He is the perfect king in Shakespeare's plays who reigns from 1413 to 1422, hence nine years. Shakespeare invested him in three previous plays, Richard II, 1 Henry IV and 2 Henry IV. But in these plays he is a kid and then a teenager playing it hooky in the taverns of London. But that time is now finished as we know from his rebuke to Falstaff on his coronation day at the end of 2 Henry IV. The man has changed and his most important achievement is the battle of Agincourt on October 25, 1415, the day that celebrates Saint Crispin that Shakespeare also calls Crispian who was put to death on October 25, 285. Note how the superstitious people of Shakespeare's time can jubilate on the fact that 285 produces 15 by adding the three digits of the date. Hence 1415 is a miracle date that brings God down on Henry's side to the point that the battle only kills twenty-five people on the English side, dixit Shakespeare, twenty-five to honor October 25, Saint Crispin's day. This English king who has the intention to unify England and France by marrying the King of France's daughter will fail in that respect since his son will only be six years old when he dies in the Château of Vincennes in France on 1422. Note though how they all are cousins or uncles. In other words these two crowns are systematically inbreeding. There is little clean blood and new blood in their descendants. Shakespeare seems to consider this as normal and even a sign of closeness, hence a justification for unifying the two crowns and of course the two nations that are seen and defined as being born under the kings of this period. The War of Roses is like a nation-forming civil war, a war between brothers and cousins, uncles and nephews. That's one of the results of this intense inbreeding. So Henry V marries his cousin. And their imposing the One Hundred Year War onto the French will enable the French to become a nation at the same time. That's the end of the play and the courtship of Henry to Katharine is both awkward and funny how Henry is behaving like a soldier and wants the courtship to be a battle and Katharine to yield to his might, and at the same time how Katharine is well-behaved and French-educated and she has to flee, fly away and flutter around, and she swiftly parry his assault, deflect his attack, block and avert his advance, counter and rebuff his intention, and finally repel and repulse his vanity to take as a conquest what should be received as a gift or a present. Luckily her father King Charles VI arrives and he can finally give his daughter to Henry and Henry can finally receive Katharine. The love words of Henry are vastly contorted by the linguistic game of both, Katharine trying to speak some English and Henry attempting the impossible task of speaking some French.The whole action of the play is one battle or nearly, the war leading to that battle, Agincourt, and it is thus entirely dominated by military questions. It contrasts the English army led by Henry V and the French army led by the Dauphin in the name of his aging father Charles VI. Imagine the French nobles drinking wine in the morning before the battle and boasting that they are going to defeat the English the way they gulp their wine. On the other side the English are austere and very serious in their concentration on God and his necessary help. The English are humble in many ways and the French are vain, as vain as peacocks who will end up plucked like chickens before roasting or broiling.In a very clear sign of defeat Montjoy, the French herald, appears three times. The second time he had said he would not come again, and the third time he comes to concede the day is Henry's, hence the defeat. Three is always a sign of a disturbance, a bad news, a catastrophe. But the catastrophe of one side is the victory of the other. And he will come a fourth time with the body counts that will settle the bad news and bring up a good news. First the French body count:"HENRY V: ten thousand, sixteen hundred mercenaries; The rest, princes, barons, lords, knights, squires, And gentlemen of blood and quality." (IV viii)And then the English body count:"HENRY V: Duke of York, Earl of Suffolk, Sir Richard Ketly, Davy Gam, esquire: all other men five and twenty." (IV viii)But the strong point is the night before the battle. On the French side they revel and are bored of waiting. On the English side they try to rest and concentrate on their divine mission. The king though tries something delicate: he hides himself under some cloak and goes around to check on his men. Security is correct every single time he comes up in the night. He finally sits with a group of soldiers and one of them, Williams, gets into an argument with the King, not knowing who he is, because Williams is not as respectful as he should be and Henry overreacts. But this leads to a deep and sad reflection of the king. He sees his place as the depositary of all the tasks and actions of the people but he also considers that the soul of these people is their own and they have to look after it themselves, as he says to the soldiers in the night.And then alone he gets onto a long reflection of the fate of a king, shifting from prose to verse to let us know he is reaching out to the sky, to God, to the truth of life he definitely considers as the truth of God.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

The complete Shakespeare set is now available at Amazon UK for a fairly low price of about $250 - depending upon exchange rates. Note the price they quote is NOT the price you pay, since it includes VAT. Shipping is only a few pounds, and takes less than a week. The amazing set includes ALL 37 plays in a compact box.The only SLIGHT problem is that it's REGION 2 encoded.To get around that problem, go to your favorite auction web site, and search for multi-region code free.There, you should find sales of instructions on how to convert MOST DVD players to region-free players -fairly simply, as part of setup.If for some reason, your player is not included in the list then consider picking up an inexpensive one -I managed to get one for $30, including shipping.

