Background: Although Shakespeare penned this work nearly two hundred years after the Battle of Agincourt (1415), it remains the finest dramatic interpretation of what leadership meant to the men in the Middle Ages. Prior to the Battle, Henry V had led his English footmen across Northwestern France, seizing Calais and other cities in an attempt to win back holds in France that had once been in English possession and to claim the French crown through the obscure but powerful Salig Law. The French, aware of Henry's troops weaking condition because of their distance from England and the attacks of Dysentery that had plagued the dwindling band, moved between King Henry and Calais, the port he needed to reach in order to return to England. The troops followed Henry's band along the rivers, preventing their crossing and daring them to a battle they thought they could not win. The English knights fought on foot after the manner devised by Edward III. Archers were to be used in support, the English and Welsh longbows having established their credentials both at Crecy (1347) and at Poiters (1356). But here the French seemed to have sufficient numbers to deal with even this threat, and they refused to allow Henry pass, angered by the English seizure of the cities. Morale in the English line as they looked upon the overwhelming force of heavily armoured, highly skilled French knights must have been extremely low. King Henry, rising to the occasion, spoke words of encouragement that rallied the English troops and carried them to a victory. As a result of the victory the French Princess Catherine was betrothed to Henry V, and France and England were at peace for the remainder of Henry's short life. He perished of dysentery in 1422, but was survived by his son (Henry VI) and was buried at Westminster Abbey, close to the shrine of Edward the Confessor.
Although the speech below is a work of fiction, it is evocative of the spirit with which Henry--and all strong medieval kings--ruled through the strength of their convictions and by force of their personality.
The Speech:
WESTMORELAND. O that we now had here
But one ten thousand of those men in England
That do no work to-day!
KING. What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian.'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispian's day.'
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
Learn from the Greeks:
PATHOS: Appeal to the emotions, values or prejudices of the audience.
LOGOS: Appeal to logic or reason.
ETHOS: Ask for the audience to believe or agree with the speaker based on their credibility/trustworthiness.
Elements of an appeal:
Acknowledge an opponent and/or their opposing viewpoint or argument
Cite evidence from credible authorities, make historical references or quote well-known texts
Mention an individual’s experience or tell a story from personal history
Compare/contrast events, things, ideas
Use figurative language, such as metaphors, similes, alliteration
Henry V - 1944 - Laurence Olivier
Independence Day - 1996 - Bill Pullman
Each of these performances was powerful. The speech appeals mostly to the audience’s pathos; the speaker already has ethos, as he is their king, but this speech focuses mainly on appealing to the audience’s emotions. He promises that the honor and glory they will feel upon winning the battle is desirous, and he makes fighting the battle seem as though it is the only way to gain honor and serve the country. He speaks in a language that is simple enough to understand, and this also helps his audience trust him and listen to what he has to say. I thought that both performances did a good job at conveying the message with the intensity and excitement necessary to convince the audience. Laurence Olivier’s version was made during World War II, and so this likely made him all the more passionate about his speech. It could be applied to his own life, and this made it more personal. By having the movie come out at this time, it likely boosted morale and made people more passionate about fighting for their country.
