great story, and surprisingly difficult to ruin.

And believe me, Wright tries to ruin it.

The new slick, modern setting isn't a problem. Macbeth being about ultra cool drug dealers actually makes a great deal of sense, in a modern context, as royalty is irrelevant but drug dealing remains surprisingly feudal. The ultra slick shootout at the beginning works for the story, and is fairly well done as a whole. If Macbeth was supposed to be in the modern world, this is the setting it would make sense in.

The problems start with the camera, it's filmed in spookyvision. What's spookyvision, you ask? Well, the camera is unsteady, and will often be at a strange, inexplicable angle. It might suggest that the cameraman is drunk, but it's coupled with a soundtrack that does a horror movie dissonance thing. You expect ghosts and the voice of the Unsolved Mysteries guy to come at any moment. This is especially apparent when Lady Macbeth mourns a dead child, and sees his swingset on a foggy, backlit hill, which seems to be a questionable place for a play area.

There's also the matter of Wright deciding that Macbeth needed more gratuitous nudity. Of course, the original didn't have too much nudity, everyone was played by men, no boobs to be seen. Shocked at this outrage, Lady Macbeth - who is now a coke fiend - has her big final moment topless, breasts sashaying about. This does not compare to the Weird Sisters, originally ugly witches made into sexy ladies. Who Macbeth has sex with, in a scene so bizarre I had to laugh. Plus, for the ladies, Sam Worthington misplaces his shirt at least once, and has a gratuitous shower scene.

It takes a profoundly stupid director to make you realize the overall quality of the story. His detours are inconsistent, his added scenes don't usually work, apart from the opening gun battle, and as a whole it's amazing how many bad directorial decisions are made during the course of the film. Yet, it's good, because the story is good, and it's built on a quality foundation.

There's a reason Shakespeare has lived long after his contemporaries have faded from the popular consciousness. Ben Johnson, to most people, is just a steroid enthusiast and sprinter, but at the time he was a big gun in the world of theatre too. Shakespeare lives because no matter how incompetent the director, how mediocre the actors, and how much people try to ruin it, it still works. With any other base, this movie would have been awful. It could even be argued that it is awful. But it's got a good story, and no matter how many bad decisions are made, nothing can change that. I should hope other filmed versions are better though.

Also, the credits go in the opposite direction. Oh those silly Australians.