The Use of Flashback in Kenneth Branagh's Henry V Essay

Henry is appealing to the patriotism and emotions of his audience by mentioning things such as “a question of freedom or slavery”, “the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country”, and “the very worth gentlemen who have just addressed the House”.

In Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Hotspur, the most talented young warrior in England, leads a rebellion against King Henry IV while, Hal, the king’s seemingly lazy, indifferent son and heir to the throne, fights against Hotspur for the throne. Hal and Hotspur have a similar ideology as seen in their common metaphors; however, Hal speaks with various extended metaphors, biblical allusions, and strategically places his use of verse and prose while Hotspur speaks with simpler metaphors, war imagery, and mainly speaks in verse. Shakespeare emphasizes these speech patterns to demonstrate Hal’s ability to manipulate the world to his benefit and Hotspur’s extremely volatile sensibility, and thus, proves Hal to be more qualified to rule than Hotspur.

n Shakespeare's King Henry V, King Henry prepares his troops for battle with a passionate speech about fighting, honor, and kinship. Henry uses strong ethos and pathos to persuade his men to fight the French, though they are outnumbered in the battle. Henry notes that his troops feel unprepared and overwhelmed for battle. This speech marks the moment where the boy Hal transforms into King Henry. For the first time, Henry takes on the role of a valiant king and takes control of the situation. He seizes the moment to prepare them and inspire them. Henry hopes by making an effective speech his men will understand why they need to fight.

William Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part 1, composed during the last years of the 16th century, is as much as character study as it is a retelling of a moment in history. Though the play is titled for one king, it truly seems to revolve around the actions of the titular character's successor. Indeed, Henry IV is a story of the coming-of-age of Prince Hal and of the opposition that he must face in this evolution. This process gives narrative velocity to what is essentially a conflagration between two personality types. In Prince Hal, the audience is given a flawed but thoughtful individual. Equally flawed but more given over to action than thought is his former ally and now-nemesis, Hotspur. In the latter, Shakespeare offers a warrior and a man of action and in the former, the playwright shows a politician in his nascent stages of development. The contrast between them will drive the play's action.

Shakespeare’s ‘King Henry IV Part I’ centres on a core theme of the conflict between order and disorder. Such conflict is brought to light by the use of many vehicles, including Hal’s inner conflict, the country’s political and social conflict, the conflict between the court world and the tavern world, and the conflicting moral values of characters from each of these worlds. This juxtaposition of certain values exists on many levels, and so is both a strikingly present and an underlying theme throughout the play. Through characterization Shakespeare explores moral conflict, and passage three is a prime example of Falstaff’s enduring moral disorder. By this stage in the play Hal has

supposed to be engaged to Nym at some point in time, but ran off with

         Henry V, written by William Shakespeare, is by far one of his more historically accurate plays. This play is the life of young King Henry V, who ascended to the throne after his father, Henry IV's death. These times were much different for England, as Henry V was a noble lord whom everyone loved, whereas angry factions haunted his father's reign. Shakespeare portrays a fairly accurate account of the historical Henry V, but certain parts are either inflated"deflated, or conflated to dramatize Henry V as a character suitable for a Renaissance audience.

This gives Hal a constant sense of inaptness. Knowing that his father thinks low of him drives him more towards Falstaff who praises him at all times, giving him the support he needs at such age. Hal’s disobedience is partly a stubborn reaction to his father’s criticism and partly a rebellion that is natural in his age. On the other hand, King Henry IV is haunted by a sense of guilt that is translated to a feeling of suspicion towards his own son. The source of this guilt is his usurping of the throne and, in a way or another, being a participant in the killing of Richard II, if not by giving the orders at least by turning a blind eye to it. King Henry IV unconsciously harbors a belief that God will punish him for doing this through his son. He expects that it will either be the fall of Hal when he succeeds him or Hal overthrowing him and taking over the throne. However, both options lead the king to treat his son with caution. An example of this is his fury when he wakes up to find that his crown is missing and thinking that his son wishes his death to become the king.

This was not a major impact on the story but it definitely added character to Sir Henry. In the movie Sir Henry was somewhat timid and in the book that scene showed he was not afraid to stand up for himself.

Falstaff, though lacking in character and occasionally engaging in friendly banter with the prince, never seems to stoop quite as low or act out as cruelly as Hal has on several occasions. These betrayals of trust, though they seem slight, raise questions about the type of king Hal may one day become if even among his closest friends he shows little loyalty and honor. The power plays for the crown that have occurred prior to and during the first two acts of this play may occur on a larger scale than the robbery previously discussed, but they too reflect similar themes of loyalty and betrayal. In a manner of speaking it could be said that Henry not only betrayed his cousin Richard II when he seized the crown through murder, but he also betrayed the entire kingdom in his disregard for the traditional customs of ascension.

The scene is filled with bawdy references and second meanings, meanings which the audience would undoubtedly find uproarously funny. Hal, too, often speaks this language of the lower classes, especially when chiding Falstaff: "These lies are like the father that begets them--gross as a mountain, open, palpable. Why, thou clay-brained guts, thou knotty-pated fool, thou whoreson obscene greasy tallow-catch--" (I Henry IV, II. iv. 224-227). The language Shakespeare uses in the tavern scenes is certainly different from the more solemn and courtly language found in the plays' more dramatic moments, as in Hal's gallantry towards Hotspur upon the latter's death:

In Henry IV Part 1, although Falstaff and King Henry act as father figures in Hal’s life and are both intelligent in their own right, the differences in their tone and diction showcase the major differences in their personalities and relationship with pride.

Raising a child is always a challenging and time-consuming task, and raising a prince is even more difficult. Henry puts his leadership aside to focus his efforts upon preventing Prince Hal from absolute corruption or even betrayal. Hal enjoys the company of an unruly thief, the drunkard John Falstaff, as well as several other less respectable persons. Henry is more realistic and rational than Richard, and he is able to see that his position is not a good one. He may fear that he is a bad example for his son, for he too was a robber when he stole the throne. He fears that his son will ruin his image as king or even assist in overthrowing him;

Henry V is a wise and loyal king, changing from a wild youth to a mature king. He is described to be an intelligent, thoughtful and an efficient statesman. He thinks carefully whether to invade France or not which represents his responsible character. King Henry gives a very strong speech which gave courage and confidence to his army that they could win the battle. This character describes him to be a king of great ability to fight and having good administrative skills. Throughout the play Henry’s nature is religious, merciful and compassionate.

Henry laments over the fact that Hal is not the son he would have liked, religiously alluding to the unruliness of his son that he has no control over is the punishment from God as a result of his usurpation of the throne. This religious allusion reflecting on Henry’s sins demonstrates the both the political power the King obtains, as he deposed the previous King, but also the powerlessness he has in correspondence to the Lord, and his own conscience. In addition, Henry use of the term “grafted” describes Prince Hal’s connection to Falstaff and the subsequent rejection of his more important blood relations and thus his role as the heir to the English throne. It can be argued that Hal purposely attempts to separate himself from the royal role that his father sets for him, understanding that his father usurped the Divine Right of Kings and thus sought the company of individuals that would successfully result in the disapproval of his father and the Royal Court. Hal finds companions in the rouges in which inhabit the Boar 's Head Inn and Eastcheap, including the thieving surrogate father Falstaff. However, while the two locations and companies are considered to differ starkly, Shakespeare successfully mirrors the separate destinations in first two scenes between the Royal Court and the “Rouge Court” found in the Boar’s Head Inn. Whilst the occupants are of the Inn are freely labelled as thieves, the occupants of the