I was an Australian soldier attached to the British Army in 1997 and was on a spot of leave in London. On a whim I wandered into the Globe and watched Mark Rylance perform this play. I’d never been exposed to Shakespeare before that day. I’d certainly never heard of Mark Rylance…. But that day changed me forever. I leaned up against the stage standing on chopped reeds and let the story wash over me. You can see my military haircut in the footage. It was wonderful. Thank you Mark, thank you Shakespeare, and thank you the Globe.
The speech of a man who sees death and destruction of his army but plucks up his courage to face his doom with a quiet courage. He is thinking what to say next, trying to sense what will be appropriate - unlike Olivier, Branagh, Burton and others whose speech flows smoothly as if pre-conceived. In some ways, this interpretation is more realistic and akin with the current time.
So Much of Rylance's work seems to come from a place of deep sadness. It's part of what makes him so facinating as an actor. The scene is staged so that, rather than exhorting hundreds of men into battle, he is reflecting with his trusted commanders. A unique interpretation of what has to be the greatest pep talk in the history of human language.
He is amazing in certain parts like his run as Olivia in Twelfth Night for example... or Richard II. The more sensitive parts. But I'm having a job accepting him as Henry with the faltering voice. 'Tis an unmanly display.
@@goodlookinouthomie1757Before a battle, with just your inner circle you don't have to be "on" in powerful king/ warrior mode. In this interpretation it is not a pep talk for the troops, it's a leader, a young leader, with out the bravado, nervous. To me, this is infront of his commanders who are more seasoned also nervous - OK this is too much. Same words different audience. He can use the exact speech and deliver it to the troops but with bravado and confidence/cockiness you usually see/hear. Does that make sense?
This is fascinating to watch. A bold creative choice to stage the speech in such an understated fashion, but really shows how different creative approaches can bring out different facets of a given work.
I've gone down a Mark Rylance rabbit hole after recently finishing Wolf Hall and I must say, this man is brilliant! I'm so impressed by him, his range and humility. I've gotten it on my bucket list now to one day see him perform live.
ditto, and so happy to be there. He truly is the greatest living actor because he looks for truth in everything he does. What a gift. But it is his humility that won my heart. I watch the curtain call jig of Richard II every day to share his joy.
@@cheycupcake05 They're coming out with another season that will cover The Mirror and the Light. Hopefully, Rylance and Lewis will reprise their roles as Cromwell and Henry. Sucks that Hilary Mantel passed away and won't get to see it. Wolf Hall is one of the greatest historical dramas I've ever seen. It's like they sent a camera crew back in time to 1500s England.
@@therevolvingmonk That would be awesome! Yes, it is sad Mantel recently passed, she was a talent in so many fields.. It will be interesting to see an adaption of her work without the possibility and advantage of her input. However, I'm sure if BBC is doing it again that it will be a lovely production!!
It's as if, rather than rousing his men, he's saying goodbye to them, knowing that they were going off to die. Brilliantly understated, and brilliantly performed.
Its an absolute joy to watch. All the little mannerisms he adds to make the speech sound more natural. The way he can project without having to shout. Its an absolute masterclass.
I see a man who, though tired and frightened, faces his weariness and fears however hard that might be. He is speaking to those around him not as a king, but as a man who may very well soon be dead alongside them.
Historically, Henry was, I believe, ill at the time. The forced marches from Harfleur, and the wet rainy weather caused considerable illness and weakness on him and his army. He lived only a few years after this and his marriage.
My absolute favorite delivery. The nuanced sadness, the way he translates the modern meaning of phrases with tone and expression. I’ve watched this video an untold number of times and I get the chills every time. If Rylance isn’t a combat vet, he sure shows a vast understanding of them with his deft touch.
A very impressive and probably most unique rendition of this speech that I've ever seen. Olivier and Branaugh's versions are better known, and equally powerful in their own ways, but this is a stand-out performance. Olivier comes across as a king who is full of righteous self-confidence, certain that God's on his side and he's going to win the battle; Branaugh is a commander exhorting his troops to do their utmost, hoping that it will tip the scales in the upcoming engagement. But Rylance's performance here captures the essence of a man who is full of doubt, fearing that he and his army are about to be utterly crushed -- he is both praising and thanking these men, his closest companions and relatives, for standing with him in this darkest hour. Having been in combat, this version rings far truer to my ears than either of the other two: this version feels more like reality than bluster or propaganda.
This version is not "truer" at all. Not only is this supposed to be a speech delivered to his soldiers and thus meant to be rousing, but historically we know that Henry was confident. He had already defeated the French before and more importanly he knew the French battleplans for Agincourt.
I think it's a legitimate interpretation. He is never false. It's not always to my taste---I love the soaring bombast of Branagh (that has a touch of Harry's talent for PR, but underpinned with real feeling. What I like about Branaugh's interpretation is that he is learning to sway followers all through the film, learning how to King, so to speak, and he instinctively understands that a leader has to be something other than his private self to do it right) . But this is another way in to the play. Rylance is a great performer, with great nerve.
