So while watching an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I heard a surprising reference to Henry V. Buffy says, "You know that not everyone goes home alive, right?" followed by a somewhat awkward pause and then "Alright, let's go!" (go save the world from evil demons that is...) anyway Spike replies after that with, "well it was no Saint Crispin's Day speech, but it will do." I got so excited and my husband just thought I was weird.
Anyway I wanted to put out my research project ideas and see if anyone had any advice or suggestions for me. I want to research/write on class relations within Shakespeare. I think I want to focus specifically on good class relations because I feel it is one way that he gets both the royal and the peasants vote of approval. For example in Henry V there is the scene where Henry goes and takes a brief survey of the conditions and attitudes of the soldiers. I feel that is a way that Shakespeare tries to work on class relations.
If anyone has any suggestions for other great examples of class relations I would love to hear them.
Showing posts with label Henry V. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Henry V. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Thursday, January 19, 2012
V is for Victory!
I watched Henry V and decided to put my thoughts here.
Themes: I wasn't sure what the themes were in this movie exactly because I didn't recognize any obvious themes. I did notice that there seemed to be comradeship between the classes. Especially when King Henry walks around before the battle of Agincourt and talks with the soldiers about what they think about the war. It was a good moment, because it showed he cared for his people. Yes, he used the information he gathered in his rallying speech, but he still tried to understand the men better. It was a particularly good moment. It made the king seem human too. (I affirmed that it was a good theme on Sparknotes.com)
Another theme that I found was the ruthlessness of the king. We touched on this in class a bit, but he does seem overly cruel especially to the French when he threatens to rape all the women and spike the babies.
Screenplay: The flashbacks to Falstaff and King Henry's friends create background knowledge that was needed to understand the story better. It provided a better relationship between Harry and the men he killed for their crimes. It showed that he can make hard and mature decisions now that he is king. Transitions are seemly. I like how the chorus is more prevalent, he helps root the audience more firmly in the scene despite his modern dress. He appears and explains even though it is not necessary because with film they can show what he is saying, like the battle scene.
Script: It follows pretty closely with the text, only skipping what seemed inconsequential to the story line. It took out a lot of Shakespeare's dirtier lines which I don't think is a bad thing. Shakespeare did have a dirty mind. And it was understandable. I could follow the script and the plot. It flowed well and even if I wasn't knowledgeable in the play I could follow the movie.
Costumes: They are period except for Chorus, but he is the modern guide into the world of Shakespeare, so it fulfilled his role.
Acting: It's all very serious. The humor seems to lie only within the lines and their projection. The connections between the characters is very real. The actors did a fine job of understanding the difficult Shakespeare and performing it. King Henry seems very like a strong royal, very regal and yet caring. Scene I Act III where King Henry gives his imploring prayer is an incredibly moving scene. I almost melted with his tears and he begged for his men and his cause in the forest. The Saint Crispin's day speech is incredibly well rendered in reuniting the army. The King Henry Speeches are well done. His face is animated and he captures the audiences attentions. In the first major speech the smile on his mouth gives him a somewhat sinister and foreboding look, but none-the-less compelling.
Language: The language is rich and beautiful to the ears. Shakespeare is a genius especially the speeches. They are performed eloquently.
Themes: I wasn't sure what the themes were in this movie exactly because I didn't recognize any obvious themes. I did notice that there seemed to be comradeship between the classes. Especially when King Henry walks around before the battle of Agincourt and talks with the soldiers about what they think about the war. It was a good moment, because it showed he cared for his people. Yes, he used the information he gathered in his rallying speech, but he still tried to understand the men better. It was a particularly good moment. It made the king seem human too. (I affirmed that it was a good theme on Sparknotes.com)
Another theme that I found was the ruthlessness of the king. We touched on this in class a bit, but he does seem overly cruel especially to the French when he threatens to rape all the women and spike the babies.
Screenplay: The flashbacks to Falstaff and King Henry's friends create background knowledge that was needed to understand the story better. It provided a better relationship between Harry and the men he killed for their crimes. It showed that he can make hard and mature decisions now that he is king. Transitions are seemly. I like how the chorus is more prevalent, he helps root the audience more firmly in the scene despite his modern dress. He appears and explains even though it is not necessary because with film they can show what he is saying, like the battle scene.
Script: It follows pretty closely with the text, only skipping what seemed inconsequential to the story line. It took out a lot of Shakespeare's dirtier lines which I don't think is a bad thing. Shakespeare did have a dirty mind. And it was understandable. I could follow the script and the plot. It flowed well and even if I wasn't knowledgeable in the play I could follow the movie.
Costumes: They are period except for Chorus, but he is the modern guide into the world of Shakespeare, so it fulfilled his role.
