Shakespeare Fans discussion
This topic is about
Henry V
Group Readings
>
December read, Henry V
date
newest »
newest »
message 51:
by
scherzo♫
(last edited Jan 01, 2015 10:28AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Dec 29, 2014 11:47AM
Williams' speech in Act IV Scene I is why I like this play:
reply
|
flag
The production left most of the text intact. It included the approval and Montjoy's message. I don't believe there were intermissions in Shakespeare's day. but audiences now need a break. The Festival also needed a break to sell concessions, which help the Festival keep going.
Act IV scene 1 is the now-famous scene where Henry disguises himself as a commoner to blend in with his troops, so that he can find out what they're feeling. Speaking against the king was punishable by death, yet Henry is willing to risk it to see what they are thinking. I'm not sure if this actually occurred, or if Shakespeare added it, or if there was a legend that it happened. I do know that this is cited by current business books as an effective leadership tool. Get down in the trenches with the troops, so you can know what they're thinking, and you can become a better leader. A similar paradigm today is the TV series Undercover Boss, where the CEO dresses up as a common line worker to gain the experience. I also feel, and I realize I may be reading too much into this, that Shakespeare may have been almost comparing Henry with Jesus Christ. Jesus, according to the Christian faith, was God himself, who came to earth "disguised" in human form (which we just celebrated as Christmas), in order to experience what we feel, and what we're like. Henry's monologue toward the end of the scene would be like the prayer Jesus said at the garden of Gethsemane right before he died on the cross. I don't want to take this too far, because it's clear Henry was not Jesus. It is clear that Shakespeare idealizes Henry V, so the indirect comparison is a possible reading.
Act IV scene 3 has the famous "band of brothers" speech, which is probably Shakespeare's addition. The reference to St Crispian's Day is the feast day of St Crispin (or Crispian), which is October 25. This is designed to rally the troops, who were outnumbered 5-1 by the French, to fight. I couldn't help think of other inspirational speeches, both real and fictional.--"They may take our lives, but they will never take our freedom!"--Mel Gibson, Braveheart
--"They will say that this was their finest hour."--Winston Churchill, during the battle of Britain (1940)
--"We will not go gently into the night. Today, the world celebrates its Independence Day!"--Bill Pullman, Independence Day.
--"Don't give up. Don't ever give up."--North Carolina State basketball coach Jim Valvano, after he was diagnosed with cancer.
And my favorite:--"Go out there and win one for the Gipper!"--Notre Dame coach Knute Rockne, in a game vs Army (1928). Also used by President Ronald Reagan, who played George Gipp in the movie based on Rockne's life. GO IRISH!
Can anyone think of any other motivational speeches?
Mod
Joseph, Thanks for the translation....I am going to read that shortly. And for your good work here leading the discussion. I've been a real drip....my wifi went down for last week. But is up again.
One day I was reading Act 2 on the bus on my phone...I was so engrossed I almost missed my stop!
I am loving all the insights here....the comments are fantastic and going me much to think about and read!
Mod
You know...my gut response to that was...stonemasonry. Plumb-lines. To work with weights. To use ones mind like justice, to measure thoughts. To pull ones weight. To join in with heavy labour. To mature.
Mod
Think we King Harry strong;
And, princes, look you strongly arm to meet him.
The kindred of him hath been flesh'd upon us;
And he is bred out of that bloody strain
That haunted us in our familiar paths:
Witness our too much memorable shame
When Cressy battle fatally was struck,
And all our princes captiv'd by the hand
Of that black name, Edward, Black Prince of Wales;
Whiles that his mountain sire, on mountain standing,
Up in the air, crown'd with the golden sun,
Saw his heroical seed, and smiled to see him,
Mangle the work of nature and deface
The patterns that by God and by French fathers
Had twenty years been made. This is a stem
Of that victorious stock; and let us fear
The native mightiness and fate of him.
Mod
I was looking for "Miracle" with Kurt Russel (I'm a hockey fan!) and "Network" and both are below!
I love football movies in part for their huddles and coach wisdom...here are some inspirational speeches in 20 movies...
http://www.lifehack.org/articles/comm...