I've always thought It is a phony, jovial speech until he reaches the "band of brothers" line---when he realizes they are going to follow him into a meat grinder and either prevail or die.
This is a complete reinterpretation of Branagh's rousing call to arms. Here Henry is vulnerable, frightened, yet unflinching. The genius of Shakespeare, how the same words can be presented in such a different way. I wonder which is the more authentic to what Shakespeare intended?
Mark Rylance for me superbly demonstrates the moment before and the given circumstances. In times of battle two emotions are corsing through the soldiers veins, bravado and fear, these men believe they have little chance of surviving the day. Many actors choose to express the bravado, to bluster up the courage, and to stir the blood. Mark Rylance plays to the other emotion, he faces the fear and the prospect of dying as heroes, but also helps his men to consider victory and glory on the field. I found it a very good demonstration of stage craft with many textured layers.
I can't begin to say how much I enjoy this interpretation. it's intimate, choked in the throat, rousing. Brave in its conception. This is between brothers. It's a moment of equality in a world of sovereigns, lords and common soldiers. Rylance shines.
James Glynn During War they want: The king in the play shouts and is powerful! When they want the men to be sissies and die off, without fighting for themselves: They are told to perform like Rylance here. A sissy. Weak voice. Coward.
This is nowhere near as dramatic as Laurence Olivier or Kenneth Branagh in the films. Mark Rylance is really believable as the king on the field of battle. It seems as if he is saying the words for the FIRST time, even though he memorized the words decades ago. AMAZING.
No, it is not believable at all. Henry was supremely confident he would win at Agincourt. For that matter, it would be absolutely idiotic to give the speech in this tone moments before the battle itself. Self-defeatism is not what you want in your soldiers or officers.
@@johanlassen6448 It's a play, not an oral history presentation. It's also not a Hollywood movie where the hero has to give an over the top, charismatic speech before the big battle, it's a play. Open to interpretation and artistic license.
@@johanlassen6448 Henry V was, "was a cold, aloof man, prone to acts of breathtaking cruelty and arrogance" according to BBC History Magazine. Another source, ThoughtCo, says, "Henry's personality undermines his reputation. His confidence was part of an iron will and fanatical determination that hints at a cold, aloof character masked by the glow of victories." So it seems your reality may be a little off. This is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the speech, in any case. You say the play should reflect reality and Shakespeare's intent but that is just your opinion. If you don't like it, ignore it. There are plenty of other interpretations that I'm sure fit your rigid definition of how this speech should be delivered properly.
@@therevolvingmonk Here's the thing; reality be damned, but you can tell in an instant when something's played against Shakespeare's intent. You know how? It sucks. When the words and the emotions clash, you've got a problem. When you deliver a battle speech like an obituary, you've screwed up. Sure, it was his own interpretation, but sometimes an interpretation can be a mistake. This is awful. End of story.
may not be as dramatic as others, but it still moves the heart of all Englishmen, and brings a tear to all true Englishmen eyes at missing this great day !!!
But isn't it nice, in a way, that he's not better known? He's famous enough to get whatever roles he wants, and really respected by people who know his work. I suspect any more would be the kind of celebrity he'd find burdensome.
I really liked this delivery of the speech. I've watched it a few times now and on balance I believe i'ts the best rendition that I've heard. The Branagh speech is off course completely different, and I do like Branaghs delivery very much as well. But watch this Mark Rylance version again and imagine how the actual English soldiers at Agincourt must have felt at the moment when this speech is supposed to have been delivered (in Shakespeares version of events). The remnants of the army was exhausted, starving, outnumbered 5 to 1 and in enemy country. Death must have seemed inevitable if they could not escape somehow, yet their king asks them to stand fast and to fight for him. Imagine under those circumstances - you are in effect preparing yourself for a violent death, mustering any last ounce of grit and courage you hope to find in some unknown reserve deep within, committing to force your heart and sinew to serve their term long after they are gone - how would you react if it turns out that you got the Branagh version of the king; and he bursts out doing his, under the circumstances absurd, lunatic chip and dale routine? He would probably have been put in the red/blue/gold royal straight jacket and rushed away from the frontline... "the king has finally lost it!" Mark Rylance however, well... I think I would have felt a little better about dying after his sincere display of good old stiff upper lip attitude and contempt for anything short of what England expects: for every man to do his duty! "Cry Havoc! Cry God for Harry, England and Saint George! Once more dear friends... once more."
I love the way Rylance performs in this scene. There's an honesty and realism to his portrayal of a leader of men approaching the hours of combat. I think he's really hit the feeling for what would have been a time of uncertain outcomes and bleak prospects, giving a Henry who is steady and reliable, stirring but not loud, as he speaks to his council on the eve of battle.
For me, this is the best performance of these lines I have seen. This speech is not meant to be a rousing, inspirational speech. It is meant to be a conversation with his officers, (many of which his family members) - hence the line 'proclaim through my host'. It is a speech of a man, (and we come to see Harry throughout the play as a man rather than a king), who is coming to terms with the growing realisation they are against 5/1 odds, and that they are most likely to die. I think Rylance's delivery is perfect. Those subtle nuances, those nervous laughs and little looks; it smacks of reality. This is how I would envisage Harry speaking at this time - it is not a rehearsed, rousing speech, but a real heartfelt pledge to his closest officers that they are bound together in this moment of glory. The rousing speech in this play is the 'once more into the breach dear friends' speech, as that is in the height of battle. This performance shows the trepidation of battle and I think this shows the comradeship that Henry feels more than any loud, shouty, rousing speech.
