Variations on St. Crispin’s Day Speech

Last week I was delighted to discover that there is a compilation of St. Crispin’s Day speeches on Youtube!  (Youtube, how do I love thee, let me count the ways…)

Anyway, I wanted to share my thoughts on the various different versions of the speech.

1 Sir Lawrence Olivier, 1944

First up is the legendary Sir Lawrence Olivier.  It’s worth noting that this version was filmed in 1944, which means that we must consider Sir Lawrence’s interpretation in light of other famous speeches, such as this one.

One commentator said that his father saw this film during the war, and said it was positively electric.  I believe it.  As one person pointed out, this version would have been thrilling in the theater.  Olivier had a wonderful voice and hearing it in the theater must have been like encountering a force of nature.

There is no room for doubt or sentimentalism in Sir Lawrence Olivier’s speech, indeed, the moment forbade it.  Sir Lawrence Olivier’s speech is not so much about the battle of Agincourt, but rather about the coming invasion of Hitler’s Europe.  The British had been fighting Hitler for five years by this point, and the population of London had suffered terribly during the Blitz, enduring night after night of bombing.  By making this film, Olivier was saying to the British troops, weary from years of fighting “Once more unto the breach dear friends, once more!”

However, I do not like how he misses a line in the speech.  Sir Lawrence says “for he today who sheds his blood with me shall be my brother, be he ne’er so base,” when he is supposed to say “for he today who sheds his blood with me shall be my brother, be he ne’er so vile this day shall gentle his condition. “

Without that part of the line, there is no play on words when Henry says “and gentlemen in England now abed shall think themselves accursed they were not here.”  It is a jab at the “gentlemen” at home, and declaring that the bond of soldiers will raise these men in Henry’s esteem, and the gentlemen (the nobles) shall diminish in Henry’s esteem.  It is a brilliant slight of hand and turn of phrase, and Olivier’s speech is lessened, in my opinion, for its absence.

2 David Giles, 1979

The second performance, by David Giles, could not be more different than the first.  The second one is intimate, even vulnerable.  It’s an incredibly unique and original choice, and strangely appropriate.  This production, on a BBC sound stage, simply does not have the appropriate crowd to give a roaring speech at full volume.  It would look silly. In a way, this version of the speech actually highlights the moving, almost sentimental nature of the speech.  Henry talks about how in years and even decades to come the men will remember the various different soldiers present that day.  This part is entirely true, as anyone who has ever seen old comrades in arms has seen.  There is an unshakeable bond between these men.  Interestingly, he also performs the whole speech, not omitting the part about coveting honor, that Olivier and Branagh.

Of course, at the same time, it lacks the majesty and bravado that the St. Crispin’s speech demands.  So, while I respect the actor for making an original choice, I don’t like the choice.  I am far more impressed by the beginning of the speech, which is the only speech I’ve heard that actually sounded spontaneous.  Sir Lawrence’s speech sounds rehearsed, as though Henry spent the night before the battle writing it.  David makes the speech sound as though it is coming to him at that very moment, and that is important.

3 Michael Pennington, 1989

The third performance is the only one that actually seems to take place in a theater.  I’m surprised in a way that there was even footage of it, although videotaping a live performance is forbidden; I was fortunate enough to see a videotape of Sir Derek Jacobi’s King Lear taped live.  Even so, it’s strange to see it end up on Youtube.

Michael Pennington also performs the entire speech, and also to a small band of his inner circle, rather than to his entire army.  I think he does a wonderful job of balancing the two extremes of David Giles and Sir Lawrence Olivier.  His tone is not completely conversational, and yet he lacks the “this is the big speech” tone of Olivier.  I also love the fact that the actor is clearly visualizing their future, when they, as old men are feasting their neighbors and showing their scars, and when he says the line “these wounds I had on Crispin’s day” his body language and tone even sound, just a shade, like an old man.

Balance marks the end of his speech as well.  He balances the naked bravado and the sweet affection of the speech quite well, so that it sounds grand without being rediculous, and affectionate without being weak.  I also love that he hits the word “gentle” in the speech.  The word that Olivier left out, he accents!  However, I think he missed an opportunity in this version, by hitting the word “accursed” rather than the word “gentlemen.”  I think that the audience, unless they have read the speech numerous times, probably need the actor’s help to get the veiled insult to the gentlemen in England now abed.

4 Kenneth Branagh, 1989

The first thing I have to point out about Kenneth Branagh’s speech is that he cheats.  While none of the other performers had music, Branagh has a score of strings whizzing in the background, triggering the emotions and guiding the viewer’s responses.  This makes it more difficult to compare the speeches on merits of the performances alone, and I wish I could delete the music!  (I must point out I do not fault Branagh for this decision.  It was the right one.)