Wow--thanks for the movie clips, Candy--so strange because I was doing a genealogy search last night and found out that possibly my great-great grandfather was one of the 600 at the Charge of the Light Brigade...I was never much interested in that till now. I wonder if that movie 300 , about the, I think, Spartans? fighting a similar lopsided battle--I have two Greek friends who are fans, but I haven't seen it.Sorry, but I've been traveling and visiting family, so little time for HV. I think the Ivi scene of Henry in disguise is sort of an interesting note in his methods of leadership. His foil in H4 was his cousin Hotspur, who was more of your classic macho lion-hearted soldier. Henry is more subtle, cagey, wants to know what he has in hand, and therefore that scene IVi where he goes to read the temperature of his troops. I'm never sure what to make of the quarrel he starts with Will? Getting too into his own act? Another place where I see Hal has a bit of Hamlet in him, Hamlet the actor .
Ok this may be way off base, but that line in IV i about --interring Richard's body anew--in view of recent news, does this explain why Richard III was found in some parking lot in England?? Or am I way off?
night music -- bring on the clowns ♫ wrote: "Williams' speech in Act IV Scene I is why I like this play:But if the cause be not good, the King himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs, and arms, and heads, chopped off in a battle, shall join together at the latter day, and cry all, ‘ We died at such a place;’ some swearing, some crying for a surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left. I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle, for how can they charitably dispose of anything when blood is their argument? Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the King that led them to it, who to disobey were against all proportion of subjection."
I agree, this is maybe my favorite speech of the whole play.
Tracy wrote: "Ok this may be way off base, but that line in IV i about --interring Richard's body anew--in view of recent news, does this explain why Richard III was found in some parking lot in England?? Or am..."Wrong Richard. Henry is talking about Richard II, who was overthrown by Henry Bolingbroke, who became Henry IV (Henry V's father). Henry V's speech refers to the fact that Richard had been buried in Stirling, but was reinterred in Westminster Abbey by Henry's order.
One of the things about this play is that it celebrates one of the biggest upsets in history. Other big ones were the British defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, and the American defeat (with French help) of the British in 1781, which led to the founding of the United States. Sports ones would include the US men's hockey team over the Soviet Union in 1980, and just about anything on ESPN Classic. We celebrate the big wins like this, when we defeat a clearly superior foe.
Tom wrote: "Tracy wrote: "Ok this may be way off base, but that line in IV i about --interring Richard's body anew--in view of recent news, does this explain why Richard III was found in some parking lot in En..."Ah, yes, I am confusing Henries--IV for VII and father-son relationships. Cheers!
Mod
Henry V:
O'erblows the filthy and contagious clouds
Of heady murder, spoil and villany.
If not, why, in a moment look to see
The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand
Defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters;
Your fathers taken by the silver beards,
And their most reverend heads dash'd to the walls,
Your naked infants spitted upon pikes,
Whiles the mad mothers with their howls confused
Do break the clouds, as did the wives of Jewry
At Herod's bloody-hunting slaughtermen.
What say you? will you yield, and this avoid,
Or, guilty in defence, be thus destroy'd?
Mod
https://books.google.com/books?id=poe...
Vivid description of war with the opposite attitude to Williams."... guilty in defence ..." -- another unappealing side to Henry
That scene is deleted in many productions (not in the GRSF production, though). As you said, it doesn't fit the idealization of Henry.
Mod
Candy wrote: "Yes, night music...in some ways Henry is just such a sorrow to me. It seems he justifies things in a way that is not moral. I should try to back up this I guess...I'm working on it. Things seem lik..."I'm actually with you on this, Candy. Maybe why I like the "old" Hal in the previous plays better. He just became an egoist, a master manipulator, using his smarts to push other people's buttons. When I read the famous "We happy few..band of brothers" speech, I feel an undertow of machination, based on my foreknowledge of his character. By itself, it's a wonder of a speeech, but in context--the bridges he's burned--he just seems a bit of a cold fish to me. and for what? So England can praise him for the next 500 years?
Shakespeare showed Henry's shadow side as early as Act I Scene 2 in Henry IV Part I:"I know you all, and will awhile uphold
The unyoked humour of your idleness.