ReplyDeleteI thought that although it was the same speech, both performances of Laurence Olivier and Kenneth Branagh had a different vibe. Due to the Laurence Olivier version being made around World War II, I think that his speech was something that everyone could relate to during that time because the war affected all. I agree with Skylar in that when this movie came out in 1944, it probably also inspired everyone going to see it to have hope and continue fighting for their country. I thought that Branagh’s performance was different because it was during the Vietnam War controversy and the speech seemed to reflect that. Both speeches used much pathos and ethos to appeal to the emotions and values of the audience. The intensity of the speeches elicits inspiration and passion in the audience which makes the performances so powerful.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree that both the performances were powerful and unique. In the Laurence Olivier and Kenneth Brannagh videos, especially, I was able to see the same undertones and ways of getting across emotion that paralleled the Hamlet videos we took a look at earlier. Historically, I recall that in 1944, with President Roosevelt being elected to a fourth term, and World War II being in full force, the general American populace had a lot of strong emotions towards war in general, and mostly reacted negatively to the innumerable American troops being killed on the frontlines each and every day. Both Olivier and Brannagh played directly to this sentiment, and used the Greek notion of pathos in order to appeal to sentiment. The scene from Independence Day was also genius — this is a relatively newer movie compared to the other two, and I actually remember having watched it before. In his speech, Henry passionately exclaims that he isn't forcing any soldier to fight alongside him, and that anyone is free to quit and go home if they so wished. However, he notes that "he today that sheds his blood with me [s]hall be my brother." I also took note that this is a theme that comes up again and again in motivational scenes of movies in the present day, and I presume this speech was the original inspiration for those scenes. As for performances, I believe that both were very well executed. I specifically agree with Skylar's comment that the language in the speech was very fluid and easy to understand, which I think allowed it to resonate better, and with more people. In all, taking into account this fiery passion, along with the time period and shared beliefs, it is clear to see why these productions were so critically acclaimed during this time.
ReplyDeleteThe Laurence Olivier performance was very well executed. I was one of the people who disliked his Hamlet performance but I thought this one was a very good portrayal of the speech. During 1944, World War II was happening. This could have impacted the performance by making it’s delivery more heartfelt/ realistic, since it was content that related to soldiers around the world. I particularly liked the setting of this performance, as it went along with the images I had in my mind while I read the speech. The 1988 performance by Kenneth Brannagh had the opposite effect for me. I liked his performance of Hamlet better than the one of this speech. It was similar to Laurence Olivier’s delivery but it did not resonate with me as much as the older one did. Personally I thought his delivery was a little slow/ less exciting. This could have to do with the time period, since the 1944 clip was during World War II and the 1988 one was not during any wars of that significance. Lastly, the clip from Independence Day 1996 was interesting since it was a modern example of a speech like Henry V’s. It was kind of like the Ethan Hawke’s Hamlet performance where it was a totally different setting/ time period than what the original Hamlet would have looked like. Clips like these help get a grasp on the emotions behind each portrayal, and how they are applicable to all time periods. Cat
ReplyDeleteWhile listening to both of the performances and reading along with the speech, I noticed that both versions have the section “By Jove, I am not covetous for gold...For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more” absent from the dialogue. These lines in particular have an abundance of pathos stored in them. Henry V, while clearly hoping to be victorious in the name of his nation, desires to see honor be placed, not only on him, but onto each man who he proclaims these words upon. So, for both directors to not include those lines is rather strange since, as Mr. Pellerin had mentioned, the films were produced with the thoughts of WWII and the Vietnam War in mind. Strange because the feelings of hope and honor that were expressed with these lines remained absent when they could have been the same that soldiers who served the country had also possessed as they went into combat. With the loss of this section, one of the actor’s performances remained effective while the other could have done with those lines. The Laurence Olivier’s Henry was more apt to the speech itself, honorable, yet, with humility, a true rallying cry to motivate his troops. Olivier spoke to resonate with each individual soldier, to offer them strength and hope in order to rise above their enemies. On the contrary, Brannaugh’s portrayal felt as though he was a god amongst men; it did not feel as much as an uplifting call to arms, but rather, what it truly was, a scene that was lamentably acted out.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think that both performances had a different impact on me, Laurence Olivier’s felt more impersonal, while I felt Kenneth Brannagh was more effective. The way Laurence spoke and acted it gave the speech a feel that it was more directed to the troops as a group and a universal body instead of appealing to them as indiviudals. I felt like Oliviers was trying to round them up through a nationalistic feel and appealing to their duty as people of their country. This could be attributed to World War II, that was happening around this time, because during that war people had alot of patriotism and a national mentality to win the war and defeat the Germans and Japanese. Eventhough Kenneth Brannagh’s Hamlet soliloquy performance was my least favorite and I felt it lacked the emotional turmoill that I think was needed, Brannagh’s Henry V performance had almost the opposite effect. Brannagh delivered it in a much more personal way, I felt that he was talking to each of the troops individually. I think he used the story of Saint Crispian and that each troop will “strip his sleeves and show his scars and say ‘These wounds I had on Saint Crispian’s day’” left a feeling of each individuals life and journey. I think that the Shakespears speech itself left alot up to artistic interpretation and it is interesting to see now they are both reciting the same exact speech word for word but I was left with much different impressions and effects afterwards.