I agree. I found the delivery strange the first time I saw it, but the more I watch it the more I feel that it is a very human iteration of the speech. Which is not to say that Brannagh's isn't. Rather, those that think this version flat should perhaps think on the context. In the text, this is a conversation, as you say, with his officers - in reaction to the comments of his own cousin Wertmoreland. It is not rousing, it is not a declaration of impending victory, rather it is a reminder that his officers have a job to do and that job is not despairing. That some of his men are in earshot is happenstance, and they are not the target of his speech. Brannagh's version is the exact opposite, it is a speech to his men, all of them, not just his officers. It is intended, in a way, to show up Westmoreland in front of the men and to shame him and his officers into bravery. Context is super-important in Shakespeare, and it all depends on the setting.
Theatrically this rendering is great. Look how the groundlings are completely rapt and attentive to every word, movement and gesture of the actor. Yes, this Globe audience knows every word before it was spoken but the 17th century audience didn't and heard them all fresh. With this approach the first time listener can grasp what is being said and marvel at the language of a pure genius wordsmith.
David I have to disagree. He sounds like he is addressing a team of accountants facing off against the librarians. Subtle nuances and nervous laughs have no place in a life and death struggle! This is not Hamlet's Soliliquoy, but he is addressing a group of soldiers. Where do you and others get the idea that this is a conversation between his brothers? The word host implies larger numbers or an army. He is talking to all of his forces at this time.
I've been studying this speech for a while and am suprised I just found this performance. This is how I envision the speech to be performed. Thank you! I thought it was just me.
I had the honor to see and hear Mr. Rylance performance as Henry V at the inaugural of the Globe Theatre in 1994. What stuck me then and now, is that his vulnerability; this is a Henry that did not know the outcome of Agincourt - and knew what was in store for him and his soldiers if they lost. In short, Rylance captured Henry V as human being in real life. Acting does not get any better than that.
@@johanlassen6448 In the play, him knowing the battle plans hardly matters. As far as Shakes was concerned, Henry didn't know what would happen, BUT the purpose of the speech was to get his men to fight like demons in spite of the odds. You are right though; this pansy bullshit just doesn't play.
You two soulless dogmatists deserve each other. ‘Pansy bullshit’ my arse: Shakespeare doesn’t do authentic battle plans, or pedantic historic detail; he explores the depths of the human psyche with its huge range of emotions and fears, and draws out the intensity of conflict with courage and imagination. That’s why his work survives with such rich value.
" remember, with advantages " ....no other actor or director seems to have understood the dark humor in that bit of verse...I've seen every film version of this play extant, and done the play myself several times, and no-one seems to see the beautiful, almost jokey bit that William S. Put into that line..My favorite version! P.S. MS Wanamaker is flawless as Chorus... "Oh, for a muse of fire..."
Incidentally, it evokes Falstaff. One of the stirring moments of English literature, maybe an intentional statement on the permanence of that moment in Letters, and bequeathing it to us, performed as if he's doing college feminist theater.
When I first read this speech with my literature class, the guy who was picked read aloud in a manner that was very rousing and up-beat. It was good but I never felt it appropriate to the setting of the scene and from what was said previously. I'm glad to have stumbled upon Rylance doing this speech. This is how I envisioned it being said.
@@shielablige9399 Exactly! The poor bastards that heard this speech most certainly did not slaughter some ten thousand French soldiers, the men that heard this speech laid down and died! This isn't a "goodbye" speech, it's a "Let's kick some fucking ass!" speech. This delivery, it's just limp. Boring. Not the voice of a warrior.
Love the versatility of Shakespeare. Mark Rylance's calm delivery of this speech works just as well as an actor who performs it with more forcefulness and elan. Also, Mark Rylance would have been a great actor to play Stannis on GoT. Could definitely picture him in that role if there were no Stephen Dillane.
I saw this production at the Globe some years ago, but unfortunately not at this particular performance - at least, I couldn't spot myself in the audience (I was up at the front, below the stage). Rylance's delivery and acting style is always understated, but |I found it very moving.
Mark Rylance is magnetism embodied. I'm here trying to study for the final year of my degree but cannot help being pulled along this Rylance rabbit hole. Feels so enriching, I'm going with it. Such allure! Mmm.
A very apt analysis and I thank you for it. Though I enjoy this actor I was a little confused about this particular performance until I read your comment. Personally, I prefer Branaugh's version, but I agree that this would be a more accurate depiction of Henry's emotions in that moment. You sense his trepidation at the odds but at the same time understand that he is determined to fight. Brilliantly portrayed.
A lot of people say Branagh is over the top but what is Henry V doing here? He is trying to inspire his men to get them fired up for a fight against overwhelming odds. Branagh makes me think - yes if I were there I would be up for it!! This version wouldn't really inspire me if I were a soldier.