The second thing I want to point out is that, while Branagh’s speech is most similar to Sir Lawrence Olivier’s, Branagh more successfully uses a knowledge of film and movie styles of acting.  While he spends most of the speech addressing the vast troops, and therefore needs to shout, his volume varies.  When he comes to the lines “we few, we happy few, we band of brothers,” he drops his voice down and speaks to his men in a much more personal, intimate way.  He does the same thing when he addresses the men by name.  It is not a laundry list of names, he is actually speaking to these men.  He understands the sweetness, if that’s the right word, of this moment.  In addition, he also understands that film is a different medium than the theater.

His speech also sounds a little more natural than Sir Lawrence Olivier.  It’s only a little more natural, but he has a wryness in his voice, especially at the beginning.  He also speaks more slowly than Sir Lawrence, which adds to the sense that the speech is coming to Henry at that moment.  At the same time, it also makes him seem more thoughtful, especially when he gives instructions to excuse men who do not want to fight.  His Henry has bravado, but it’s a thoughtful, tender bravado, more suited to film than Olivier’s, and more suited to an audience that is unfamiliar with Shakespeare.

So, which one is the best?  In a way, I like Michael Pennington’s performance the best, which is not to say that is the definitive performance of the speech.  Not by a long shot.  I once heard that great music is better than all of its possible interpretations.  I know what they mean, since it is possible to hear many different performances of Handel’s Messiah, and yet Handel’s Messiah is better than any one person’s interpretation.  It is that fact that draws us back to it, to perform it again and again. In addition, the way we perform music, and think about music, changes over time, both within the course of our lives as well as throughout human history.  In a sense, the way we perform music or respond to art says just as much about us as it does about the art.

In the same way, the St. Crispin’s speech is greater than any one person’s interpretation.  No actor, no matter how talented, can completely do justice to it, and yet, it is that fact that makes the actor’s performance all the more compelling, and all the more worthwhile.

In honor of the dearly departed

This is in honor of two people in my circles of friends who died last month.

 

Pentecost by El Greco

 

I’ll be honest, El Greco is not my favorite, but this is a really lovely picture.

Tio Papi review (belated)

The final film I saw at the film festival this year was Tio Papi, a feel good story about an immature Puerto Rican man who inherits is six nieces and nephews when his sister and her husband die.  At first, he does not want to care for the children, but is willing to care for the children while social services try to place them in foster homes.

The movie, as a feel good movie, proceeded as it was expected.  The children help him to grow up, he decides he wants to raise the children, and he fights the state to win custody.

Despite the somewhat predicable plot, the film was filled with delightful characters and was surprisingly upbeat, for a film in which 6 children are orphaned.  My friend and I enjoyed this film a lot, and it was a fun way to end the film festival this year.

Rating: Good

Congratulations! review

It has been a few years since I saw a real stinker at the Film Festival.  I’ve seen films that were screened at the Film Festival at home that were horrible (I rented them from the library) but it has been quite a while before I saw a terrible film at the festival itself.

On Friday, that streak was broken with the film Congratulations!  The film Congratulations! tells the story of a couple taking a road trip to see the young man’s mother.  Shortly before they arrive at his mother’s house, they stop off at the side of the road to eat a picnic lunch and have sex.  Post-coital, the man hands the woman a small box with an engagement ring.  The woman replies, “Why would you want to ruin this?”  Despite this uncomfortable turn of events, the couple continues on the way to the mother’s house, who is planning a huge celebration for their impending nuptials, and seemingly recovered from her grief following her husband’s death.  Needless to say, the couple decide to pretend that they are engaged.

There were two huge problems with this movie.  First of all, the pacing was totally off.  The film is only 90 minutes long, but it felt as though it was over two hours.  That’s a huge problem.  A film should feel short, no matter how long it is.  That does not mean action packed or suspenseful.  But rather, the film should be compelling, and the audience should be fascinated in how the film will proceed.

Second of all, there is no ending to the movie.  It simply stops.  Don’t get me wrong.  I’m actually perfectly happy with ambiguous endings, but the movie has to be structured differently in order to have it work.  In this case, the movie just feels like cheating.

I saw this movie with my friend, and we both agreed with this rating.

Rating: Poor

 

Anita Review

When I was young, there was a commercial on TV in which a woman is sexually harassed by her boss.  As she is harassed, she visibly, literally shrinks.  At the end of the commercial, she is full size again, and when her boss tells her, “We’re talking about your job,” she snaps back, “No.  We’re talking about sexual harassment, and I DON’T have to put up with it.”