ReplyDeleteI think the fact that Kenneth Branagh's movie came out around the time of the Vietnam War controversy and the question of whether the United States should fight in the war or not was really important in his speech. I noticed that his speech seemed more energetic than Olivier’s, and he appealed to pathos by reflecting the common values of his soldiers- Honor, respect, and brotherhood. This most likely reflected the idea that the United States should interfere in Vietnam, and fight honorably alongside their brothers there to restore peace. The Independence Day film connected with his speech too, emphasizing the importance of “Mankind” and being “United in our common interests” around the country and world. Unification of all mankind appeals to most people, and using that as a common goal persuades people to fight valiantly. I also saw that Kenneth Branagh’s ethos was incredibly strong, because not only is he their king as Skylar said, but also because you can see the soldiers moving closer and huddling around him, listening intently to every word he says. This proves that they have a lot of respect for him and for what he’s saying, since otherwise they wouldn’t listen or wouldn’t seek to be closer to him. Overall, I really liked his speech and thanks to his powerful language (and background music!) I caught myself being influenced as well. Sosha
ReplyDeleteI agree entirely with Sosha--- Olivier is appealing to the general people. The time period in which it was filmed is reflected in his performance, that the world was in war. I can relate to the Independence Day speech more than Olivier's version because it's much more modern and it appeals to the humankind. I've never experienced a real war before. I found Kenneth Brannagh's more inspirational and powerful than Laurence Olivier's. I physically felt chills as I watched Brannagh's performance (also with the help of background music). Even the soldiers in the background are doing a good job acting because they are reacting to the speech by smiling with Brannagh. They look genuinely touched.
ReplyDeleteThis speech was really great to read- Shakespeare makes it simple for the reader to picture in their heads before they even see the scene being acted out. In the Laurence Olivier speech, I liked how King Henry seemed to just be having a somewhat casual conversation, and then other people gathered around to hear him speak until he stood alone above the crowd, inspiring the soldiers to fight. Kenneth Branagh's consistent intensity lent itself much better to this speech than to Hamlet’s soliloquy. Not only did his grand delivery aid Shakespeare’s words, but the music and the visual appeal of the scene was very compelling. Henry’s bright red and blue clothing and powerful words made him seem like a glimpse of hope surrounded by the darkness of the soldiers. The Independence Day Speech sounded exactly the same as far as the tone and purpose of the speech. I feel like unlike the Hamlets we watched, there is really only a single way to perform this speech. It’s meant to be a powerful moment to raise spirits and there is no way to downplay the intensity of it, so I liked what each actor brought to the part. I think my favorite version would have to be the Kenneth Branagh version because it is clear in Hamlet that he has a lot of potential as an actor, but he doesn’t quite portray the sort of madness and cowardice that Hamlet has in the way I had hoped. However, I think his somewhat over dramatic acting makes this speech a lot better because it hypes up the audience for the battle that will follow, putting themselves into the position of the soldiers.
