Can we all agree Olivier was the superior Henry V?

>>211723359 (OP)
Physiognomy check.

bump

>>211723359 (OP)
Yes.

>>211723359 (OP)
>Olivier > Branagh
Well DUH

>>211723359 (OP)
Why hasn't Branagh ever played Othello?

>>211723359 (OP)
>movie from 1895 is more historically accurate than current year zoomshit

>>211723359 (OP)
Agreed, but Cumberbatch was the superior Richard III.

It probably helps that Cumberbach is a direct descendant of the hunch-backed childkiller, but it took real skill to userp Olivier as the best Richard the third.

>>211723359 (OP)
Branagh was a bit too self-absorbed in the role yes

>>211726576
>I'M ACTING!

>>211723359 (OP)
Can we all agree Branagh was the best Henry V by a lightyear, Olivier was totally shit and overrated as fuck, and OP is nineteen million times gayer than that? Branagh pissed all over Olivier with that film. Cope harder faggots.

>>211723359 (OP)
>king of england and france
>going to battle
>leather gambeson and cloth t-shirt

>>211726576
Cumberbatch is not a direct descendant of Richard III. Richard III has no direct descendants. He is also far inferior to Olivier.

>>211723359 (OP)
Nah, Branagh’s St. Crispin’s Day speech is far superior and that’s what really matters the most in Shakespeare’s Henry V play.

>>211726866
shakespeare wrote verse intended for the theatre. there is a specific way his language has to be spoken and his characters have to be performed to have their proper effect, and branagh utterly fails at them. if you want hollywood shakespeare then sure enjoy your branagh.

>>211727193
Wrong in every possible way that matters.
kys pseud.

>>211727193
shakespeare wrote all the women to be performed by men in drag too, so perhaps we should still be doing that.

Branagh's performance is far better. He clearly understands Shakespeare far more as well. A good example of this is his Harfleur speech. He emphasises certain words to convey the intent Shakespeare had with the scene.

Oliver is just speaking loudly like a retard. Compare this
https://youtu.be/5BLBQIwZ_h4?t=2787
with this
https://youtu.be/VOOZDO5KDv4?t=63

Absolutely no comparison.

>>211727350
>Wrong in every possible way that matters.
you realise that branagh tries his hardest to speak the verse properly and act in a theatrical fashion, right? he studied olivier and imitates him in some ways. it's just that he's really bad at it.

>>211727482
only because it wasn't considered respectable for women to be actresses, but his aim was always the likeness of women, so it makes sense for women to play their parts, as they have since the end of 17th century. but it also makes sense to speak verse and perform plays in a particular way, which they also have for most of history. this is the tradition which has developed to best meet the demands of shakepeare's plays, and branagh fails at it.

>>211727586
>you can do shakespeare in a way he wouldn't have considered respectful
no, fuck off. I want trans Ophelia.

>>211727586
>pseud
Called it.

Who do you think you're kidding faggot. You sound like a fucking retard and everyone can see it.

>>211727559
it's a hard speech to pull off properly, and olivier has slowed it down to avoid the comic effect that branagh's version results in, which is a king for some reason giving a ridiculously long-winded speech at a moment that seems to demand immediate action. but ignore the difference in interpretation for a moment, and concern yourself with the quality of the acting and verse-speaking itself, and who has the weightiest effect, and undoubtedly olivier's is superior. again, this is really just a matter adhd-brained modern people wanting shakespeare to be a fast paced Hollywood movie, instead of relying on the words themselves to have their intended effect at a suitable speed.

>>211727660
there's no evidence to suggest shakespeare would consider female actors disrespectful. there's not a gigantic difference between the morality of an english man from 1610 and an english man from 1690, it's just that the earlier date had the arbitrary prohibition of stigma against female actors. although i wouldn't oppose men playing female parts, because an actor with the talent and qualities suited to the part could probably give a great performance, as we can see with men playing female parts in japanese theatre, and as would have been necessary in the theatre of the greeks with such great a role as aeschylus' clytemnestra.

>>211727727
why are you so offended by people being interested in shakespeare? is it some sort of resentful peasant class consciousness?

>>211727559
>Absolutely no comparison.
Indeed, Olivier is way better

>>211727787
Branagh's is obviously better. There is more emotion in his words, they have a greater impact. Oliver is just trumpeting out the words in a stilted fashion. Its only towards its end that his speech becomes even slightly stirring. Meanwhile, the rising aggression in Branagh's performance is something that alloys with the rising tension of the next assault on the town. Its meant to be a scene of fevered energy.

Olivers performance is bad because it goes 0%, 0%, 0%, before building too rapidly to a motivating finish. Branagh has sufficient understanding and charisma to turn the whole speech into something stirring.

>>211727482
>shakespeare wrote all the women to be performed by men in drag too, so perhaps we should still be doing that.

Definitely should for 12th night because THATS THE JOKE.
You have a male actor pretending to be a female who is pretending to be a male. Even knowing nothing else about the play, that alone should at least raise a smirk.

Arguably The Taming of the Shrew was written with this in mind too. Having seen a gender switched cast version of that by the Royal Shakespeare Company, I can confirm it makes the whole thing funnier and it would be funnier still if all the cast were male. It takes away some of the problems the play has in being performed in modern society too, although to be fair essentially mind-breaking someone, male or female is frowned upon by audiences these days.