Yet herein will I imitate the sun,
Who doth permit the base contagious clouds
To smother up his beauty from the world,
That when he please again to be himself,
Being wanted, he may be more wondered at
By breaking through the foul and ugly mists
Of vapours that did seem to strangle him.
If all the year were playing holidays,
To sport would be as tedious as to work;
But when they seldom come, they wished-for come,
And nothing pleaseth but rare accidents."
He's faking friendship and using his pub buddies from the start.
Yeah, that's okay, Falstaff, my friend,yes, go ahead, my friend, drink that 9th glass, follow that little tart, hold up that coach--I'm right behind you. I'll hold your coat--that's my entertainment, to watch you roar....
Now, on to Act V. The war is over, England has won, and Henry is negotiating terms with the French king. One of the "prizes" Henry wants is Catherine, the French king's daughter. The French king was in no position to refuse. Back in Henry's time, and even in Queen Elizabeth's time, marriages were arranged for political reasons, or as spoils of war. This is what makes the scene where Henry tries to woo Catherine humorous, and also part of Shakespeare's idealization of Henry. Henry already has her, and needs only to plan the wedding. Yet, he wants to woo her so she will love him, not just as spoils of war. In real life, Henry V only reigned for 9 years, and died of natural causes. He and Catherine had 1 son, Henry VI. Catherine lived to see her son take the throne. As the chorus points out, however, Henry VI threw away everything his father built up. This was dramatized in Henry VI parts 1-3, which were some of Shakespeare's early works. This, I believe, is why Shakespeare idolizes Henry V. It's a statement on what could have been.
Joseph wrote: "Now, on to Act V....As the chorus points out, however, Henry VI threw away everything his father built up."
The chorus blames the nobles who had the managing of his state:
Henry the Sixth, in infant bands crowned King
Of France and England, did this King succeed,
Whose state so many had the managing
That they lost France, and made his England bleed:
Which oft our stage hath shown; and, for their sake,
In your fair minds let this acceptance take.
Mod
the thing is...the way he is so forthcoming is great. He is so personable and large and charismatic. He speaks....I mean he convinces me! Yet...and really if he was a superhero...his speeches would be his superpower. And I think this is part of the attraction for shakespeare with this character. Here is a person whose job is to control through words. Shakespeare surely would have felt a common trade as a playwright?
Is Henry V a crazed leader? Welll, he does use people. He is manipulative. Yet...he gets many things done.
And this makes me want to dig deeper into why does he invade France?
Is there a reason that his son doesn't feel as bound to France and owning it as a previous generation?
I see people who own small businesses and wish at one point, perhaps romantically their kids would take over.
Some do take over family businesses...but so many do not.
Recently a grandchild came into a restaurant I work in and they were having a family gathering and this grandson was showing the place to his friend he had brought. And he went behind the bar to make drinks. And I asked him, "do you think you might take this place over when your grandparents retire?"
"Oh no, I couldn't make enough money"
So...as Joseph hints to the ending of this play...where we are reminded that following generations didn't maintain hold of France (or carry on that line of work)...is it sad? Sad for who?
Mod
Do we now have a different desire for our leaders?
As I said earlier, I've seen business books that use Shakespeare's Henry V as a model for organizational leadership. The scenes they focus on are his disguise to blend in with the troops, the "band of brothers" speech, and his willingness to cut ties with those who would turn against the Crown. I believe Shakespeare laments that Henry V died too early, before he could train Henry VI how to be king. If that had happened, the history of England and France would have been different.
England and France have patched up their differences. They were allies in both World Wars. The Chunnel runs under the English Channel to connect the two nations. The 2014 Tour de France started in England, with a royal sendoff by Prince William, Duchess Kate, and Prince Harry. How times have changed.
I wonder about something. If England and France had stayed connected from the time of Henry V on, some of the wars they fought wouldn't have happened. The French and Indian War (or Seven Years' War) in the 1750s wouldn't have happened. The British wouldn't have had any need to try to tax the American colonists to pay for the war. The American colonists wouldn't have been as upset with the British as they were. The American Revolution wouldn't have happened. The United States wouldn't have come into existence. America would still be a British-French colony. It boggles the mind.
Mod
So...maybe it's not so sad that young Henry the VI didn't carry on the family business.