Much different take on the speech than we are used to. Even less "heroic" versions of this play usually don't have the king so low-key, melancholic and conversational at this scene. But it somehow does not seem wrong at all.
Před 5 lety+3
Amazing how differently Shakespere can be interpreted
Also: it's so interesting to compare this version with Branagh's. Take "we few, we happy few, we band of brothers." Branagh says the same thing three times--"happy" just underlines it, "band of brothers" puts it in neon lights--but it's vague what he could even mean: he's expressing camaraderie, but would you ever speechify in so high-handed a way to someone you'd call a "brother" in any sense? But with Rylance there's a subtle but crystal clear progression. "We few" calls back to the original fear of being outnumbered, which lets the shift to "we happy few" respond to that fear by pluckily recasting it. And with "we band of brothers" Rylance's minimalism lets the power of the line stand on its own: it transfigures the speech, shifting it from (Hal-like) pluck to solemnity.
I've really enjoyed the comments on this video. I think there would be a strong temptation for any actor to reach for Olivier's magisterial delivery or Branagh's inspirational show-stopper. Ryland found a totally surprising--personal--approach and made it work by putting it into a setting with only a few of his commanding officers, not to the entire army.
The full recording is on CZcams at czcams.com/video/Hl4oHBt6cvw/video.html This was recorded May 29, 1997. The full version has in introductory opening recorded earlier that season with Zoe Wanamaker. I still have my ticket from this performance and got a close up at twenty five minute mark in the full recording. This performance is one of my favorite memories from traveling abroad.
I can't see a massively outnumbered happy few moving heaven and earth after this speech... I think most would take the passage home than follow this woofter into battle
I understand why I many prefer Branagh's or Olivier's versions. They delivered the speech in a more rousing manner. It makes more sense in the way the movies presented the scene. Both, Branagh & Olivier, were in front thousands (or hundreds) of their men. Rylance's delivery makes more sense in the setting that he is in. It is more intimate. It would be ridiculous if he delivered it in a more bombastic manner.
Remember what the chorus is for. It's to tell the audience that 2 armies could not fit on the stage. But that doesn't mean that you have to scale down the tone of the speech, only because a few guys fit on the stage!
@@drjjpdc Exactly. This version of the speech is wimpy and boring. He doesn't do what Shakespeare wanted the speech to do, and it shows. I mean, shit; the audience is bored to tears. This isn't how the St. Crispin's speech is supposed to play! You should even have those fuckers in the upper rows comping at the bit to go to war with you! Good god...
I love this performance but I also understand why many viewers find it lackluster, dull, tired, or uninspired. Other than Tom Hiddleston's delivery in The Hollow Crown series Rylance's St. Crispin's Day Speech is one of a kind. We are used to Branagh, Burton, Olivier, etc... We are used to a rousing speech in the vein of Patton, Braveheart, Independence Day, (all inspired by Henry V.) What these all share is a steady, triumphant build-up of positive energy leading to a victorious climax that makes you want to get out of your chair and take up arms! Rylance chooses (as he often does) the opposite choice. Rylance's Henry is not blood-thirsty and does not relish leading his men into almost certain death. Rylance's Henry loves his men and therefore is forthright, and speaks plainly to them. To put it most simply he is honest with them. He doesn't want to manipulate them with emotional bravado. He says, "look if you want to go- go! Your passport shall be made and we will not judge you for leaving... It IS serious and dangerous what we are doing and the only reward I have to offer is- that- he who fights with me and dies with me today shall be my brother. If I have to go in alone I will. I'm giving you the choice to follow me." It's an honest, sober, and in my opinion beautiful delivery. Not to discredit Branagh or any one else but I consider this the most truthful execution of the speech to date. There is no one way to do Shakespeare. Rylance is great. So is Branagh.
It is not the most truthful execution at all. Not only is it not in line with what Shakespeare intended, but it also rings false when compared to the details of the battle itself. Henry knew what the French were planning. He knew he had good chances to win the battle. The purpose of the speech was only to rouse his men, and you certainly do not do it with that self-defeating tone.
Johan Lassen While it’s impossible to know exactly what Shakespeare intended I’m sure you’re right about this speech. It was probably rousing when Burbage did it for the first time. Who knows. He knew he had good chances? Perhaps. He also begs God to spare his men during the battle because he fears that he will be held accountable for the murder of King Richard done by his father’s men. That seems to justify an element of doubt. The purpose of the speech was ONLY to rouse his men? Shakespeare never said that. The words are there. That’s all. As I said before- there is no one way to do Shakespeare. Rylance is great. So is Branagh. This is perfectly acceptable way to do the speech and it’s breathtakingly human.
I truly do love this interpretation. It's original and shows a sense of fear and doubt that no other version I've come across does. My only problem is the context of the whole play, which does seem to glorify Henry V (with exceptions and some ambiguity). He sounds almost pained here, which is a wonderful take on the speech, but hardly fits with the image of a celebrated king. I must assume that it is indeed in line with the tone of the rest of this performance.
