Alfred Enoch – photo by Johan Persson
Henry V by William Shakespeare – Royal Shakespeare Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon
Following their highly successful 2024 collaboration on Pericles, Joint Artistic Director Tamara Harvey and Alfred Enoch reunite for a Henry V that uses the same language of movement, from Annie-Lunnette Deakin-Foster and fight director Kate Waters. Lucy Osbourne’s costumes are medieval in inspiration, with a couture edge. Michael Elcock’s Dauphin wears silver trainers, but the foot soldiers on both sides are in dull colours, and one side is indistinguishable from the other. The mass of men suffer and die, regardless of allegiance. The glorification of war is constantly exposed in front of a wooden scaffolding set, also by Osbourne, against which attackers and defenders alike are slaughtered.
The war, which is the singular plot of what is an unusually simple play for Shakespeare, in terms of structure, cannot be escaped. Harvey brings in Henry IV’s deathbed speech to Hal, from Henry IV Part 2, at the start of the play in which the father advises the son “Be it thy course to busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels, that action, hence borne out, may waste the memory of the former days.” Alfred Enoch’s Henry V takes him at his word, and displays a messianic focus in pursuing what is revealed to be a tenuous claim to the French throne in the play’s opening exchange. There’s something of Tony Blair in Enoch’s smooth, polite and slightly innocent manner. He gives the impression that he is an entirely reasonable man, and his war is reasonable too, but the glint in his eye grows and, by the time he delivers the St. Crispin’s Day speech, he has morphed into a cult leader. Enoch is excellent, both likeable and unnerving in one of Shakespeare’s strangest roles.
The triumphalism traditionally read into the play seems very hollow in Harvey’s interpretation. Little of what Henry says that can be taken at face value and, when he alone, he gives a bitter, self-pitying pre-battle soliloquy in which he castigates his subjects for their lack of gratitude, bemoaning his position as “subject to the breath of every fool whose sense no more can feel but his own wringing.” At the end, the Chorus reveals the futility of achieved Henry did, explaining how his son will go on to lose it all.
Harvey’s production uses a coherent, well-cast ensemble, continuing a welcome trend under the new RSC leadership of powerful group dynamics on stage. There a no weak links, and the performers clearly fully understand the production’s direction, and are committed to it. Jamie Ballard plays the Archbishop of Canterbury, King of France and the soldier Williams in a tour de force of flexibility. Catrin Aaron is excellent and completely different as Mistress Quickly and the Queen of France. Micah Balfour’s Exeter is a lynchpin. Gender switched parts worked seamlessly, includoing Sophie McIntosh as the Duchess of Gloucester and Sarah Slimani as Mountjoy. Natalie Kimmerling’s Katherine is a strong presence, fully understanding the politics that sweep her into marriage. Emmanuel Olusanya as Bardolph, Ewan Wardrop as Nym and Tanvi Virmani as ‘The Girl’ (the Boy in the original) make a genuinely funny and seedy grouping with Paul Hunter’s Pistol. The latter is a joy to watch, setting an extremely high baseline for physical comedy, drawing other performers in his wake.
This Henry V is less obviously a response to current events than is sometimes the case in times of international crisis, but it provides a powerful, coherent warning against leaders who never doubt themselves, a lesson with wide application. Harvey continues to direct very high quality Shakespeare, and to build a broad company and a clear, fluid, modern performance style (with excellent verse speaking) which we can look forward to enjoying, all being well, for many years to come.
Tom Bolton 
We wanted to like this production but left very disappointed. It is one thing to bring out a particular aspect or slant to a Shakespeare play, perhaps to make it resonate with a modern audience, but it is quite another to subvert or work against the text. For instance, in the Saint Crispin’s Day speech, the whole point is that Henry rouses his men to fight against overwhelming odds and the doubters are turned around to believers. So having Henry parody the old men in recollection of this great event as frail old men in a shaky high pitched voice, with Henry laughing at the same time, completely undermines the text and destroys what is meant to be a great speech about loyal, strong & proud subjects that one wishes to emulate, not laugh at. The battle scenes felt like one was watching a drama class hone their skills on a budget as the actors ran madly about, it being difficult to decipher which side was what at times, and then collapsed or inexplicably climbed up and down the scaffold, and then after the battle, as Henry addresses his men, they melodramatically wilt and fall over dead even making a last gurgle as they collapse. There seemed also to be multiple cultural allusions that jarred (at least with me), whether someone was parodying a US boxer or even an old ‘movie’ effect created by the light with turning scaffold and slow movement of the actors. I felt as if the director was simply not in sync with this play.
LikeLike
Sorry you didn’t like it, Tim. I think some of the things you disliked were reasons I enjoyed the production. I thought the fact the two sides couldn’t be distinguished from one another and the battles were chaotic was much more realistic than usual stage battle depictions, and underlined the fact that ordinary troops were the ones who suffered. The movement, in my opinion, was exciting, skilled and precise and I loved the slow motions deaths as the casualties were announced. It reminded me of the RSC’s 2000s Histories Cycle with its growing parade of on stage dead. And I also thought that bringing out the cynicism behind the St Crispin’s Day speech was long overdue. It’s presented as inspirational poetry all the time, but in fact it’s a King emotionally manipulating his men into a battle in which many will die – in service of a cause that has been invented entirely for political reasons. I think Tamara Harvey knows exactly what the play’s about!
LikeLike
I accept that there has been longstanding debate about ambiguities in the play & how war is to be regarded. The views of the soldiers on the eve of Agincourt and the chorus in the epilogue for example, express ideas as to when war might be justified or as to the misery of war. The discussion between soldiers & King is interesting in articulating different viewpoints. But Henry V remains (in the main) a celebratory play, commemorating a famous victory through the eyes of the victors. There are nuances to be explored but not to subvert the text. If you don’t like the play – either don’t perform it, or juxtapose another play that gives a different message. I maintain that the Saint Crispin’s Day speech was undermined in this production & there is no room for Henry to be critiquing his own words as the director wishes to make their own viewpoint known. (Not that it’s too relevant on this issue, i wonder how Laurence Olivier’s WW2 version to boost British morale would have gone down on such an interpretation.) I have to confess that even the earlier ‘once more unto the breach’ just fell without any impact. Perhaps the idea of scheduling different plays that explore different ideas about conflict, and trying to engage with our varying perceptions might be really worthwhile. As current events demonstrate, different groups can have different views, and Henry V could have an important part in this dialogue. I suspect that I am close to the director’s own views against war, but I’m not convinced that choosing this play – in isolation- is the best medium to communicate this. To be clear we love the RSC & especially Stratford & have been going since children. Long may it continue.
LikeLike
Interesting to hear what you have to say. I think the most fascinating thing about Shakespeare is the number of different potential interpretations of his plays, which is why he’s still so widely performed. Productions of Henry V in particular tend to reflect the times. But there’s no right or wrong answer to these questions, I think. Glad to hear you love the RSC – so do I, and we can definitely agree on how important it is!
LikeLike