>>211727897
You don't even understand Shakespeare you gigantic pseud faggot. Your posts are 'Baby's First Shakespeare' but for the 'special' class down the hall.

>>211728018
According to pseud-boy here - he MEANT to do that. Because REAL Shakespeare is SUPPOSED to sound shitty.

>>211728147
Nothing about Branagh's version sounds shitty. You're just emotionally sperging out from a position of faux authority.

Shakespeare writes about children spitted atop pikes, young women raped, and old men executed in this very scene. He obviously wants the scenes depicting WAR to have some venom in them. Oliver doesn't manage to convey that, Branagh does. Simple as that.

>>211726576
>child-killer
Fuck off Tudor cuck. Richard III was based and personally killed several tourney winners and famous knights in personal combat despite having scoliosis.

>>211728018
>>211728251
It is stylistic. Olivier’s 1944 production was a muted, patriotic display. It’s operatic. Branagh’s is a 80s (high)-budgeted grounded action flick, which necessitates a different register. Both work. Calling Olivier a bad actor is quite ridiculous.

>>211728018
Branagh's performance is 'more emotional' like a crappy Hollywood actor badly attempting to appear breathless and 'excited' wrapped in quotation marks. You can hear the amateurism in the voice. And his actual interpretation of the part, or at least the result of his interpretation, is as Henry appearing overexcited and manic. His tempo is so random that the overall structure and effect of the speech is lost. Meanwhile Olivier is MEANT to be talking to them regally, as a king, in an official capacity, carefully weighing his words to have their intended effect of rousing nationalistic fervour. How did you fail to see this intentional quality of his interpretation? And Olivier's command of the sound and tempo is really impeccable. The result is a long savoured build-up to a heroic charge. Olivier correctly paces himself. You may disagree with his interpretation, but he pulls it off far better than Branagh does his own. And it makes sense for Olivier to make this speech less personal and desperate, because he's saving that quality for the later, more famous St. Crispin's day speech. If Henry is constantly acting like a normal man who's a friend of the people in every speech, then what makes the St. Crispin's day speech special?

>>211728083
Then tell me, what does 'understanding Shakespeare' mean to you?

>>211728314
Henry VII was an excellent king. Far better than his nephew murdering, usurping predecessor who was so disliked he was toppled by an exiled literal who with the remotest claim you could contrive.

>>211728314
And yet he still had his nephews killed. Probably did disgusting paedo shit to them too, he looks the type and why else would he have to hide tge bodies? He could have just waited for a frosty day and pushed them down a stone spiral staircase, so it looked like an accident. That was quite common in those days.

>>211723359 (OP)
Best Henry V coming through

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNupWLDv0R4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU7NrnLsr5g

>>211728618
Henry VII was a shit king with an even worse legacy. There is zero evidence for Richard killing his nephews since they were illegitimate.
>>211728631
It was the Tudor cunt that did it when he crushed two uprisings aiming to put the two boys on the throne. If Richard III killed the boys then why didn't Henry ever accuse him of the crime? Nah, instead you get that shit under Shakespeare sucking up to the hag Elizabeth (another failed Tudor).

>>211728578
Branagh's performance is emotional because its an aggressive war scene. Shakespeare's intent is for the scene to be an aggressive and violent depiction of war. Henry is not meant to be kingly in that scene; things are becoming desperate, the English assault is flagging. He instead has to be charismatic and above all motivating to his troops. Oliver's lack of emotion compared to Branagh is a failure here. There is no savored build up, the speech drags in the middle quite noticeably. Not so in Branagh's version.

Saying Branagh's tempo and impact of the speech is lost is not borne out by anything. It builds steadily to a crescendo, and Branagh's acting supports this steadily rising idea of violence.

If you've read Henry V and watch Oliver's version, apart from half of the text being twisted, edited, and tortured into a new meaning, what you'll see is Henry V acting nothing like Henry should be. There is no aggression, striving, or motivating charisma. its just variants of on-high kingly declarative speeches. Oliver could be playing "generic noble king 352". For all intents and purposes he is, rather than playing Shakespeare's Henry V.

>what makes the St. Crispin's day speech special?
The comradery the king shows with his subjects obviously. The most famous line is quite literally "band of brothers" after all.

>>211728911
Cope.
It wasn't, because they have the bones. You can very accurately get the age of a child from childrens bones. They were killed while Richard was still on the throne. This has been confirmed from measurements descriptions and drawings of the bones made in the 19th century too, so its not Tudor propaganda.

I don't doubt that in his twisted head Richard felt he had to do it for some nobel reason (to him), but he either killed those boys himself or ordered them dead.

>>211729440
The bones have been proven fake. Go fuck yourself.

>>211723359 (OP)
Yes, but I preferred Branagh's film though.

>>211726576
Richard III's armour still exists and he was perfectly normal, he also knew his brother was a bastard (as did everyone) and so his nephews were by extension bastards too and he couldn't let the grandson of some Welsh peasant sit on the throne

>>211723359 (OP)
How the Olivier's Henry V looks better than Branagh's one?
Olivier's was made in 1944.