It’s fascinating to me just how divisive of an actor Mark Rylance is. Some seem to find him underwhelming, his acting choices wrong-headed. While some see him as the greatest living actor. I suppose I’m in neither camp, but leaning more toward the latter; I do think he’s a truly great actor.
Rylance makes almost all other stage actors, especially shouty sixth formers like Kenneth Branagh, look clumsy and forced….he is like a prime Roger Federer or George Best…makes fools of all around them! He is AUTHENTIC!
Revelatory. I came in expecting Rylance doing Olivier or Branagh, but a little better (because Rylance is Rylance), but this made me wonder at how anyone could have thought to have delivered the speech any differently than he did. Why would Henry say those words--those intimate, reflective, sometimes-funny words, obviously meant to encourage himself as well as his friends--in some kind of grand performance? Of course Henry wouldn't want his friends to remember him that way, if he or they died, and of course he's too smart to know his tired, long-tested soldiers would respond with anything other than eye-rolls.
I have to agree. There was a very good chance that everyone on that stage and all his men would be slaughtered. He shows the fear, but through the fear, the terror, he tries to rouse his men...and himself.
I love Mark Rylance for his incredibly sensitive and naturalistic performances; his understated style suits many real life situations. But for once, this one doesn’t work for me. This interpretation doesn’t seem to really understand personal and inspirational leadership in the context of medieval kingship. His men were hugely outnumbered, likely miserable and near exhaustion and needed to believe they could prevail against the odds. Listening to this speech I’d guess they’d opt to depart and take the crowns for convoy !
Rylance knows more about Shakespeare than I ever will. I saw him as Richard iii at the globe and was in awe. But, damnit, I want a rousing Henry v, and this ain’t it.
The Speech should sound different if the KING was heroically declaiming in front of his whole army, as is usually shown in the movie versions, because its such a great visual. However, the scene in this production, is played more intimately as if the king were speaking off the cuff at "Officers Call" privately to his knights and nobles who actually were his (sometimes literally) "brothers in arms". Its also one of the reasons his speech was deliberately cut off so quickly in order to eliminate the usual rousing cheers from the audience off stage as well as from his "army," on stage. Its a different interpretation of the scene by Rylance &Company which is what they are paid to do...
People seem to think this delivery is too morose - but in my opinion it perfectly captures the scenario, its tone is spot on. St. Crispin's Day is a holiday celebrating martyred twin brothers, it is not just a day in the calendar, but parallels the sacrifices to be made. The whole speech is an appeal to honour and brotherhood - any man that wants to leave may do so, with the shame of abandoning his brothers, later called out by name, "Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter...", those not here today will "hold there manhoods cheap", "I would not die in that man's company", its a dressing down to those that would abandon their honour and duty to stand by their brothers in arms - while those who stay and fight will become heroes, forever remembered on St. Crispins day, likewise, those that shirk their duty will be forever tainted with the shame of having forsaken their brothers. The more intimate setting of a play (as it was intended) makes this style of delivery contextually more relevant to a film with lots of extras.
No, it is a play on the glory you will win if you stay. He is not shaming those who would leave, he is telling them what they stand to gain if they stay. Any man may leave because he does not need them. For that matter, Henry was supremely confident at Agincourt. He knew the French battleplans. He had already defeated the French before. He had at his command fewer men, but every other advantage such as experience, terrain and the value of fighting defensively. He knew he had good chances to win and that is what he conveyed to his men, not this sorry excuse of a speech.
@@johanlassen6448 Honor and shame are two sides of the same coin - yes, it speaks as a call to honor, but there are moments which also highlight the shame of not doing their duty and obligation - 'we would not die in that mans company' and 'hold their manhoods cheap'. What Henry thought and said before the battle is largely irrelevant - this is not his pre-battle speech, these are words in a play - just like Marcus Antonius never said 'friends, romans, countrymen, lend me your ears', Henry never said these words. It need to be put into the context of a fictional re-telling of historical events, put on a stage with a few actors and an audience.
@@tiberiusgracchus2077 You are focusing on the wrong thing. He is not inspiring by fear. He is inspiring by telling them what they stand to gain - not by dying, but by winning. They are not "different sides of the same coin". Henry never said these words, no. You want to talk IRL history? Henry was supremely confident. He *knew* the French battleplans. He knew he could defeat them. It was Henry, not the French, who had been spending the past few weeks trying to get a fight at all. The French had been trying to avoid him. The context of the scene should emphasize those facts as Shakespeare intended. He most certainly did not intend to portray Henry as a scared little runt. That is not a way to lead.
@@johanlassen6448 I said in my first post "The whole speech is an appeal to honour and brotherhood" - I don't think I am focusing on the wrong thing, nor did I say the speech is leading by fear, like I said, honour and shame are two sides of the same coin, those that stand, willing to fight gain honour, those that don't will "hold their manhoods cheap" - its the words of the speech verbatim - and no I don't think we need to talk IRL history, because this is not a documentary, its a play, a work of fiction, the only context needs to be taken into account is that it is a play.
