"We few, we happy few...."
- Henry V in William Shakespeare's play
WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD
I know, I know, it is a little odd to be putting down some thoughts about the Netflix presentation of "The King" while traveling abroad. The truth is, despite spending a great deal of time on Henry IV in the recent Bard Fest, I never got around to seeing the presentation. A number of friends in the theater community have commented and since I finally saw it last night and it is a quiet morning here in Mexico, I thought I would finally weigh in.
'The King' is a Netflix production 'loosely' based on the Shakespeare stories of Henry IV part 1, Henry IV part 2 (No one likes part 2) , and ultimately Henry V. It is directed by David Mitchod and written by Joel Edgerton, who interestingly also plays Falstaff in the film. The film features Timothee Chalamet in the title role along with a very strong supporting cast including Robert Pattinson as the Dauphin and Ben Mendolsohn as Henry IV. The over all Rotten Tomatoes aggregate score for the picture was 71%.
I love the play Henry V. It is easily my favorite story in Shakespeare's canon. I have directed the show once before, seen many productions, and read everything I can about the subject. Absurdly, I feel a deep and unearned sense of ownership about the piece and tend to be overly critical and profoundly snarky about any production that does not meet my haughty standards. So it is with this mindset that I sat down last night to watch the film.
and....
I came away with very mixed feelings about it. So I will try to summarize my points accordingly.
The bad -
I number of years ago I watched the Ben Affleck film 'Pearl Harbor' directed by Micheal Bay. It was a stupid picture. There were many reasons for this assessment but that is another blog. My point is Mr Bay felt a reason to embellish an already thrilling story for no reason at all. The Japanese Zero's flew like they were modern fighter jets and performed maneuvers usually reserved for Star Wars films. It was absurd. The story, the real story was good enough. A review of the classic film "Tora, Tora, Tora" shows this observation to be true.
The same is true with "The King". The director felt need to embellish the Shakespeare tale and stretch it to unrecognizable proportions.
Falstaff is no longer the chubby, lovable, con man but is now a mighty warrior who came up with the strategy for the English at Agincourt. He didn't die 'Of a broken heart' in a shabby pub as Shakespeare writes, but instead as a noble sacrifice to save the troops.
Henry V, is so full of modern 21st century ideas and morals that is has nothing to do with the actual reason he went to war.
The French Princess at the end of the play is a throughly modern woman who advises Henry of the wrongs he has done and refuses to have anything to do with him unless he corrects them.
The actual battle of Agincourt, one of the great military triumphs of all time, is played as a close in action sequence denying the viewer of the enormity of the triumph and what it actually meant to English history . It lacks the context that made it such an amazing triumph when around 6,000 men defeated a force of 30,000.
All of this is an attempt to force the story into the 21st century at the cost of stripping the actual Shakespeare play of it's grace, humor , and majesty.
And the "twist" at the end? It is something completely made up by Mr Edgerton and has nothing to do with the Shakespeare story or history for that matter. Rubbish!
The good -
Shakespeare's play is essentially a work of fiction as well. Although there was a Henry V, a battle at Agincourt, and ..maybe.... a real person named Falstaff, they are all put together to tell a dramatic story.
"Never let the facts get in the way of a good story"
- Kenneth Branagh portraying Shakespeare in All is True.
Shakespeare's history plays were for the most parts pieces of propaganda to please the current rulers of England. He would include sharp criticism in the works, but never too much to potentially arouse the ire of the Crown. If Shakespeare were making movies today, every one of his films would start with "Based on true events". In that fact he is no different than Hollywood today. Both 'The King' and Shakespeare's works are full of historical inaccuracies.
This is a gorgeous movie. The cinematography is sweeping and epic. The costumes are brilliant. The actors are first rate. It is a very good period drama.
Timothee Chalamet is the current "It" actor in Hollywood. His intense, at times androgynous, presence is striking and he is a fine actor. He is a great choice for the lead role. He was 22 years old at the time of filming which is closer to what the actual Henry V was at the time. In that aspect, I enjoyed the film because the idea of this 'boy' leading so many men into battle is compelling. I imagine I will feel the same way when he portrays Paul Artreides in the upcoming 'Dune' movie. The only thing is he is short and quite thin. The actual Henry V was 6 feet 3 inches and 26 years old at Agincourt -- I know, that is really picky but as I said I have significant bias with this story.
Robert Pattinson almost steals the show as the Dauphin , the Crown Prince of France. He chews through his brief scenes as the main antagonist with an almost comic intensity. It was a great performance. He has come a long way since the awful 'Twilight' films. Reportedly he is the new 'Batman' so that will be interesting to see when it comes out.
Joel Edgerton is great as Falstaff. At least his conception of Shakespeare's immortal creation. It is not Falstaff, in my view, by any stretch of the imagination, but the performance was good.
In summary - If you don't like or know the Shakespeare plays, then "The King" is a reasonable period drama, well filmed, and acted. I would recommend it.
However, if you are a fan of the Shakespeare histories, the beautiful language, well crafted characters, and the classic plots. Then "The King" is a drive by shooting.
Although both versions are fiction - Shakespeare is by far the better story teller.
コメント