Discussing Films Henry V and Kagamusha

Discussing films Henry V and Kagamusha, write an essay in the style of the Austen, Stove, and Manheim articles that we read. The best essay will connect three elements: the films, the articles, and the concept of state-supporting mythology. The best essay will also be blessed with a clear central argument and refer to the films and articles by name.

Discussing Films Henry V and Kagamusha

Manheim, Michael: Comparing Olivier and Branagh Henry V films to Kurosawa’s Ran and Kagemusha.

According to Manheim, even though Kagemusha is not a Shakespearean play, it falls in the category of historical play, and based on the complex nature of its main character (the peasant impersonating a king feels himself becoming that king), it could be considered a Shakespearean play. Both Kurosawa films are set within the same period, and Rah perceives Shakespeare’s tragedy mainly as a history play falling in the same category as Kagemusha. Indeed, this is confirmed by Vincent Canby who says that, “Kurosawa has called Kagemusha a ‘dry run’ for Ran.” [1]. Moreover, Ran is significantly detached from Lear in situation, setting and language, and too close to Kagemusha based on the three aspects, that makes it difficult to suggest that it falls in the Shakespearean category than the predecessor. From the free way, both may be termed Shakespearean as Kurosawa introduces Shakespeare to Japanese culture and history- this can be ascertained by referring to Kurosawa’s adapted Macbeth, Throne of Blood [2].

By comparing the manner in which Kurosawa treats the theme of war in the two films to the manner in which Olivier and Branagh treat the same theme in the Henry V films, Manheim sought to advance certain tentative views regarding the different reasons that pushed the English and Japanese directors to make their films, differences that to some extent can be attributed to the dramatic material they were using, but also partly due to implicit diversity in their perceptions on nationalism and war.

Was Conquest By Henry a Miracle

Henry IV Falstaff and the King

The Character in Henry IV

Akira Kurosowa Samurai Films

Henry Cruel

In Stove’s book where Shakespeare’s story of military heroism is remodeled to imply moral equivalence, Kenneth Branagh, the director/actor has created a film called Henry V as a pacifism apologia. Stove concedes that Australia’s reviewers in the mainstream media have warmed up to the film, making it difficult to establish factors that attract much embarrassment: the ignorance of the critics regarding Shakespeare, the 15^th century history and the contemporary history or the Panglossian antics that have been substituted for ideological reasons, which portray a cinematic goose as a swan.

According to Stove, Branagan poured scorn on Shakespeare’s values by failing to include the thematic concerns that characterize the historical plays. Stove adds that there is no change in thematic concerns regardless of the kind of characters being portrayed. Additionally, Stove faults Branagh for his blatant use of Shakespeare’s text in portraying certain elements. For instance, there is omission of main characters and full scenes, and repetitive conflation of secondary roles as illustrated in the Constable, Grandpre, Rambures and Orleans. Although other there is no conflation of other secondary roles, their abridging makes the film meaningless they include the Boy, Westmoreland, Michael Williams and Gower. Furthermore, Stove blames Branagh for inserting Henry V portions, particularly for the part involving Bardolph and Falstaff into the film; this only serve to confuse the audience according to Stove.

Was Conquest By Henry a Miracle

Henry IV Falstaff and the King

The Character in Henry IV

Akira Kurosowa Samurai Films

Henry Cruel

On the other hand, Branagan’s film did produce some best actors in Paul Scofield (who plays the French King) and Brian Blessed (who plays the role of the Duke of Exeter); The worst actors that emerged from the film include Robert Stephens (who plays the pistol) and Judy Dench (Mistress Quickly). According to Stove, Pistol’s speeches are complicated because the audience cannot tell the type of language spoken.

According to Greta Austin, European medieval time movies are mainly contemporary creations. They appear to illustrate the preoccupations and anxieties of their contemporary creators instead of the people who existed 10 centuries ago. Similarly, medieval films enable contemporary medieval to reflect on the past, and their critical nature lies in enhancing historical imagination. Greta questions whether the value of medieval films can transcend entertainment; he further ponders whether medieval films can be criticized basing on their historicity, their failure of recreating a historical past, but also praising them over their usefulness in allowing the medieval scholars to reflect on the past.

According to Greta, medieval films are divided into two categories. The first category tend to represent a medieval reality, be it fictional or historical drama, it attempts to shed light on the way events occurred in the past. Films in this category are Braveheart (1995) and the Name of the Rose (1986). The second category of medieval films is the ironic film that depicts the medieval times as they were without pretense. Films in this category include Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1991), for instance, according to Greta, the knights are not known to ride horses; however, in this case they pretend to do so as illustrated by the banging of coconuts shells for imitation of the sounds from hooves. The same situation is replicated in First Knight (1995), where spectators at a jousting tournament perform the “wave” as that done by spectators in American football matches today.