@@tiberiusgracchus2077 Those who hold their manhoods cheap are primarily those who are not even on the battlefield. No, the context that needs to be taken into account is Shakespeares intent with the scene.
Must be an edited version of more than one performance. He's wearing a black leather glove at 3:36 and not wearing it when he scratches his face two seconds later. Incredible actor and performance though.
I have mixed views on Rylance's performance. I really liked this portrayal of a man, hopelessly out numbered 5-1, about to go into battle. But Henry V was Prince Hal of Henry IV, the rebellious son. The son of whom, his subjects had 'in wonder found' something dreadful to hammer The Frence. I prefer the uplifting approach.
Exactly. And 'with advantages' evokes Falstaff. This is a rousing, cock-sure pronouncement on the permanence of that moment in European Letters, bequeathed to those that can receive. The battle is remembered now because of Shakespeare.
Mark Rylance doesn't act. He just does Mark Rylance. Whatever the role. If he played Muhammed Ali or the Dalai Lama, he'd be just the same, and some would say how wonderfully understated his performances were.
Theatre performances should not be filmed. I have heard various actors in interviews say as much. I agree. Theatre actors are playing for the audience present, in that space and moment. I just wonder what is lost by seeing this on film rather than in person. (Same question would apply to any stage performance of Branagh or Olivier or any actor). I imagine Rylance would be quite powerful if you were present in the theatre watching him. He is very careful in his movements across the stage and the direction of his voice and gaze--weaving through the other actors and speaking to the audience--in short, playing this quite deliberately for the people in his immediate hearing.
I've returned upon the vigil to feast my neighbours and still I find his delivery flat. Upon hearing this I should think most men would hold their manhoods and think themselves glad they were not there whiles any delivers such monotone.
If I was in this king's army, I would fear my fellowship to die with him. You can't go in to battle without thinking your side will win - otherwise you wouldn't go in to the battle in the first place. Morale is half the battle. If I was in this army, I would apply to have my passport made and crowns for convoy put into my purse.
If I was in his entourage and heard this speech, I'd be first in line for passport and transport back to England. He's supposed to be rousing the troops. This sounds like he's fine with losing as long as he gets a nice obituary.
He's a great actor but I'm not sure this speech would have inspired me enough to follow him into a battle against seemingly impossible odds. It's certainly very different to the usual stirring stuff we've come to expect.
Well, this is certainly a different treatment to Olivier and Branagh but this speech is supposed to be rousing the troops. If I were listening to this speech just before the battle I would think the King is having an accident in his armour. To me it needs to be a bit more bombastic to be convincing.
@@nickright7747 He was facing an army which at best was twice his size and half as experienced. He knew the French battleplans. He had already faced them before and defeated them, and they had spent the better part of his campaign actively trying to avoid his army while he was seeking them out. Your facts are wrong. Try again.
@@nickright7747 No, what is obvious is that the interpretation is grossly misinterpreting both Shakespeares intent and the actual battle itself. I can virtually guarantee you that if we were to ask Shakespeare himself what he would think of this scene, he would respond that he never wanted to portray Henry as a coward and a weakling.
It's a horrid example. Theatre acting is supposed to be bigger than in film, not smaller. This performance was just a bad choice on the part of the actor, and the director didn't have the balls to tell him to knock it off.
I was an Australian soldier attached to the British Army in 1997 and was on a spot of leave in London. On a whim I wandered into the Globe and watched Mark Rylance perform this play. I’d never been exposed to Shakespeare before that day. I’d certainly never heard of Mark Rylance…. But that day changed me forever. I leaned up against the stage standing on chopped reeds and let the story wash over me. You can see my military haircut in the footage. It was wonderful. Thank you Mark, thank you Shakespeare, and thank you the Globe.
Thank you, Tim.
Great comment I felt that. When mark reads Shakespeare it all makes sense. Fantastic voice
The speech of a man who sees death and destruction of his army but plucks up his courage to face his doom with a quiet courage. He is thinking what to say next, trying to sense what will be appropriate - unlike Olivier, Branagh, Burton and others whose speech flows smoothly as if pre-conceived. In some ways, this interpretation is more realistic and akin with the current time.
So Much of Rylance's work seems to come from a place of deep sadness. It's part of what makes him so facinating as an actor. The scene is staged so that, rather than exhorting hundreds of men into battle, he is reflecting with his trusted commanders. A unique interpretation of what has to be the greatest pep talk in the history of human language.
Al Pacino Any Given Sunday
May I say, that is in fact the actual scene as it is written (Henry amongst a few commanders)
He is amazing in certain parts like his run as Olivia in Twelfth Night for example... or Richard II. The more sensitive parts. But I'm having a job accepting him as Henry with the faltering voice. 'Tis an unmanly display.
@@goodlookinouthomie1757Before a battle, with just your inner circle you don't have to be "on" in powerful king/ warrior mode. In this interpretation it is not a pep talk for the troops, it's a leader, a young leader, with out the bravado, nervous. To me, this is infront of his commanders who are more seasoned also nervous - OK this is too much. Same words different audience. He can use the exact speech and deliver it to the troops but with bravado and confidence/cockiness you usually see/hear. Does that make sense?