Strife and conflict might have happened in some other context though...I wonder!
And maybe British cuisine would be more beloved LOL
I find it interesting that the French Queen decides to help with the negotiations. She says that a woman's touch might help everyone come to an agreement. Do you agree?
Joseph wrote: "I find it interesting that the French Queen decides to help with the negotiations. She says that a woman's touch might help everyone come to an agreement. Do you agree?"Well, Salic law 'n' all...
My time here is almost up. We move on to Othello next, with another moderator. I leave you with the words of Prospero in The Tempest (with some minor modifications).Now my charms are all overthrown,
And what strength I have's mine own,
Which is most faint: now, 'tis true,
I must be here confined by you,
Or sent to Minnesota. Let me not,
Since I have my dukedom got
And pardoned the deceiver, dwell
In this bare cyberspace by your spell;
But release me from my bands
With the help of your good hands:
Gentle breath of yours my sails
Must fill, or else my project fails,
Which was to please. Now I want
Spirits to enforce, art to enchant,
And my ending is despair,
Unless I be relieved by prayer,
Which pierces so that it assaults
Mercy itself and frees all faults.
As you from crimes would pardoned be,
Let your indulgence set me free.
Mod
And Tracy your reply about Salic law is very helpful too.
I think there is something her.e I think this seemingly subtle offer from the Queen....the juxtaposition and knowledge of options with Salic law....is something.
I think it's profound...but mostly I feel it intuitively....whats is here?
The discussion of Salic Law early in the play (by Canterbury?) is that Salic Law doesn't hold in France. It's a German tradition and social construct. Does it actually have or have to, have power for England or France.
Is the "woman touch" then...actually Salic Law? Is Salic Law good or bad?
I think it's kind of both. Having giving women a douse of control with a dowry for security. Okay....thats something. Why do women need that? Because they would shit out of luck if they didn't have that. Why can't women inherit land? Because if they owned land...then men would have absolutely no power. When it comes to life...women have all the power. They have sexual sduction and they give birth to children. So all of these laws and formalities and restrictions are because men really don't have much use as far as Nature is concerned. men developed power and innovative past times...to eke out a place within social constructs. When it comes to Mother Nature she gave all the wealth to women.
So...I am not sure if the Queen just means Salic Law. France didn't have to adhere to Salic Law ...which is what is suggested...I think the Queen means a variety of women worth.
I think she means a woman touch...she literally means it...like sex. She also means a non-violent resolution to conflict.
And I think that might be something profound...
....let me keep thinking. I hope you haven't left the discussion yet Joseph...and Tracy and night music...any insight to why the Queen would say "a woman touch"?
Mod
A man/King might win a country by force. Thats not good enough. They must win by bloodline too....so the power and culture that males created is still not more powerful than the power of nature that women rule...(sexual chemistry, childbirth, building a domestic haven...where a man becomes second in power...even a King)
Mod
And it is also a play with language....and the idea that I feel Shakespeare always likes to mess with...that we learn who and what we are by speaking with each other. Or speaking to our selves.
I wanted to find something to sort of "back u" my two previous comments about men, women nature and social constructs...here is a link to something I thought was great because it focuses on the intelligence and "warfare" of Katherine in the play...
http://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index....
Something else to consider is that this play was written around 1599, while Queen Elizabeth I was Queen of England. Her reign was a clear statement about women in power. I think there's some of that at play here as well. Queen Elizabeth never married and had no children. This may have helped her reign more effectively, but it caused serious problems when she died in 1603 without a successor. That's when James VI of Scotland became James I of England and, for a while, unified the 2 kingdoms.
