David Lawrence (director of the Victoria University production of Henry V), has this to say:
"My starting point with any Shakespeare play is always about the here and now. What makes the play worth performing in the here and now? The plays have survived on the one hand because they're great stories with lots of scope, but the most important reason has to be because they're about aspects of human psychology and emotion that are as pertinent and true now as they were 400 years ago.... [W]ith Henry V it's impossible to look beyond the US of the past decade. Henry V is, at its basic level, about a guy nobody actually voted for invading a country who've got nothing to do with any of their political turmoil and toppling their government under the claim of being liberators."
YOUR TASK: Comment on any or all of the following excerpts from Henry V, in light of what David Lawrence has written:
III.i.3-8
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage (Henry)
III.i
The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!' (Henry)
III.vi
We are in God's hand, brother, not in theirs. (Henry)
IV.i
O God of battles! steel my soldiers' hearts;
Possess them not with fear (Henry at prayer before the battle at Agincourt)
IV.iii
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered,
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother (Henry)
IV.vii
MONTJOY:
The day is yours.
KING HENRY:
Praised be God, and not our strength, for it!
V.ii
KATHARINE:
O bon Dieu! les langues des hommes sont pleines de tromperies.
KING HENRY: What says she, fair one? That the tongues of men are full of deceits?
ALICE: Oui, dat de tongues of de mans is be full of deceits: dat is de Princess.
V.ii
KATHARINE:
Is it possible dat I should love de enemy of France?
KING HENRY:
No; it is not possible you should love the enemy of France, Kate;but, in loving me, you should love the friend of France; for I love France so well that I will not part with a village of it, I will have it all mine; and, Kate, when France is mine and I am yours, then yours is France and you are mine.
Finally...
1. Do you think, in writing this play, that Shakespeare wanted audiences to sympathise with the English and be against the French? Why/ why not?
2. How does Shakespeare position us in relation to the characters? (How does he manipulate us to feel how he wants us to feel towards them?)
3. Is Henry just a George W. Bush prototype? Or is he more than that?
4. Did you like the Henry you saw at the production on Wednesday night?
Some links
- http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19449.htm for an article on the modern-day Prince Harry's deployment to Afghanistan
- http://www.william-shakespeare.info/script-text-henry-v.htm for the play script
- http://www.grovel.org.uk/henry-v-the-graphic-novel/ for a review of a graphic novel version of Henry V
- http://www.rsc.org.uk/content/3104.aspx for Royal Shakespeare Company notes on Henry V
- http://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/henryv for Spark Notes on Henry V
12 comments:
III.i.3-8
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage (Henry)
We see a pattern in this speech where Henry says "imitate the action of a tiger" and "disguise fair nature with hard favour'd rage"
There is a difference between being a tiger and imitating one.
Henry is saying that the bravery and courage summoned up will be a performance/fake rather than real. This links to real life situations where alot of people "put on a brave face" or go into a situation full of fear and nerves but pretend it's no big deal. Therefore people can relate to this part of the text.
3. Is Henry just a George W. Bush prototype? Or is he more than that?
Henry has already decided to invade France before he is insulted via the tennis balls. Henry thus uses the insulting gift as an excuse to justify the inevitable. The invasion was to control France via the crown.
This compares with George W Bush as he uses the excuse of Iraq having WMDs to invade the country. The invasion was to control Iraq via oil (the new crown).
I reckon that Henry is heaps more like Bush than Obama in that he is constantly refering to God looking over them and controlling them. All of Bush's actions were justified by him saying "God will guide us" or other things like that, and Henry says the same sorts of things, "we are in God's hands."
Obama on the other hand doesn't use God as a reason for his actions.
I also get the feeling that Obama is more merciful while Bush was about justice.
This can be seen in Henry aswell, as he chooses to have two of his friends killed. He doesnt show mercy because he needs to show people that he is running a fair country and not giving his friends preferential treatment.
Hmmm, interesting thoughts. I like your point, Liam, about the words "imitate" and "disguise" both suggesting that this whole war thing is a performance on the part of the English. It raises a question about Henry himself, and whether being King is also an act. Henry at various points in the play talks about how he's human too, ordinary like anybody else and no different, and yet he has to preserve this appearance of being somehow greater than those around him, somehow superhuman. So he puts on this big act of kingship. And maybe that's what's going on, Philippa, when Henry has his friends executed - it's part of his kingly act, even though it goes against every human emotion that he has.
Perhaps a question the play raises is whether the responsibility of power actually requires a person (Henry, Bush, Obama) to relinquish some of their humanity, and to exercise justice in a way that goes against their normal emotions...
Do you think, in writing this play, that Shakespeare wanted audiences to sympathise with the English and be against the French? Why/ why not?
Yes, I think this is what Shakespeare wanted. The play was written for an English audience and can clearly be seen to favour the English over the French. This is mainly conveyed through Henry's actions, he is shown to be a good leader – brave and intelligent, leading his country to achieve an unlikely victory over their enemy, the French. Shakespeare paints a picture of the french as nieve and immoral. The scene where Katharine is getting taught English and is unable to pronounce words like “finger” properly portrays the French as something laughable , and not to be taken seriously. The part of the play where a French soldier kills an English child makes the audience feel against the French, as it shows them having no sense of morality in killing an innocent child.
