The King

◊ ◊ ◊

This must have seemed like the movie begging to get made. Everyone loves Shakespeare, and we haven’t seen a version of “Henry V” since Branagh’s 1989 film. And now we have the perfect man-boy in Timothée Chalamet; he is impossibly beautiful and young, while also being capable of deep sadness and seriousness. How could they not make that film? Also, I have to give credit to David Michôd (director of the brilliant “Animal Kingdom”) for deciding to write his own script rather than rely on the Bard; that’s a gutsy move. But, what we lose is Shakespeare’s sweeping and deeply stirring language. Instead of “we few, we happy few, we band of brothers,” we get a screamed speech about England is the space between us. Michôd tries to be rousing (and, in a vacuum, he may well be), but he’s up against the greatest wordsmith of the English language. Good luck with that. This film feels bereft of those great speeches, Henry’s passionate indignation, the glory of battle, and the occasional humor. And Branagh’s take was definitely not subtle. That film is a roller-coaster of emotions leading to a rousing soundtrack-filled climax. Coming to this film with that one in mind can only diminish the experience. And that’s really a shame. Because, when I step out of that film (and the play), I realize that what Michôd has created is actually a much more subtle work. (BTW – I am assuming everyone knows the basic story. If not, SPOILERS ahead) This boy king is far more pensive and complex than Shakespeare’s. The story arch of Henrys IV & V is of the playboy becoming the warrior king. That is not this story. Yes, this Hal does live lasciviously. But he is also deeply compassionate, with legitimate disdain for his father’s bellicose ways. He is willing to sacrifice his own life to save the lives of soldiers who are pawns in the games of kings. Once he becomes king, Henry immediately sheds his frivolous past and tries to remake the throne in his image. However, unlike in the play, this story is not about how he became great, but it is much more about how he became his father. Slowly, step-by-step, Henry is drawn into the machinations of those less gullible. By the end, he calls for the slaughter of all the fleeing Frenchman. That shift happens so slowly, that one could be excused for missing it. In fact, his final scene with his future wife has less impact if you don’t realize how much he has lost of the once naive boy he was. “Henry V” is about the transformation into hero that Henry goes through; this film seems to suggest the opposite. That’s an evocative take on the story. And perhaps it would have landed more effectively with a different actor. Chalamet is one of the best actors of his generation, but we might have been better served with a slightly older one. The real Henry was five years older than Chalamet is currently (Branagh was twenty-nine when he played the part). That may have made a difference. He seemed to lack the gravity the film required. All of his distress, introspection, and rage just looked like a moody boy having a pout. It isn’t that Chalamet is incapable of capturing the range of emotions required; it’s just that I didn’t believe them coming out of that body in that circumstance. Probably, this is a small complaint in a really interesting film, but when you are going up against the ghost of Shakespeare, you really need all the help you can get. I liked the film. I am glad I saw the film. I just don’t expect it to stay with me.