ReplyDeleteI think both Laurence Olivier and Kenneth Brannagh's versions of the speech were good, especially considering how each played into the real life time period. Olivier's in 1944 was in the mindset of World War II, specifically nearing the end of WWII. Due to this, the speech was more rallying and unifying, a "Let's gooooo!" attitude. Brannagh's speech seemed more individualized- he made a point of speaking to his fellow soldiers directly instead of just addressing them as a group, which added to the sincere yet almost melancholy tone of the piece. I thought the Independence Day speech was okay- it was definitely supposed to be unifying as well, as most speeches are. I felt like Shakespeare's speech really emphasized using the audience's (in this case the soldiers) emotions in order to strengthen the lines.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite one of these speeches was definitely Kenneth Branagh's. His character had really good ethos, not just because he was the king, but because he radiated a warmth and energy that was truly infectious. When he spoke about how great it would be to be victorious, he seemed to truly be feeling the emotions he was trying to emanate to his troops. He had no fear or concern in him, and he expressed excitement and confidence. He seemed really “hyped up” for the battle, in the same way that you get hyped up for a game. He was likeable, and appealed to ethos, and he also appealed to pathos. His argument really boiled down to how amazing it would feel when they, a group of brothers, defeated their enemies when the odds were against them. I think Laurence Olivier was not as effective because he didn’t seem as excited. He was convincing in his speech, and had a pleasant way about him, but he didn’t seem to stir the spirits of his soldiers in the same way that Kenneth Branagh did. He didn’t have as much youthful energy, and you couldn’t hear in his words or see in his face that he truly believed that this battle was worth fighting, and that there was no doubt they would prevail.
ReplyDeleteAnna Vrountas
Every single one of these performances was powerful. It's evident that the speech focuses more on the persuasive element of pathos because the king promises honor and glory and a feeling of accomplishment through war. The use of simple language allows for a better translation of emotions and opportunity to intensify the connection without being held back by complex language. Olivier’s version was made during World War II, increasing the tone of unity and the purpose of rallying the troops, like Katie said, it gives off the strongest "Let's gooooooo!" attitude. I'm limited on my history knowledge but Olivier's performance made me feel like it would've been one to empower the people fighting for their country and, even though I obviously am unfamiliar with that feeling, I truly felt connected to this leader, this encouragement of hope, and that's what made it my favorite performance of the three. I also really enjoyed Kenneth Brannagh's speech because I felt like the sincerity was really apparent and it felt like there was strong camaraderie between him and the soldiers. I wasn't crazy about the Independence Day speech but I did see its value.
ReplyDeleteI noticed that each of the speeches used pathos, logos, and ethos very effectively to motivate the army. I thought that Olivier and Brannagh did an especially nice job of conveying their message through the power in their voice and their body language. Olivier’s performance makes sense in the context of world war two since many Americans were looking for a cause to rally behind during those tough times. It almost seems like this movie was made as a direct parallel to the speeches being given by Franklin Roosevelt during the war to boost morale among troops. I am also reminded of world war two propaganda that glorified the idea of dying for one’s country and made the war out to be a noble cause against a savage enemy. Although I respect the persuasiveness of Henry’s speech and the case he makes for going to war, we always have to remember to ask ourselves if sacrificing our lives for a cause is always necessary and ultimately, worth it. My favorite speech was Brannagh’s.
ReplyDeleteHistorical background is crucial when looking at the various speeches. World War II was a current event at the time, which shaped the aura of the speech. In the first speech, in 1944, there is a strong sense of duty above all. The soldiers were all very stern and the speech was more of a command than a form of persuasion. The next video, from 1988, was different. There was a satisfaction in Brannagh’s voice that wasn’t there in the previous speech. Beyond duty, there was a yearning for self satisfaction that eventually led to the great momentum of cheering at the end. The final video, which was made in 1996, strongly reflects the society that had developed. The first video showed a very divided society that used prestige and competition as a fuel for motivation. The final video is almost an opposite version, highlighting diversity. Bill Pulman acknowledges that unity alone can bring them to success. Small differences should be ignored in the best interest of the ultimate goal. The definition of war and the meaning of difference is reestablished in every video, each getting closer to an all-inclusive battle.
