It’s the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Agincourt so what better day to compare Laurence Olivier and Kenneth Branagh performing the St Crispin’s Day speech in their respective versions of Henry V.
I have to say that despite Olivier’s legendary reputation, it’s an easy win for Branagh. His performance captures the charisma of a king rousing his followers with his eloquence.The scene is great cinema, with the right mix of camera movement, close-up and reaction shots to draw out the emotion of the scene.
Olivier’s effort comes off as artificial with little genuine emotion; more or less a recital to showcase his admittedly magnificent voice. To be fair to Olivier, shooting in Technicolor in 1944 was very cumbersome but I still feel he could have done more.
Tough call, tough call. You’re close to comparing apples and oranges: if you could drop Olivier into Branagh’s version, you’d probably get a sequence as good as KB’s, and vice versa–Branagh in the earlier version would probably be more subdued just because what movies were at the time.
Having said that, Kenny knocks the motherfucker out of the park with an atomic-powered bat!
What I find more interesting is how Jacobi as the narrator fits into the movie so well. That part shouldn’t work in this “contemporary” version, but I shall smite the man who boasts otherwise, verily!
I wouldn’t necessarily vouch for the sound track (just don’t know) but Larry nails it in one cut, walking through an encampment as he does. Also he somehow manages it without a full orchestra.
If Shakespeare needs an orchestra to underpin the language we might as well all go home.
Plus, in the latter it’s almost impossible to not shout out GORDON’S ALIVE!!!
Actually the Olivier scene looks like it had a bigger budget for the sets and extras. Like I said shooting in technicolor would have imposed some constraints but he could have done a lot more with editing and music.
I think the basic problem was that at this point Olivier didn’t really know how to translate the essence of the passage into cinema. The passage is about how battle erases distinctions of rank and forges a group of men into a “band of brothers”. Does the Olivier scene look like a band of brothers? It looks like a king making a speech and his soldiers standing around him like props. Compare that with how Branagh uses reaction shots to show the bond between Henry and his soldiers.
This is not to knock Olivier who was a magnificent actor; I just don’t think he was a very good movie director in 1944; IIRC this was his directorial debut.
One ironic aspect of that narration is the opening speech that entreats the audience “kindly to judge our play”, since the grand battles and passages of years were constrained to the audience’s imagination. Thing is, the Branagh version can and does depict those battles and the epic scope, so… screw your imaginations, audience!
That said, I like Branagh’s Crispin speech a lot, but my knowledge of the Olivier version is limited and what I saw seemed a tad sterile and stagey.
Branagh! My favorite Shakespearean speech of them all. I can accept the zeitgeist of Olivier’s work was more attuned to his method. And if so, there’s nothing in it to diminish its power as a speech. But Kenny kills!
For the single speech, I have to say, however reluctantly, Branagh. But for the two movies as a whole, I can’t say one or the other is better. Olivier included some of the comedic sequences Branagh did not, and Olivier did not include some of the darker elements that Branagh did. Both were straight out of the play, but the editing gave different feels to each. I love them both.
Does anyone remember the episode of ST-TNG where Data was rehearsing the scene from before the battle, where Henry was going around the encampment of his soldiers? It was on the holodeck. When he was done the scene dissolved and Picard applauded. Data explained how he’d watched “all the great performances, Olivier, Branagh, Kulnark, Shapiro” So the memory of the first two survived to their day!
Yes, in fact what I remember most of that film is not Branagh’s speech (yes, he wins) but the “Non Nobis, Domine” Doyle wrote for it. It was a throwaway line for Shakespeare, but Branagh and Doyle made it the dramatic highlight. Having the priest and soldiers sing it to humbly celebrate their victory, interspersed with scenes of Henry carrying his dead brother’s body to the funeral pyre, made it one of the great films ever.
For overall scene, I have to give it to Branagh’s version, probably for the complete composition of the scene. However, it seems he is just addressing an intimate assembly of troops. Olivier’s version rings more true because he sounds like he is trying to address the whole camp. He is projecting, not just because it is a theatrical trait, but because you have to so the entire camp can hear.
Branagh is pretty good with those kinds of speeches. While watching the link above, I saw they had a link where he recreates the speech the British ground commander gave to his troops as they prepared to invade Iraq. As in Henry V, great pacing and control.
The specific part of Olivier’s movie that is surpassing brilliant is the slowly expanding scope. The early scenes look like they take place upon a Shakespearean stage…but little by little, things enlarge. Even when you first see the ships setting out from England, they’re smallish and cartoony. But by the time of the battle, things have zoomed outward to the uttermost extent of moviemaking art as it existed then.
For the specific speech, Branagh’s is better, but he is taking advantage of advances in the state of the art. As noted above, if the two actors could have swapped places, they would, to a very large degree, also have swapped performances.
No contest. Branagh is far better. And not only in this play, role, or moment.
For example, his Hamlet blows away the very famous Olivier Hamlet as well. It may be a different time, but I just think Branagh is a lot more talented than Olivier.
I read two of Shakespeare’s plays in high school - King Lear and Macbeth. Sad to say, all I can remember of them are a general outline of the plot. But I wanted to get an idea of just what people in this thread are talking about. So I took a look at parts of both Branaugh’s and Olivier’s performances. I tried to find Branaugh’s speech and opened the film to the 1:35 minute mark. Sure enough, during that speech, he acted as if he were on fire.
But, at that same 1:35 minute mark, a rider approaches. This rider is dressed in a uniform bearing the Fleur-des-Lis which made it seem as if he was on the French side. Branaugh spoke to him of a ransom and it seemed like he told him that he would not be getting any ransom and he could just beat it back from whence he came. The funny thing was that I could have sworn this rider was a dead ringer for Patrick Stewart from Star Trek TNG fame. But I checked the list of credits for this film and also checked Patrick Stewart’s list of credits and he was not listed in the credits for the film and neither was “Henry V” listed in Stewart’s credits. Is it possible this rider was actually Patrick Stewart? If not, can someone tell me who it was and whether it was reasonable for me to think he looked like Patrick Stewart?
Also, I found that I couldn’t really understand Branaugh’s speech because of the language he used. I’d like to take a look at a modern version of the speech - in fact, maybe even an overview of the entire play so that I could have a reasonable chance of understanding the movie. Can anyone point me to a reasonable summary of this play written in modern English so that I might have a chance to understand the movie?
I was too embarrassed to ask for something like “Shakespeare’s Plays for Dummies”. But believe it or not - such a site actually exists - Shakespeare’s Plays - dummies. Unfortunately (or perhaps even fortunately), each of the plays is summarized in only a single line. Can you imagine? Another site is called, “No Sweat Shakespeare” - Henry V Summary: Synopsis Of Shakespeare's Henry V
I’m guessing whole bunches of people are turning over in their graves. This site gives a two paragraph summary of Henry V. I think I’d be up to something a little more than just two paragraphs. Can anyone recommend something that would be suitable for me so that I could then watch the film and have a decent chance to understand it?
For me, it’s definitely Branagh. And I said so when the Branagh version was first released.
But one important point to remember is that Branagh knew that whatever he did would immediately be compared to what Olivier had done. In fact, we’re probably supposed to notice, even be slightly surprised, that he doesn’t start off in full Sir-Larry mode. Patrick Doyle presumably also knew that he had to produce something extra special, as Walton’s score had also been so celebrated.