THE KING (2019)

The King (2019 film). The poster art copyright belongs to the distributor of the film, Netflix, the publisher, Plan B Entertainment, Netflix, Blue-Tongue Films, Porchlight Films, or the graphic artist.

*Expect minor spoilers*

synopsis

The King (2019) is a modern portrayal of William Shakespeare’s ‘Henry IV, Part 1’, Henry IV, Part 2 and ‘Henry V’, all 16th century theatrical masterpieces in their own right. For the most part, the film, written by David Michôd and Joel Edgerton, sticks to the story originally written by Shakespeare, but this doesn't not mean that the film is at all historically actuate.

The film starts with Henry ‘Hotspur’ Percy, (Tom Glynn-Carney) rebelling against King Henry IV (Ben Mendelsohn) culminating in the Battle fo Shrewsbury (1403). The film shows Prince Hal (Timothée Chalamet) defeat the wayward Hotspur in single combat, apparently robbing his bother Thomas (Dean-Charles Chapman) of a glorious victory. The first part of the film goes on to show Prince Hal as the rebellious, alcoholic, longhaired son of the the king, at odds with his father and certainly not odds on favourite to inherit the throne.

By the time of Henry IV’s death, Prince Hal is transformed into King Henry V, a short haired, somber king who looked to France where he had a distant claim to the throne. After a plot to have Henry assassinated is uncovered, Henry has his advisors, Cambridge (Edward Ashley) and Grey (Stephen Fewell) executed for treason and used this, as motivation to invade France. At this point, the film follows ‘Henry V’ virtually to the letter, with the fictional Sir John Falstaff (Joel Edgerton) going from Hal’s drinking buddy to the King’s chief military advisor, leading the english army through northern France, from the siege of Harfleur to the centrepiece of the film, the Battle fo Agincourt. the film finishes with Henry V marrying Catherine de Valois (Lily-Rose Depp) with the two characters arguing over usurping thrones and the fact that Hal’s own father usurped the English throne from his cousin, Richard II.

The inaccurate elephant in the room

There is no getting away from the enormous amount of historical inaccuracies in this film but, does that make it a bad watch? Firstly, the film is a good portrayal of the works of Shakespeare which themselves were hopelessly inaccurate (at times, don’t shoot me) but looking at the simple history of it, the film get a lot wrong. For starters, the Battle of Shrewsbury was not won with single combat, a full battle took place in which thousands of men died on both sides, one thing that would have been fantastic to see would have been the full battle and, the arrow that struck Henry in the face (see the scar in his left cheek in during the film) rather than an anticlimactic duel between Hal and Henry Hotspur.

The relationship between Prince Hal and his father wasn’t the happiest but, there was never any doubt that the young prince of Wales would inherit the crown which is somewhat questioned in the film. Henry’s transformation into the cropped haired king is for the most part accurate though, with the hair cut sported by Chalamet acting as a good representation of the 15th century king, a devoutly Christian ruler who kept his hair cropped as a sign of piety. The simplicity of the Coronation and later shots of Henry as king and at court, although shot beautifully are woefully bland, with 15th century courts being centres of extravagance and splendour.

The main part of the film is obviously the Siege at Harfleur and, the Battle of Agincourt and both are done very differently. I’d say for the most part, the siege of Harfleur is accurate with the siege engines smashing into the walls for what seems like a long time, and Henry and his advisors getting worried that they would have to storm the walls. This is a great representation of the siege that did in fact go on for way longer than was anticipated. Moving on from Harfleur, the forced march towards Agincourt (Henry was aiming for friendly Calais and was cut off before he could reach it) and wait before the battle is more up for debate. Some historians support he ‘Shakespearian’ idea that the army was weak and disease ridden where others, write that the army was relatively healthy and the march was not in desperation. The film chooses to gloss over the reasons for the march, choosing, quite rightly, to focus on the carnage that follows.

The Battle of Agincourt is firmly in the Hearts and minds of English history fans, and getting it right was important, Unfortunately, it did not (well, sort of). The film shows the smaller English force flanked by woods at the bottom of a steep hill with rain soaked fields, a 7/10 effort for me. The site of the battle is still relatively unknown, with several places claiming to be the true location so, to get it somewhat correct (the woods and muddy fields were certainly part of it) is a plus for me. The tactics used by both sides in the film are for the most part accurate, with the French charging directly into a small force of English men-at-arms, whilst longbows rained down all kinds of hell on the oncoming knights but, there is a few major things missing that would have taking this battle from a decent showing to a near perfect depiction of medieval warfare. Firstly, there is a distinct lack of heraldry, how did anyone know who to fight if there were no flags showing who was who? Secondly, there were no stakes protecting the archers! one of the main parts of the battle was when the longbowmen ran out of ammo, they picked up the mallets they used to hammer in the stakes that protected them, not in the film at all. Finally, Henry’s armour was pretty naff. The common soldier with the famous tin hats and simple clothing was done well but, Henry is seen in a stupidly simple mail shirt with a simple cuirass with no royal coat of arms, helmet or crown in sight.

The Dauphin. right, lets get it out of the way. Robert Pattinson who plays the heir to the French throne is a great actor but in The King, is just not good (i’m being polite). His French accent is painful to hear and his eccentric flamboyancy is just too much for me. More irritating than the performance was the fact that the Dauphin wasn’t even at the battle and actually became King after his father died, making his death scene even more painful to watch.

I actually enjoyed it

At this point, you might be thinking is this film really that bad? and the answer is a massive no. For the most part I really enjoyed this film and I think Chalamet plays a wonderful King Henry V as did the rest of the cast, especially Edgerton. who I thought capture the true essence of Falstaff in a performance that Shakespeare would have approved of. I think my favourite scene in the entire film is just before the French charge, as King Henry gives a resounding speech. We have no idea what Henry V actually said before the battle but, I believe that Chalamet gave a speech worthy of a king, delivering it with passion and made me want to pick up my longbow and defend my king. I would have to loved to see Timothée Chalamet speak some more French, especially to his wife-to-be, Catherine, it would have made for a more accurate depiction of England in the 15th century, still very much living with its Norman-French ancestry.

Agincourt is a battle the could have been done even better, even just adding lances to the French knights would have improved the scene but, overall, I thought the film captured the pure brutality of the battle with mud and blood everywhere, dying and drowning men being peppered by arrows, whilst King Henry and his ‘Band of Brothers’ gave it a jolly good go. The death of the Dauphin and subsequent meeting between Henry and the French King seemed forced and for me, the film could have ended after the battle.

Overall, I have slated this film for his inaccuracies but, I think what it gets right, it does brilliantly. Even the things it gets wrong, still make the film well worth watching and sometimes, its more effort than its worth to pick out all of the things films get wrong, and its easier to just enjoy it for the beautifully shot piece of cinematography that it is. I may have explained why the costumes, clothing and armour wasn’t up to scratch but, I liked the simplicity of it all, making for a very aesthetically pleasing film that I can and will watch again and again. Unlike books, films are finically restricted and I assume this is why the Battle fo Shrewsbury isn’t in the film, if this is the case, they get a pass from me. I give this film a strong 7/10, well worth a watch if you liked blood, mud and death, not so much if you care deeply about full historical accuracy.

I hope you enjoyed this and would love to hear what you think, please leave me a comment and follow me on Instagram @chrisriley_ for more medieval history!

Thanks for Reading.