Rylance is amazing. Intimate and strong at the same time.
This is fascinating to watch. A bold creative choice to stage the speech in such an understated fashion, but really shows how different creative approaches can bring out different facets of a given work.
I've gone down a Mark Rylance rabbit hole after recently finishing Wolf Hall and I must say, this man is brilliant! I'm so impressed by him, his range and humility. I've gotten it on my bucket list now to one day see him perform live.
ditto, and so happy to be there. He truly is the greatest living actor because he looks for truth in everything he does. What a gift. But it is his humility that won my heart. I watch the curtain call jig of Richard II every day to share his joy.
@@cheycupcake05 They're coming out with another season that will cover The Mirror and the Light. Hopefully, Rylance and Lewis will reprise their roles as Cromwell and Henry. Sucks that Hilary Mantel passed away and won't get to see it. Wolf Hall is one of the greatest historical dramas I've ever seen. It's like they sent a camera crew back in time to 1500s England.
@@therevolvingmonk That would be awesome! Yes, it is sad Mantel recently passed, she was a talent in so many fields.. It will be interesting to see an adaption of her work without the possibility and advantage of her input. However, I'm sure if BBC is doing it again that it will be a lovely production!!
SAME
I saw him in Richard III in 2012 in London. A dream come true.
This delivery is terrific, you hear such a range of emotion.
It's as if, rather than rousing his men, he's saying goodbye to them, knowing that they were going off to die. Brilliantly understated, and brilliantly performed.
Its an absolute joy to watch. All the little mannerisms he adds to make the speech sound more natural. The way he can project without having to shout. Its an absolute masterclass.
I see a man who, though tired and frightened, faces his weariness and fears however hard that might be. He is speaking to those around him not as a king, but as a man who may very well soon be dead alongside them.
Historically, Henry was, I believe, ill at the time. The forced marches from Harfleur, and the wet rainy weather caused considerable illness and weakness on him and his army. He lived only a few years after this and his marriage.
My absolute favorite delivery. The nuanced sadness, the way he translates the modern meaning of phrases with tone and expression. I’ve watched this video an untold number of times and I get the chills every time. If Rylance isn’t a combat vet, he sure shows a vast understanding of them with his deft touch.
A very impressive and probably most unique rendition of this speech that I've ever seen. Olivier and Branaugh's versions are better known, and equally powerful in their own ways, but this is a stand-out performance. Olivier comes across as a king who is full of righteous self-confidence, certain that God's on his side and he's going to win the battle; Branaugh is a commander exhorting his troops to do their utmost, hoping that it will tip the scales in the upcoming engagement. But Rylance's performance here captures the essence of a man who is full of doubt, fearing that he and his army are about to be utterly crushed -- he is both praising and thanking these men, his closest companions and relatives, for standing with him in this darkest hour. Having been in combat, this version rings far truer to my ears than either of the other two: this version feels more like reality than bluster or propaganda.
This version is not "truer" at all. Not only is this supposed to be a speech delivered to his soldiers and thus meant to be rousing, but historically we know that Henry was confident. He had already defeated the French before and more importanly he knew the French battleplans for Agincourt.
I couldnt agree maore.
Finally, the speech matters. It was always bluster and noise and arrogance and ACTING. Now it is real.
It's all heart. It's eternal
Good to hear the complete speech, including the important lines "I am not covetous of gold etc," which Olivier and Branagh excluded.
“Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost”
I think it's a legitimate interpretation. He is never false. It's not always to my taste---I love the soaring bombast of Branagh (that has a touch of Harry's talent for PR, but underpinned with real feeling. What I like about Branaugh's interpretation is that he is learning to sway followers all through the film, learning how to King, so to speak, and he instinctively understands that a leader has to be something other than his private self to do it right) . But this is another way in to the play. Rylance is a great performer, with great nerve.
I've always thought It is a phony, jovial speech until he reaches the "band of brothers" line---when he realizes they are going to follow him into a meat grinder and either prevail or die.
This is a complete reinterpretation of Branagh's rousing call to arms. Here Henry is vulnerable, frightened, yet unflinching. The genius of Shakespeare, how the same words can be presented in such a different way. I wonder which is the more authentic to what Shakespeare intended?
Mark Rylance for me superbly demonstrates the moment before and the given circumstances. In times of battle two emotions are corsing through the soldiers veins, bravado and fear, these men believe they have little chance of surviving the day. Many actors choose to express the bravado, to bluster up the courage, and to stir the blood. Mark Rylance plays to the other emotion, he faces the fear and the prospect of dying as heroes, but also helps his men to consider victory and glory on the field. I found it a very good demonstration of stage craft with many textured layers.
This is so uniquely and beautifully done, a very quiet, realistic and incredibly emotional performance. I had chills all over.
I can't begin to say how much I enjoy this interpretation. it's intimate, choked in the throat, rousing. Brave in its conception. This is between brothers. It's a moment of equality in a world of sovereigns, lords and common soldiers. Rylance shines.
James Glynn During War they want: The king in the play shouts and is powerful!