As a child, I loved that commercial.  The woman in the commercial was so powerful.  I used to run around my house shouting “We’re talking about sexual harassment, and I don’t have to put up with it!”  I had no idea what sexual harassment was, so I have no doubt that my parents found this hilarious.

Little did I know that the time in which I was growing up, the early 90′s, was a time when sexual harassment was finally emerging in the national conscience.  The world in which my mother grew up, where she was asked by employers if she planned on getting married, was vanishing.  Perhaps as a symptom of this, sexual harassment burst onto the national stage in bold fashion in the Anita Hill hearings.  Anita Hill, a law professor who worked under Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, accused him of sexual harassment, and was called before the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify.

Needless to say, I have no memory of those hearings because I was only 6 or 7 at the time.  I didn’t even hear about them until a few years ago.  I went into the movie Anita as almost a complete tabula rasa.

The most striking part of the documentary were the actual hearings themselves.  The image of the hearings was striking, a lone black woman sitting at a table, facing a panel of elderly white men, elevated above the floor.  It was an image of power against the powerlessness, and a perfect visual representation of the plight of women minorities in America.  (Point of information, I am a woman, but not a minority.)

By far the most compelling and riveting part of the movie was the part detailing the hearings before the Senate.  As I watched the scenes, I felt as though Anita Hill was being sexually harassed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, asking her again and again, “Tell me what Clarence Thomas said about the large breasts.”  “Tell me again what he said about the size of his penis.”  The several days of testimony, which lasted nine hours, seemed designed to further humiliate her.  They even asked her what was the most humiliating part of her experience.

The Senators also seemed to be in a competition as to who could come across as the most ignorant.  My money goes to the Senator who said, in essence, “All this talk about sexual harassment, I don’t even know what sexual harassment is.”  Genius.  Pure genius.

The other fascinating part of the experience was hearing my mother’s reaction to the movie.  My mom works in human resources at a large company, and she has handled many sexual harassment complaints.  She said that Congress performed the most ineffective, backwards sexual harassment investigation she has ever seen.  A proper investigation does not involve question the alleged victim for nine hours, and it certainly does not involve dismissing key witnesses without hearing their testimony.  She also said that Clarence Thomas reacted the way every alleged perpetrator does when they first hear about the allegations, categorically denying everything, only to later admit to what they had done.  She also said that Anita Hill acted the way every alleged victim she has ever seen, saying, “I just wanted it to stop.”

At times hilarious, at other times horrifying, and at some moments horrifyingly hilarious (or hilariously horrifying) Anita was a wonderful window into a moment of US history, and the movement to end workplace sexual harassment in the United States.

Rating: Excellent

Musicwood Review

In the 17th Century, guitar makers determined that four woods are needed to make the best guitars.  One of the woods needed is spruce, which serves as the top part of the guitar.  In America, most of the spruce comes from the National Forest in Alaska, where the Native American corporation Sealaska is over harvesting the trees.  It should be clear that of the untold number of spruce trees harvested in Alaska every year, only 150-200 of them are going to guitars.  The overwhelming majority of them are sent to Asia. 

Musicwood tells the story of an organization of guitar makers, such as Gibson, put together by Greenpeace, to try to lobby the corporation to slow the rate of deforestation to more sustainable levels. 

The film succeeds largely at conveying the complexity of the issue, in large part because it involves a Native American corporation set up by the government.  In the 1970′s, the United States government returned a large portion of Alaskan land to Native tribes.  The tribes in Alaska rejected the idea of reservations, because they saw how poorly that had worked in the continental United States.  Instead, they created corporations, with tribe members as shareholders.  The leaders feel that they are bringing prosperity to their people.

However, many shareholders feel that they are not getting a real economy out of Sealaska, and they worry about the incredible rate of forest destruction.  This is not simply environmentalism; many of the local aboriginal people still depend on the land for their food, including the salmon run, and the destruction of the forest will hurt their ability to survive. 

At times towards the end, the editing was poor, because the pace of the film slowed.  However, the film was beautifully shot, and while the filmmakers are sympathetic to Greenpeace, they are very fair to the members of Sealaska, and they have plenty of time to share their side of the story.  They are distrustful of Greenpeace and Musicwood, but who can blame them for saying “White man speak with forked tongue?” (a quote from the movie). 

This film serves as an intriguing amalgam of a music documentary and an environmental documentary, a difficult feat. 

Rating: Good