First, it has taken me almost 30 years to finally get a copy of this play to view again. Previously, it was only available as an entire series (all 37 plays)for libraries or schools ONLY--and since not many libraries could afford the entire series, it was unavailable--even at the university libraries I also checked. Thank goodness for Ambrose, since PBS has been horrendous in not making it available earlier. Finally audiences could see accurate productions with excellent casts. So...know that:1) These were NOT film productions. They were part of an ambitious project to VIDEOTAPE the ENTIRE canon of plays. Therefore, they were shot on sets--RARELY on location. If you are producing all 37 plays with some of the best talent, you don't spend it on frills. Because these were 'filmed' stage plays, the sets were minimal--but tapestries, arches, crenelations, and some grassy knolls sufficed. The costumes were, with the possible exception of Olivier's film, the most accurate--and obviously derived from the 15th c. Duc de Berry's Hours. Kenneth Branagh's had hardly any costumes, and NO ARMOR! Leather armor on the king?! How ridiculous was that? Branagh's film costumes were historically inaccurate, though the french knights did sport some real armor. And the only location filming was the same muddy field for Harfleur and Agincourt.--See Branagh's autobiography for why: Budget mattered here too, just as it did to the BBC in 1978/79.2)David Giles, directed "I Claudius" about the same time for the BBC, then did "Julius Caesar", and soon after, this cycle of history plays with Derek Jacobi as Richard II, and an interesting Jon Finch (who did a memorable Macbeth for Roman Polanski)as Henry IV. And unlike later producer/directors for the series, he stayed in the historical period of the action; which makes for a better understanding of that action, than seeing "Anthony and Cleopatra" in 16th century clothes. This production also had a lead actor who looked more like the real Henry V (if the NPG portrait is to be believed) and the attention to detail of Henry's scarred cheek from Shrewsbury. 3)David Gwillim not only had the continuity of playing Prince Hal in the series immediately before doing "Henry V", he had also seen Anthony Quayle's Falstaff as a child when his father, Jack Gwillim, was in the play. So there was a rapport. But doing the plays as a continuous series, and viewing it as such, it is easy to see how the portrayal built on what came before. And how bluff, jolly Hal, becomes serious, wary Henry V; who yet still remains approachable and likable as king.4)Like Branagh's ten years later, this production tried to show a conflicted king, as well as a calculating one; a stickler for the accuracy of his claim to France (witness the close questioning of the prelates' long-winded reasoning), and yet one who could feel both the traitors', and then Bardolph's deaths, and a guilty conscience the night before Agincourt. Okay, so Branagh's and Olivier's Crispin Day speech is more inspiring--they also were enhanced by music. David Gwillim's first act--the tennis balls,and later traitors scenes have never been bettered. Gwillim didn't just glare at the French Ambassador like Branagh; you actually saw the king's surprise, rueful acknowledgment of his own past actions having caused the false impression, and an attempt to control his temper all within the space of a few seconds before he replies. Branagh's scenes were rather more histrionic. Ditto, the traitors scene. Branagh attacked so you saw the anger, but the tears did not equal the pain of those "...Why so didst thou(s)" that Gwillim and Giles did. And that closeup when Gwillim's Henry is told about Bardolph still resonates without the flashbacks Branagh had to use. No one has bettered Gwillim's "Upon the King...". Through inflection and expression it was so much more honest and real. Olivier's is almost sleepy--and he cuts a lot out. Branagh's, though beautifully lit and enhanced by music, still sounds like he's reciting--until the final desperation seeps in. Later, I think the BBC production tried to capture the historical Henry's rigorous adherence to rules, but also his religiosity--though it was very subtly done. (I could see this king burning Badby, pulling him out half burned to recant, and then putting him back in the flames when he doesn't.) RE: The glove scene: Henry deflects the challenge to Fluellen because he knows if Williams does hit him as king, it is a possible death penalty--as Fluellen himself recommends. So, for Henry it is not a game, it is an attempt to protect Williams--yet still let him know what he could have faced. And in CU we see both the king's consideration of Williams's excuses and consequent concern about the situation before he capitulates and gives Williams the crowns. And finally... 5)In over 40 years of viewing, David Gwillim is THE most honestly direct actor I have ever seen. Maybe the range and subtlety of others' talent is not present, but that's what made him almost perfect as Shakespeare's Henry V who was such a forthright and direct king. Olivier comes across as overtly regal, and Branagh as younger and more approachable. You never forget Olivier is a king, and Branagh is more like a brother. Only David Gwillim caught the middle ground of both the honest directness and resultant surety of purpose in Henry's authority, and the isolation of self-awareness. So for now, and as I did 30 years ago, I thank Mr. Gwillim (and Mr. Giles) for "the little touch of 'Harry(V)' in the night."

Another BBC take on Shakespeare's histories, this production is of somewhat dubious quality. Completely unabridged, the play can be difficult to follow for those who have not read it, also, the poor camera angles and lacklustre performances from the cast fail to emphasise on certain points. David Gwillim, whom certainly looks more like Henry V than Olivier or Branagh, has a mixed performance in the lead role. His Henry, while amusing and likeable at times, tends to whimper his speeches, most notably when he meekly whispers his way through the St. Crispins day speech before leading his men against three or four pitiful French whom, we are to believe, are actually Sixty-thousand strong. In fact I lie, Henry does not even lead his men, we only see him trudging towards us after the "battle" has taken place. The characters than have the audacity to boast that ten-thousand French have been slain, when we have yet to see one dead body (discounting the solitary dead "boy")The scenery is poor as well, instead of filming on location, the play is filmed on a horribly unrealistic set, the walls of Harfleur are evidently made from cardboard or some such substance, and the scenic field of Agincourt is in fact a wall. Cinematography does not change, almost all of the play is filmed in bright cutesy colours and Agincourt seems a remarkably pleasant "telly-tubby" place (all we need is the. We just cannot believe for a moment that what we are watching is real. The lack of music as well must be stated, since it strips the play of drama and tension.This play could have been so good, the cast is capable, but the direction is so poor. If music, on-location sets, and better cinematography (i.e mud, fire, blood at Harfleur and Agincourt) had been used, then for very little extra money, the play could have been brilliant.