Physiognomy proves that Olivier's Henry V is superior to Branagh's.

>>211734792 (OP)
Is the argument continuing on from last thread?

>>211735048
Yes

>>211729083
I agree that Olivier had flaws, but there is no doubt that he was a greater actor and verse-speaker than Branagh, who embodies every flaw in the exact opposite sphere to Olivier, being too modern and Hollywood. But Branagh has probably lived his whole life revering Olivier as a great actor. Your totally negative evaluation of his acting is not reasonable in the slightest, it's highly subjective and motivated by the desire for acting to conform to your modern, Hollywood-influenced taste. Now, for the specific responses to your post:

>Branagh's performance is emotional because its an aggressive war scene.
You fail to differentiate between the quality of the acting and the quality of the interpretation, which is a distinction that I demonstrated in my previous post. The emotional effect fails in Branagh's version because of his awful acting, not because of his interpretation of the scene. Olivier has successfully performed the scene as he has interpreted it. If it is a mistaken interpretation, it is really only the very minor fault of letting a moment of quiet enter, but it's still very much in the spirit of the original speech. You also fail to even correctly identify Olivier's interpretation. He is being charismatic in that scene, but charismatic more like how one would expect a King to be in Shakespeare's era, speaking officially and from that official capacity commanding reverence. He does not 'lack emotion', and in the charge he has all the aggression of war.

>There is no savored build up, the speech drags in the middle quite noticeably.
Again, you're mistaking questions of interpretation with acting. If you have a well educated ear for verse, you can tell Olivier gives a beautiful rendition, is quite stentorian in its sound, and paying attention to the words being spoken, instead of expecting the actor to mime obvious emotions, you will at all times be invested in the scene and its gradual buildup.

CONT

>>211735615
>Saying Branagh's tempo and impact of the speech is lost is not borne out by anything.
It only builds up to a crescendo in a generic Hollywood fashion. You're now confusing the structure of the speech with the structure of the scene. Of course the structure of the scene is preserved, it could not be lost. But the sound of the speech and its delineation, its unique rhythmic shape that Shakespeare always so carefully crafted, has been lost. Every separate segment is yelled on its own, disconnected from the rest of the speech other than a generic 'intense' emotion connecting them. He also reads the poetic language as if it's not ordinary in the world of the play, but as if he and everyone else finds it eccentric (the way he emphasises 'TIGER'), which is the obvious result of Branagh trying to act the part like a Hollywood movie. If you want to see an actually masterful performance of this speech, that is also closer to the mid-war interpretation of Branagh, than see the Burton link posted by the anon itt.

>Oliver could be playing "generic noble king 352".
Olivier always reduced his characters to more generic or superficial qualities, but he has still become the character more than Branagh, who is really just playing the part like himself. There is 'aggression, striving, or motivating charisma' all through Olivier's performance, and your failure to see this can only be a case of myopia and partial-deafness. You just want the emotions OBVIOUS like Hollywood.

>The comradery the king shows with his subjects obviously.
Exactly. And do you think the King should be like this in every speech he gives? Because Branagh is, but I'm not sure it's a wise interpretive decision.

What is it about Richard III that makes people endlessly shill for him and engage in wild counter factual history to exonerate him?

>>211736428
The sense that all of history has been unfair to one person.