The battle of Agincourt by, respectively, Laurence Olivier and Kenneth Branagh in their films of Shakespeare’s Henry V

In this essay I will be comparing the treatment of the Battle of Agincourt by, respectively, Laurence Olivier and Kenneth Brannagh in their films of Shakespeare’s Henry V. The Olivier version was made in 1945 nearing the end of the Second World War, it was deliberately made to give the British workers, those who had been left at home, and the members of the British army, a boost of moral and a taste of the glory that was in sight. Henry V was a good choice as battle, which, with the correct editing, could easily seem as if the British were fighting a just battle against the evil French.

The film was created in a time where colour had been recently introduced into film so Olivier took full advantage of this by using the shiniest of breastplates and the most colourful of clothing on the British soldiers to make them look glorious. Colour was inevitably used anyway in order for the film to appear up to date. The target audience was obviously anyone who was beginning to feel depressed as the war dragged on. The Branagh version was made in 1989.

By this time, everyone knew how tragic and terrible war was as communication had moved on to the extent that everyone had seen broadcasts of battle scenes from Vietnam. So Branagh took the opportunity to make a more realistic version of Henry V, the battle scene is almost a mockery of the deception carried by Olivier’s version. The aim, I think, was to not only make a film that people would want to watch but to make a film that people would want to watch but to make a battle scene that people could identify with, especially people who had fought in any wars.

Colour is not over-used in this battle scene as it was not a new feature and not very vibrant colours are needed for mud and blood! In the Olivier version fighting is minimized and the general impression is the overwhelming numbers of the French against the elite, more select army of the British. The King’s speeches are concentrated on in which the King is the centre of attention and there is often a St. George’s cross in the background or aside the King to inspire patriotism. The Branagh version is more concentrated on the battle and the details of the mud and gore of the fighting.

Realism is portrayed as scenes of looting and attacking in gangs against a single other fighter are shown. The scene in which the luggage boys are slaughtered is kept in both versions of the battle and they are directed fairly similarly, however, they are kept for different reasons. In the Olivier version this is showing that the French are treacherous and adds to the idea of the English trying to fight a just, fair battle against the evil French. On the other hand in the Branagh version the treachery of the French is just adding to the overall horror of battle.

The King’s speeches in the Branagh version are shot at eye level as he stands down with the men showing that he is leading the group from within but at the same time no better as a person than his men. The first factor I am going to discuss is realism contained in each of the films, in the Olivier version the bulk of the film appears rather unrealistic. Things that affect the appearance of realism in this film are: The bright colours of the scenery and the clothes that both the armies are wearing. The lack of blood on and around the fighters is evident, even after the full duration of the seemingly long fought battle.

Olivier has chosen to keep this factor to a minimum, as he does not want to show the obvious outcome of war. This being that both sides will have obvious losses no matter who wins. He wants to give the impression that if the war is won that everything will somehow work itself out. You would also expect quite a lot of mud to be churned up over the battlefield after many soldiers and horses have trampled over it. However, the grass is continually green and the ground has the typically unrealistic “plastic” effect. At one point of the play there appears to be a little realism implemented.

This is near the beginning of the play, before the battle, when the French troops walk through a murky puddle in the dark woods. This has many interpretations but one of them is that it is supposed to add a hint of realism to the film. On the other hand, this scene is so out of contrast with the bright, glorious impression of the other scenes it could be argued that it makes the film seem more unrealistic. So in conclusion the film does not show very much realism and purposefully so, as a realistic battle would not particularly encourage people to want to fight.

The Branagh version is almost opposite in comparison when realism is concerned. One of the main objectives of this film is to show the real side of not only this period but of how battles have been and still are. There is no attempt to mislead the viewer in how green the grass of the battlefield is but it shows the battle as it most probably was. The first point is the state of the battlefield, which starts off reasonably muddy but throughout the duration of the battle, gets progressively worse.

The mud is churned up by the hooves of the horses and begins to show on the characters, as it would. This compared to when the French walk through the mud in the Olivier version and stay immaculately clean is a vast improvement of material realism. The deaths are also of high detail and the gore is not toned down for viewing purposes, as Branagh wants it all to be seen. Post battle the effects of the fight are evident on the fighters as they look exhausted and their clothes are worn and muddy. Cuts and blood cover their visible skin and their faces have grim expressions of loss and anger.

Read next:

Analyse the representation of Multicultural Britain in the films Bend It Like Beckham and East is East
Life as a House
The representation of ethnic minorities in film: East is East