However Shakespeare has made this whole play about Henry choosing to invade France for no apparent reason, killing many innocent people, as well as close friends of his. Yet because the play ends with England winning the war and living happily-ever-after , the audience is left feeling happy towards their country. Maybe Shakespeare wanted to show how easily people can be persuaded to believe in someone, despite their negative aspects.
IV.vii
MONTJOY:
The day is yours.
KING HENRY:
Praised be God, and not our strength, for it!
There's a certain element of irony? (I'm always using this word in the wrong place) in the fact that Henry says 'praised be God' for instigating a war on a country that was, in most aspects, harmless to England. It's easy to forget Henry's selfish reason behind declaring war on France in his feigned humility. The words 'praised be God' make his actions sound laudable and noble when in actual fact, they are not.
The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!' (Henry)
I think the last line is interesting, being almost paradoxical in its content. He refers to himself as Harry instead of Henry when addressing his soldiers, this casual reference to himself comes off as a nickname. Throughout the full speech this line ends he uses personal pronouns to include himself amongst his soldiers the final battle, and using an affectionate referral to himself lowers him to his troops ranks. However he contrasts this by going on to mention himself amongst the ranks of England’s patron saint, George.
This at first look seems odd but I think it is meant to not lower Henry to the ranks of his troops but to raise his troops to the realms of the gods. Henrys effective way of making his troops going into the final battle feeling invincible.
vII
KATHERINE: is it possible that i should love the enemy of france?
HENRY:No; it is not possible you should love the enemy of France, Kate;but, in loving me, you should love the friend of France; for I love France so well that I will not part with a village of it, I will have it all mine; and, Kate, when France is mine and I am yours, then yours is France and you are mine.
i thought Henry's excuse of love for France was an interesting statement. it particularly stood out in the play for me. i think in part it was due to the nonchalant way he brushes off the fact that he had killed so many innocents in his pointless, power hungry, war. Although Bush never wooed an Iraqi princess, he did make deals to get oil. they both dare to ask for things after they have invaded a country with little or no reason and killed thousands of innocents. it is all just socially unjust, not mention shows immense greed in both.
Something else that got my attention was the contrast from the hymnal song for the dead and the peaceful gathering of both the French and the English. this really contrasts today's society, if ever a country is run by an unwanted country or power, terrorist groups are formed to annihilate that power.
p.s. i went to the play on Saturday night and really enjoyed it! but i dont think i would have been able to follow it without the lessons spent on it.
V.ii
KATHARINE:
Is it possible dat I should love de enemy of France?
KING HENRY:
No; it is not possible you should love the enemy of France, Kate;but, in loving me, you should love the friend of France; for I love France so well that I will not part with a village of it, I will have it all mine; and, Kate, when France is mine and I am yours, then yours is France and you are mine.
Henry, in saying that his desire to own all of France shows his love for the country reveals a selfish and slightly ignorant side of his character.
He believes that his wanting to conquer France shows his love for the country and people. However France provided no threat to the country of England at the time, thus the war on France resulted in thousands of Frenchmen's deaths and many more homes and lives in France ruined. This shows that Henry's idea of love is a highly selfish one.
Is Henry just a George W. Bush prototype? Or is he more than that?
Bush and Henry are very similar in the way that they commit acts that would be considered morally questionable for common citizens, somehow excused for it through the facade that they are doing it for their countries.
Another similarity: they are both natural leaders, skilled in using psychological weapons to rouse the fighting spirit of their people; often justifying their actions through the pretense that it is the will of God.
I do think that Shakespeare made Henry seem more likeable than Bush. Unlike Bush, Henry not only inherited his role as King, but also at a young age. It is easy to hold his youthful impulsivity on account of his actions, whereas Bush does not have the same excuse, making him harder to sympathize with. I am not implying that Henry wasn't to blame for his actions however; merely that Shakespeare intended for us to understand him.
Personally I think, when we focus more on the events rather than the dialogue, Henry seems more brutal than Bush - after winning the war, it was 'happily ever after' for him. I had hoped that he would express some grief for the men that were killed because of the senseless war he'd triggered. I do admit that it is very easy to forget this while watching the play, as Henry's inspirational speeches masked his flaws, making him seem heroic.
III.i
The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!' (Henry)
Henry has proved many times his ability as a speaker, again he does so here. this is the end of a speech in which he is attempting to motivate and rally his troops for the battle at harfleur.
henry inspires them with patriotism, making them want to honor their country with a victory, to prove themselves worthy of being english. this shared national identity in my view make henry sound at one with his men. he is going to be out on the battlefield with them (i think??) trying to prove to himself that very same thing. back then that was a huge thing, you were eternally proud of your family, and your country (unlike fleur hehe) and you would do anything for them. henry then also uses st. george, the patron saint of england, in his battlecry. this adds to the patriotism he creates in his battlecry by using this valued and familiar symbol.
this does relate to the 21st century. i can relate to it when the AB's play a match and the whole counrty gets behind them in support. but really other than sport we arn't patriotic (well most of us). i know in NZ the 'greatest pride' is known for pulling on the black jersey, for rugby.. also would george w have been out fighting in the very same battle as his army he deployed to iraq? no, he was just sitting behind the desk...
We are in God's hand, brother, not in theirs. (Henry)
What an incredably rash statment to suggest that 'God' is taking care of the Engish. "in gods hand" suggest that no one has any control, rather the hand of god dictates outcomes. Henry is trying to convince his comrads that the French to not have control rather god does, which he claims/believes favours the British aims. Great way to rally a crowd I sapouse.
Post a Comment