Acting: It's all very serious. The humor seems to lie only within the lines and their projection. The connections between the characters is very real. The actors did a fine job of understanding the difficult Shakespeare and performing it. King Henry seems very like a strong royal, very regal and yet caring. Scene I Act III where King Henry gives his imploring prayer is an incredibly moving scene. I almost melted with his tears and he begged for his men and his cause in the forest. The Saint Crispin's day speech is incredibly well rendered in reuniting the army. The King Henry Speeches are well done. His face is animated and he captures the audiences attentions. In the first major speech the smile on his mouth gives him a somewhat sinister and foreboding look, but none-the-less compelling.
Language: The language is rich and beautiful to the ears. Shakespeare is a genius especially the speeches. They are performed eloquently.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
There were a lot of Henrys...
Since my last post was less than scholarly, I wanted to rectify myself and add a scholarly search that I did for Henry V. I wandered around for awhile searching the Lee Library's Shakespearean index and found a couple of great articles, one that I marked to read at a later date and the one I will post on today.
I found myself more fascinated than I thought I'd be with the war aspect in Henry V. I was curious to get more background information on it, because frankly cliffnotes left me less than satisfied. The synopsis seemed a little too vague since I didn't know enough of the history at the time of Henry V. So I did my own digging and found this little tidbit of knowledge that I found rather intriguing.
"However, though the King insists that the victory of Agincourt is not his but God's, Shakespeare's depiction of Henry and of the way events unfold suggests otherwise. Henry follows his father Bolingbroke's footsteps in thinking and behaving as if the outcome of events is decided by his own courage and cleverness. The elder Henry plans a holy war against the Turks as a means to quell civil war at home and to ease his conscience for usurping the throne, and his dying words include the advice to his son to 'busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels' to solidify his shaky regime (II Henry IV 4.5.213-14). And immediately following the Chorus's opening invocation of Henry's divine mission, we eavesdrop on a backroom conversation revealing that he has secured the Archbishop's sanction for the invasion of France in return for his agreement to block the bill in Commons that would force the church to pay taxes to support the sick and indigent. Incidents like these suggest that Shakespeare exposes holy war as a device manipulated by Kings for political ends, confirming what Stephen Greenblatt calls '...the most radically subversive hypothesis in his culture about the origin and function of religion'. That hypothesis was formulated by Machiavelli in his account of the ancient Roman practice of securing popular support for the state with the pretence of piety. The wisest leaders, Machiavelli claimed, are those who 'foster and encourage [religion] even though they be convinced that it is quite fallacious. And the more should they do this the greater their prudence and the more they know of natural laws.'" Holy War in Henry the Fifth
So despite what Henry V claimed that he fought only for God, Shakespeare clearly disagreed and took his poetic license to say that the war was political in nature. Which honestly really makes sense...so my question is, Is it merely poetic license on Shakespeare's part or do you really think that Henry IV started the war for political reasons, despite his statement?
I found myself more fascinated than I thought I'd be with the war aspect in Henry V. I was curious to get more background information on it, because frankly cliffnotes left me less than satisfied. The synopsis seemed a little too vague since I didn't know enough of the history at the time of Henry V. So I did my own digging and found this little tidbit of knowledge that I found rather intriguing.
"However, though the King insists that the victory of Agincourt is not his but God's, Shakespeare's depiction of Henry and of the way events unfold suggests otherwise. Henry follows his father Bolingbroke's footsteps in thinking and behaving as if the outcome of events is decided by his own courage and cleverness. The elder Henry plans a holy war against the Turks as a means to quell civil war at home and to ease his conscience for usurping the throne, and his dying words include the advice to his son to 'busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels' to solidify his shaky regime (II Henry IV 4.5.213-14). And immediately following the Chorus's opening invocation of Henry's divine mission, we eavesdrop on a backroom conversation revealing that he has secured the Archbishop's sanction for the invasion of France in return for his agreement to block the bill in Commons that would force the church to pay taxes to support the sick and indigent. Incidents like these suggest that Shakespeare exposes holy war as a device manipulated by Kings for political ends, confirming what Stephen Greenblatt calls '...the most radically subversive hypothesis in his culture about the origin and function of religion'. That hypothesis was formulated by Machiavelli in his account of the ancient Roman practice of securing popular support for the state with the pretence of piety. The wisest leaders, Machiavelli claimed, are those who 'foster and encourage [religion] even though they be convinced that it is quite fallacious. And the more should they do this the greater their prudence and the more they know of natural laws.'" Holy War in Henry the Fifth
So despite what Henry V claimed that he fought only for God, Shakespeare clearly disagreed and took his poetic license to say that the war was political in nature. Which honestly really makes sense...so my question is, Is it merely poetic license on Shakespeare's part or do you really think that Henry IV started the war for political reasons, despite his statement?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)