It is all thanks to the title character himself, the King Henry V. He is a good commander and king, presented a shining paragon of chivalry and virtue, yet simultaneously his character is opaque. Prince Hal, the wastrel heir to the throne, has seemingly grown up to be King Henry V, the shining star of England who successfully laid waste to the fields of France. King Henry V is heroic, just, and honest, everything a good King should be.
But is he really?
Quoting from another reviewer, from my point of view, good ol' King Henry V, Harry Plantagenet, Prince Hal of Eastcheap, is an "amiable monster, a very splendid pageant." He is, in trope-speak, obfuscating stupidity. From the first scene, where the Bishop of Ely and the Archbishop of Canterbury persuades the King to reject a bill appropriating their church property in exchange for spiritual support for the French invasion, we can see his ingenuity. The King is dawdling, as we learn from the Bishops, on where he stands for the bill. Is he dawdling because he is politically inexperienced, or is he bidding his time, knowing that the Bishops would come to him with the pretext needed for his invasion?
And for a patriotic play about war filled with jingoism, there are some highly critical passages here: the scene of Harry, incognito, speaking with Michael Williams, a common soldier, about the nature of kings and his subjects. The fate of Pistol and his friends. In the end, we are left with the fact that for all of the sacrifices made, for all the soldiers that have given up their lives so that he can rule France, it will be all for naught; France will be lost forever by his son Henry VI
0 comments:
Post a Comment