ReplyDeleteKaby
I agree with others that even though Laurence Olivier and Kenneth Brannagh are delivering the same speech, they have very different feelings. I can definitely see the influence of World War II on Olivier’s performance. He seemed very passionate about instilling a sense of nationalism in his listeners, and kept a consistent tone throughout. I think this appealed to the Pathos and Ethos of the audience. Both connect to the time period, by appealing to the prejudices and beliefs of the people of the time. However affective Olivier’s delivery was, I prefer that of Brannagh. Made in a time of questioning and war, I feel as though Brannagh encompassed a more full range of emotions. He showed empowerment and control, but also questioning and humility. I think that this appeals to pathos, logos, and ethos. It appeals to emotions because it shows many different sides of the speech and the feelings behind it. It also appeals to logic because it shows that there are doubts behind every decisions and the audience can relate to this, which shows ethos. I enjoyed both performances, but I was surprised I enjoyed Brannagh’s more considering his previous underwhelming performances.
ReplyDeleteIt has been said that the film of a time period is an excellent gauge for the general feelings within that time. Nowhere is this more evident than in these three adaptations of the Henry V speech. In the first speech, the U.S. was within grasp of destroying the last Western European superpower and establishing itself as the de facto leader in the west through a very successful war. As such, Lawrence speaks in a very bold and prideful way with a brightly light scene and optimism shining through the screen. From it, it is obvious that the portrayed army is one destined for victory and the mentioned movie is one that glorifies war. Conversely, in the 1988 Kenneth Branagh speech, after the U.S. had gone through a series of tasking wars in Vietnam and Korea, a lot more dissent and some of the less magnificent but more realistic details of battle are shown. Compared to the first film, this one no longer glorifies war, but rather seeks to portray it. Finally, there is the Independence Day film. It is the only poorly lit scene of the three and everything in it assumes a drab appearance. The workers look tired, their clothes torn, and even the speaker initially conflicted. It no longer depicts a story of the war hero but rather that of the underdog, marking how far the shift from the war movement had turned in the span of fifty years.
ReplyDeleteThe 1944 speech was definitely a reflection of the great despair throughout the entire world with the ongoing world war and came across more as a means of unifying fighters more like the original intent of Henry V’s speech. You can tell that there is a reason and intent behind his speech and he’s not just playing a character but really trying to get a message across appealing much more to the ethos and pathos of his audience. The 1988 enactment is more of a cynical rendition as it comes across more like “we could die or we could not and that's fine.” The independence day speech I found really funny when he talked about equality for all and it panned across the audience and it was all white people.
ReplyDeleteThe Saint Crispin's Day Speech works by transforming being part of the coming battle from something to be dreaded into something to be desired. The way King Harry spins it, by taking part in the coming battle, you will actively earn something that none of the men back home, the men you wish were helping you and the men you would rather be at this moment will ever have, the honor of being part of this battle. For your deeds on this day, you will be special, you will be part of an elite group of people who for their actions will be remembered forever. In a sense, by fighting with King Harry you earn yourself a sort of immortality. He turns the coming battle into a brief but assured opportunity to earn honor, immortality, and prove yourself not a coward, coveted attributes that all of the men back home will wish they had earned with you. King Harry makes you glad and happy that you have the opportunity to fight and it is noticeable that he neither implies that they will lose or that any of them will even die. For him it is assured victory and triumph for every single soldier. The effect of this speech is also due to the performance, mainly how happy and elated Harry is while saying it, he’s not somber about the coming carnage, he’s not grave about the stakes of the fight, he doesn't even acknowledge the fact that some of them will die or that there will be any danger at all. He’s practically drunk on the joy of being there and this goes for both performances showed. His attitude and pathos turn the battlefield from a place to be avoided or tackled with caution to a heavenly place where men are made immortal. The innate ability of this speech to rally people to joyus action makes it no wonder why it was performed by Laurence Olivier in 1944, during World War II when humanity needed encouragement to push on the fight the most.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the performances of Laurence Olivier and Kenneth Branagh both strongly evoked emotions in the viewer and their audiences in the movie, they were both powerful in their own different ways. In Olivier's 1944 version of Henry V, his speech was executed so strongly that no background music to stress his words were needed, only his voice and words were. Olivier’s speech had many elements of an appeal, everyone’s emotions were high and everyone was passionate. Being made around the time of World War II, Olivier’s part definitely resonated with him, leading him to pour out his genuine, personal emotions. The movie was definitely contrived to rile citizen’s emotions and to drive them to fight for their country. In Branagh’s 1998 version, when he says "For he who sheds his blood with me today shall be my brother, be he ne'er so vile, this day shall gentle his condition,” the audience really feels the words cut into their souls. His speech is less of a “pep-rally” type speech but instead had a build up of energy that causes excitement in the audience to build up. I liked that Branagh communicates with his audience in the movie and rouses them up, leading the viewer to also get riled up. The scene from Independence Day was also very intense. Pullman also uses elements of appeal when he compares and contrast the ideas of freedom and oppression when he says, “we will not go quietly in the night, we will not vanish without a fight were going to live on, we are going to survive.” A parallel I saw in this speech to St. Crispin's Day Speech was the theme of bonding when he says whoever “sheds his blood with me shall be my brother."
