I will start by saying that I am in favor of opening up all barriers to literature (whatever that means) and history—particularly when it comes to anything having to do with the Early Medieval and Early Modern. #HATM
However, I sit here, astounded, that a film can simultaneously attempt to make 14th century history and the 16th century play (I assume it is just the Shakespeare one) that could be both insultingly basic and exclusionary.
This version of Henry V (with a strange few minutes dedicated to 1 Henry 4) is truly indicative of the Trump era and Brexit.
It depends on an all white, nearly all male cast to reinterpret Shakespeare and early history. I *may* have been somewhat open to this telling if it hadn’t been so so unimaginative.
The production depends on the presumption that a particular group of men can interpret history and literature, that the battle of Agincourt, the political motivations of monarchs can only be understood by a few.
The one moment of clarity is when Catherine questions Harry’s motivations for engaging in a war. I won’t remember the exact lines, but she accuses him of a lack of understand, foresight, and interpretive ability. The filmmakers should have read those lines over and over.
There are so many ways to have begun the film. If 1 Henry 4 ways so important to this film, why not begin with the myths of the battlefield. A few lines from that play stick with me—the post from Wales about the supposed desecration of Mortimer’s body by Welshwomen.
What drives women associated with the “irregular and wild” Glendower to injure a body after it is dead? What has war done to them? How does this play so quickly move from “business in the Holy Land”—presumably against Early Modern followers of Islam—back to England?
So many questions that could have been answered. So many creative reimaginings of Shakespeare. But who gets to walk to a burgeoning major studio and declare “I want to make Shakespeare more accessible and welcoming to everyone! I have ideas!” We know who.
I echo @jmgmbl and @hbachrach in their concern about trying to rewrite Shakespeare. It’s not a great idea. It’s not a good idea to try to reinforce notions of whiteness in Early Medieval and Medieval students counter to the work being done by @ISASaxonists and @dorothyk98.
Giving actors poorly conceived scripts with no motivation and no compelling story produces characters for whom no one has time or sympathy/empathy. Declaring your audience not bright enough to handle complications is insulting and infantilism.
I tend to encourage students and teachers to move from Shakespeare to other playwrights of the time to get a more holistic view of Early Modern theater. And we should. BUT THIS FILM? It makes me a defender of Shakespeare! And I don’t like that. I can’t be ME due to this film.
We—whether professionals or students of history, literature, of film and of theater or maybe just those of us generally and genuinely curious about this time period or work produced in it? WE ALL DESERVE BETTER. I can’t get *my* time back, but I hope to save yours. /end
@HerbertHistory—for inclusion in your commentary if you’d like!
@HerbertHistory @threadreaderapp unroll please
