★★★
Hal, wayward prince and heir to the English throne, is crowned King Henry V after his tyrannical father dies. Now the young king must navigate palace politics, the war his father left behind, and the emotional strings of his past life.
Classification: 15
Taking inspiration more from the works of William Shakespeare's "Henriad" specifically the plays Henry IV, Parts 1 & 2 and Henry V rather than historical narrative, director and co-writer David Michôd delivers a dour account of the legend to King Henry V. Capturing the misery of history through every element of production design, performance and direction of the film's brutal battle scenes, everything about The King creates a dreary experience for its audience. That doesn't mean it's not engaging, the film isn't boring but it just wallows in utter bleakness at the state of its characters and the situation that England finds itself within during the Hundred Years War. Mud, grime, darkness, destitution, disease and death are all around as Timothée Chalamet's equally morose Prince finds himself thrust into leadership after the death of his father and brother.
Henry Prince of Wales, known by Hal to his friends including Joel Edgerton's John Falstaff and then later as King Henry V is a difficult character to get invested in. Chalamet's performance is very brooding, a sullen delivery to his actions and dialogue reflecting the film's uncharismatic nature. In his few bursts of emotional ferocity Chalamet really displays his versatility and enchanting nature as an actor but for most of the film, he feels like a moody drama student. Its a dual failure between Chalamet and Michôd as they interpret the Shakespearian work to be detached rather than passionate. This decision all the more distracting when against Edgerton or Robert Pattinson's performances where they are able to imbue some liveliness while maintaining the harsh reality of the film. The character development to Henry is off as well, the intention to show him go from aimless drunkard outcast to a monarch that inspires great might and loyalty but Michôd and Edgerton's script miss those crucial moments where he makes that transformation. It's just like a switch, the moment Henry has the crown placed upon his head and anointed with those holy oils suddenly all the protests and distaste he had, the rejections he voiced are forgotten.
Due to the slow pacing of the film, this realisation can feel like a drawn-out whiplash. When Henry at the precipice of the Battle of Agincourt gives a speech where he claims his only desire in life was to see a prosperous and united England you realise that the film did nothing to set this up. It's an aggravating cherry-picking of fiction and fact to create a narrative that doesn't achieve its main narrative goal. Michôd centres the main emotional relationship around the friendship between Henry and Falstaff a change from Shakespeare's work that benefits the film. It seems to be the attempt to have sudden character development feel natural by having Henry abandon Falstaff after his coronation but then return and promote him to a general with his war to France. This connection between the two grounding Henry and having him reflect on his path and actions as King of England. Edgerton's roughness in his portrayal of Falstaff works well with the character and in the world of The King sharing a good repertoire with Chalamet. Falstaff is the only character who really understands who Henry is, has seen him at his lowest and is likely the only one who believes in Henry's integrity as a man and potential as a king. While the rest of the advisors led by Sean Harris's William Gascoigne are loyal to Henry as an extension of their loyalty to the English crown, there is much doubt in Henry's leadership in responding to threats from France and his own mind for warfare.
The King is the story of how Henry goes from petulant boy to awe-inspiring man but Michôd doesn't reach the emotional heights that the story could achieve despite Chalamet's efforts. Without the personal insecurity to Hal's character in his transition to Henry and seeing him learn, gain love and courage for his country and crown then the film's intense scale would be more emotionally captivating. Instead, the film only impresses on a technical level as the cinematography and production design captures this bleak portrait of the past, as mentioned before there is so much misery in the history of The King. Whereas a lot of the scenes have Chalamet and his advisor's debate and plot in Michôd's best attempt to have the film feel like a Shakespearian production, the film's strongest asset is on the battlefield. With cinematographer Adam Arkapaw who shot 2015's Macbeth spellbinding visuals of Shakespearean warfare, Jane Petrie's costume design of rigorous chainmail and plate armour alongside Fiona Crombie (who also worked on Macbeth) immersive production design of bloody, muddy fields. The battles of The King are harsh violent displays of brutality, cruelty and suffering as there is no glory to be found in the slaughter of the enemy. Yes, celebration and splendour await in victory but Michôd and Arkapaw deliver such graceless savagery in the bloody annals of England's conquest.
It's an excellent contrast to most of the film where these lords and Kings debate what the future of England shall be and the claim to France's throne. The eloquence that they speak with about bringing peace and prosperity to the people, to begin a new era and then have that be born through the most ineloquent means. In the chaos, Arkapaw brings a focused madness to the violence especially in the climactic Battle of Agincourt where Chalamet impressively displays his skill as a physical actor. In a one-shot that sees King Henry fight off and kill as many soldiers as he can, no grace to his technique, rolling in the mud and punching and stabbing just like the rest in the squalor. This where Henry cuts his teeth in leadership as he sends men to their death but runs into the fray alongside them weapon in hand, a contrast to Pattinson's Dauphin of France who sits upon a hill under a tent in shiny unmarred armour. The final battle scenes also bear similarities to Game of Thrones ferocious Battle of the Bastards episode, which in turn is said to have taken influence from this historical battle itself. Whether its Arkapaw taking influence from the historical accounts or media inspired by the actual battle. the results are still as intense.
The King may not achieve the heights Michôd intends with its prestigious scope and aesthetic but still delivers a film that can interest fans of the history and genre. Emotion and accuracy don't seem to be the main focus for the filmmakers but Arkapaw's visuals alongside Chalamet and Edgerton's performances make for a passable viewing. It's strange for a film this cinematically rich to feel so mediocre but its a case of wrong intentions harming the overall product. Michôd wants all the compliment of an esteemed historical drama derived from the Bard himself but is unable to convey the necessary emotion that made the work so revered.
Director: #DavidMichôd
Cast: #TimothéeChalamet, #JoelEdgerton, #SeanHarris, #LilyRoseDepp, #RobertPattinson, #BenMendelsohn
Release Date: November 1st 2019
Available exclusively on Netflix
Trailer:
Written review copyright ©CoreyBullochReviews
Images and Synopsis from the Internet Movie Database
Comments