Mod
Here is some sex in Henry V
Ostrich claims that 'according to folklore and to early medical and pre-scientific texts on conception, both sexes had to anticipate pleasure and experience orgasm in order to procreate successfully' In her research on gynecological and obstetrical txts published from 1570-1740, Audrey Eccles also found that most scientists believed the woman produced a seed or 'stone' which was thought to be 'emitted during orgasm and mixed with the male seed on conception'. And despite a lack of consensus n how conception was achieved, 'a robust insistence on mutual pleasure was maintained throughout this period'. Further, it must be remembered that this is an arranged marriage, and as Rubin correctly points out, 'The needs of sexuality and procreation must be satisfied as much as the need to eat, and as one of the most obvious deductions which can be made from the data of anthropology is that these needs are hardly ever satisfied in any "natural" form, and more than are the needs for food....Every society also has a sex/gender system-a set of arrangements by which the biological raw material of human sex and procreation is shaped by human, social intervention and satisfied in a conventional manner, no matter how bizarre some of the conventions may be'. This helps to explain why Henry, while engaging in the decidedly bizarre convention of wooing a woman to whom marriage is already arranged, has also sought Katherine's willingness to help him produce heirs. If she decides or involuntarily concedes, Henry may not achieve the successful line with which he has been so preoccupied. After all, Henry knows from painful personal experience that royal legitimacy does not occur naturally. Thus as Rackin states succinctly:'the royal authority that Henry V finally represents is an achievement, not an inheritance'.
From here...
http://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index....
Candy wrote: "This is also an incredible set of ideas and words...Henry V:
O'erblows the filthy and contagious clouds
Of heady murder, spoil and villany.
If not, why, in a moment look to see
The b..."
Two things I'd love to go back to if anyone wants to discuss them:
1. What's with this scene that Candy cites in post 66? Henry is saying that if the town chooses to put up a fight, his soldiers will rape and kill every man, woman, and child during their attack. Why did Shakespeare put this in here? Is this scene meant to show that Henry is clever? Or that he has a dark side? Or that he is just a realist about what happens in war? Is he suggesting that his troops (who can overhear this exchange) will be encouraged to do these things, or that he literally can't stop them (as he hints)?
2. What's the actual vibe on the Henry/Katherine scene? Are they in love? When I read it on my own, Katherine seemed to settle for Henry rather than anything more passionate. When I saw it live, they cut out the dirty jokes afterward, they cut out the dirty jokes afterward to make the scene more sincere. What if they leave the jokes in? How does that play? To me, and maybe I'm being too modern here, it undermines Harry's romance lines on the previous pages.
Phil wrote: "Candy wrote: "This is also an incredible set of ideas and words...Henry V:
O'erblows the filthy and contagious clouds
Of heady murder, spoil and villany.
If not, why, in a moment look to..."
1. I see it as yet another manipulative move for Henry--he's painting a picture of aftermath to convince a surrender? Notice the last two lines:
What say you? will you yield, and this avoid,
Or, guilty in defence, be thus destroy'd?
He's shifting the blame already to the town; it's their fault if this "happens".
Tracy wrote: "Phil wrote: "Candy wrote: "This is also an incredible set of ideas and words...Henry V:
O'erblows the filthy and contagious clouds
Of heady murder, spoil and villany.
If not, why, in a m..."
Thanks for responding!
So, if this is a veiled threat, are we supposed to approve of it? Is this supposed to be admirable?
Phil wrote: "Tracy wrote: "Phil wrote: "Candy wrote: "This is also an incredible set of ideas and words...Henry V:
O'erblows the filthy and contagious clouds
Of heady murder, spoil and villany.
If no..."
If you want my opinion, I don't condone it. But I like Hal better before he's king.
Phil wrote: "Candy wrote: "This is also an incredible set of ideas and words...Henry V:
O'erblows the filthy and contagious clouds
Of heady murder, spoil and villany.
If not, why, in a moment look to..."
From my understanding of the rules of war in medieval times - if a city was attacked, resisted and was later captured after a siege - it was anything goes for the capturing forces, ie looting, rape and killing of the inhabitants were all perfectly acceptable and legal.
Also as an aside, as an old soldier, the St. Crispin's Day speech Is my favorite in all of Shakespeare, and so true.
Another aside, I mentioned in a different thread the Utah Shakespeare Festival was doing the historical plays in chronological order. They had the same actors play Henry IV and Henry V in Richard II through Henry V. It interesting to watch the actor playing Henry V "grow up" in the thee plays. They also had the actor who played Henry IV play the Chorus in Henry V which I thought was a nice touch.
Mod
the Utah performance sounds really good. (I missed all park productions of Shakespeare this year, boo!)
Shakespeare Fans
Books mentioned in this topic
Richard III (other topics)Julius Caesar (other topics)
