Essay on The Flawed King in Shakespeares Henry V

The Flawed King in Shakespeares Henry V To turn Henry V into a play glorifying war or a play condemning war would be to presume Shakespeares intentions too much. He does both of these and more in his recount of the historical battle of Agincourt. Although Shakespeare devotes the play to the events leading to war, he simultaneously gives us insight into the political and private life of a king. It is this unity of two distinct areas that has turned the play into a critical no mans land, acrimoniously contested and periodically disfigured by opposing barrages of intellectual artillery (Taylor 1). One may believe that Henry is the epitome of kingly glory, a disgrace of royalty, or think that Shakespeare himself disliked Henry†¦show more content†¦Approaching the play through mere historical reconstruction limits the potential for insight into society and threatens to create a stagnant historical account. Although the situation to which the play refers no longer exists, a connection can be made between spectator and stage. The Chorus facilitates this connection. Shakespeare obviously intended that the Chorus help the audience visualize the proceedings of history. The Chorus has a dynamic role in inviting each audience member on a journey through time. They have to assemble for themselves the model ruler of Henry, in accordance with the instructions given, for it would be falsification of history to pretend that [the play] could contain a clear-cut and unambiguous ideal (Iser 186). The Chorus provides a sense of individual responsibility in creating an image; a product of the imagination and not a fact of history. The Chorus bridges the gap between the past and the present. The spectator is encouraged to walk on an illusionary plain with Henry and share in his experiences. The communication by the actors is emphasized in this production, as there will be little in terms of stage decor. The Chorus is a dictionary, so to speak, for this new method of a raw and pure rendition of Henry V. It is explicit about how much stage and actors will do, how much the audience must do for itself (Beauman 6). Think, when we talk ofShow MoreRelatedAnalysis Of Richard III : In Defense Of A Villain1677 Words   |  7 Pagesand power hungry in order to paint the Tudor dynasty in a better light. The events depicted in Shakespeares Richard III depict a dramatized ending to the famed â€Å"War of the Roses†. This war was the conflict between two branches of the House of Plantagenet, who ruled England from 1216-1485. The House of Plantagenet is descended from Henry III, who ruled from 1216-1275. However, after the reign of Henry III’s great-great-grandson, Richard II the Plantagenet family split into the rival houses of LancasterRead MoreShakespeares Henry IV on Film and Television1428 Words   |  6 PagesIn Shakespeares Henry IV, Part I, young Prince Hal (or Harry) is regarded as a clown and a playboy by his father King Henry IV, who despairs that he will ever take his duties seriously, but in this the king turned out to be absolutely incorrect. Sir John Falstaff is portrayed a charming and humorous villain who treats Hal like a son, and from him the prince learns about the lives, feeling and humanity of the common people and the soldiers in his army, but he never accepts his corrupt and amoralRead MoreEssay on Machiavelli’s The Prince as a Modern Political Guidebook2083 Words   |  9 Pages(Shakespeare, 2 Henry IV 111.1.31) Kingship and leadership is a human concept.   Contraptions and   fiction invented by human beings that hold the fabric of   society together.   It is the job of the leader to make the fiction work for the good of all.   The quote above evokes the overall feeling about kingship held by both Prince Hal and his father in Shakespeares Henry plays.   Being a leader is perhaps the most difficult position one can ever attain.   And in the same vein that King Henry IV says thisRead MoreComparison between the Great Gatsby and Macbeth3983 Words   |  16 PagesMacbeth is one of Shakespeares most intense plays and one his most complex psychological studies. It is also a play about which there is a great deal of historical background, which I think youll find interesting because it reveals Shakespeares creative process. The play was written in 1605--1606. Its one of the plays where the date is pretty firmly established by internal references to external events, and most scholar s have agreed on the date. Shakespeare was at the height of creativeRead MoreEssay on Indecision, Hesitation and Delay in Shakespeares Hamlet1964 Words   |  8 Pagesto act decisively?   Theories abound. Hamlet had an Oedipus complex. Hamlet was mad rather than merely pretending to be. Hamlet was an intellectual pansy. Hamlet was an existentialist. Etc. T. S. Eliot went so far as to say that the play itself was flawed, Hamlets Problem actually the authors own, insoluble.   I believe that the Problem is actually ours. Perhaps the real issue is not Hamlets hesitation, but our unwillingness to understand it. In an ironic maneuver, Shakespeare has Hamlet tell