ReplyDeleteFor some reason, I found Laurence Oliver’s performance of the speech quite comical. The acting seemed very exaggerated, and the enthusiasm in the tone of the speech deviates from the depressing and melancholy atmosphere I had anticipated. Furthermore, both the troops and tents within the scene seemed to be in perfect and peak condition. On the other hand, Kenneth Branagh’s performance of Henry’s speech was much more enticing and realistic. The music that played in the background added a great deal to the fervor of Henry’s words, and the troops’ chants, although a bit exaggerated, further increased the performance’s intensity. Of the three, I enjoyed Bill Pullman’s performance in Independence Day, but I can’t explain as to why this is the case. Maybe it’s because the speech is in a more modern setting, thus making it more enticing and relatable. Pullman is able to effectively employ facial expressions and body language, making his performance significantly more captivating.
ReplyDeleteFor this set of videos I found myself liking Kenneth Brannagh’s version which surprised me because I did not like his “to be or not to be” speech. I found his the best because of the way he used the current time around him in his acting. His performance took place in in 1944 in the midst of World War II. I thought that his speech was more so centered around morale and camaraderie than any of the others. He seemed to make a point to direct this speech to his fellow soldiers. I thought that his speech was very unifying, in my opinion, the complete opposite of the Independence Day speech. Like people before mentioned this piece was slower than the others and I believe that this was because it took place in the middle of the war. I think this added depth to the performance, in fact it made me like it even more. It is not to say that Laurence Olivier’s was not well executed, because it was, but personally I enjoyed his Hamlet performance better. This could just be a personal opinion but it seemed like the actor felt more of a connection/emothing with the “to be or not to be” speech. Overall, these three speeches were all good but they are all very different. I think that their individuality is based on both the actors and the time period that they are taking place in.
ReplyDeleteColleen
Although last class I swore I hated Kenneth Broughton as an actor and I tried very hard not to like his interpretation of Henry IV’s speech I did enjoy it the most out of all the other options. I feel like his over dramatic and almost cringe worthy nature did him good for once. His performance was believable and motivational and exactly what I pictured a general inspiring his troops to be like. In more historic times I feel like the gathering of troops was very dramatic in order to inspire the common people they had something to fight for. Interestingly enough this performance was in the time of the Cold War when America wasn't exactly fighting for something but instead against the threat of a bigger power. As for World War II, the time of the Laurence Olivier presentation, there is definitely more gray area on whether we were fighting for or against something. Fighting For safety Against the Germans? I feel like with the Laurence Olivier speech it was more yelling and there wasn't as much emotion behind his words. The actors playing the troops also acted less engaged and inspired. Overall though all performances were good, in this type of scenario and setting I picture a more over the top performance which Kenneth Broughton definitely portrayed.
ReplyDelete