When they want the men to be sissies and die off, without fighting for themselves: They are told to perform like Rylance here. A sissy. Weak voice. Coward.
How wonderfully and naturally delivered.
Very natural. He is not giving a prepared speech, but talking to his officers before a battle he may not survive.
good point, but this was a pep speech. Kind of hard to hear it done in the tone of living room conversation.
This is nowhere near as dramatic as Laurence Olivier or Kenneth Branagh in the films. Mark Rylance is really believable as the king on the field of battle. It seems as if he is saying the words for the FIRST time, even though he memorized the words decades ago. AMAZING.
No, it is not believable at all. Henry was supremely confident he would win at Agincourt. For that matter, it would be absolutely idiotic to give the speech in this tone moments before the battle itself. Self-defeatism is not what you want in your soldiers or officers.
@@johanlassen6448 It's a play, not an oral history presentation. It's also not a Hollywood movie where the hero has to give an over the top, charismatic speech before the big battle, it's a play. Open to interpretation and artistic license.
@@therevolvingmonk The play should reflect reality and Shakespeares intent.
@@johanlassen6448 Henry V was, "was a cold, aloof man, prone to acts of breathtaking cruelty and arrogance" according to BBC History Magazine. Another source, ThoughtCo, says, "Henry's personality undermines his reputation. His confidence was part of an iron will and fanatical determination that hints at a cold, aloof character masked by the glow of victories." So it seems your reality may be a little off.
This is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the speech, in any case. You say the play should reflect reality and Shakespeare's intent but that is just your opinion. If you don't like it, ignore it. There are plenty of other interpretations that I'm sure fit your rigid definition of how this speech should be delivered properly.
@@therevolvingmonk Here's the thing; reality be damned, but you can tell in an instant when something's played against Shakespeare's intent. You know how? It sucks. When the words and the emotions clash, you've got a problem. When you deliver a battle speech like an obituary, you've screwed up. Sure, it was his own interpretation, but sometimes an interpretation can be a mistake. This is awful. End of story.
may not be as dramatic as others, but it still moves the heart of all Englishmen, and brings a tear to all true Englishmen eyes at missing this great day !!!
an extremely talented and sensitive artist who deserve to be better known
But isn't it nice, in a way, that he's not better known? He's famous enough to get whatever roles he wants, and really respected by people who know his work. I suspect any more would be the kind of celebrity he'd find burdensome.
A wonderful, brilliant performance which captures the nuances sometimes lost in performances given with more bravado.
I really liked this delivery of the speech. I've watched it a few times now and on balance I believe i'ts the best rendition that I've heard. The Branagh speech is off course completely different, and I do like Branaghs delivery very much as well. But watch this Mark Rylance version again and imagine how the actual English soldiers at Agincourt must have felt at the moment when this speech is supposed to have been delivered (in Shakespeares version of events). The remnants of the army was exhausted, starving, outnumbered 5 to 1 and in enemy country. Death must have seemed inevitable if they could not escape somehow, yet their king asks them to stand fast and to fight for him.
Imagine under those circumstances - you are in effect preparing yourself for a violent death, mustering any last ounce of grit and courage you hope to find in some unknown reserve deep within, committing to force your heart and sinew to serve their term long after they are gone - how would you react if it turns out that you got the Branagh version of the king; and he bursts out doing his, under the circumstances absurd, lunatic chip and dale routine? He would probably have been put in the red/blue/gold royal straight jacket and rushed away from the frontline... "the king has finally lost it!"
Mark Rylance however, well... I think I would have felt a little better about dying after his sincere display of good old stiff upper lip attitude and contempt for anything short of what England expects: for every man to do his duty! "Cry Havoc! Cry God for Harry, England and Saint George! Once more dear friends... once more."
I love the way Rylance performs in this scene. There's an honesty and realism to his portrayal of a leader of men approaching the hours of combat. I think he's really hit the feeling for what would have been a time of uncertain outcomes and bleak prospects, giving a Henry who is steady and reliable, stirring but not loud, as he speaks to his council on the eve of battle.
For me, this is the best performance of these lines I have seen.
This speech is not meant to be a rousing, inspirational speech. It is meant to be a conversation with his officers, (many of which his family members) - hence the line 'proclaim through my host'.
It is a speech of a man, (and we come to see Harry throughout the play as a man rather than a king), who is coming to terms with the growing realisation they are against 5/1 odds, and that they are most likely to die.
I think Rylance's delivery is perfect. Those subtle nuances, those nervous laughs and little looks; it smacks of reality. This is how I would envisage Harry speaking at this time - it is not a rehearsed, rousing speech, but a real heartfelt pledge to his closest officers that they are bound together in this moment of glory.
The rousing speech in this play is the 'once more into the breach dear friends' speech, as that is in the height of battle. This performance shows the trepidation of battle and I think this shows the comradeship that Henry feels more than any loud, shouty, rousing speech.
I agree. I found the delivery strange the first time I saw it, but the more I watch it the more I feel that it is a very human iteration of the speech.
Which is not to say that Brannagh's isn't. Rather, those that think this version flat should perhaps think on the context. In the text, this is a conversation, as you say, with his officers - in reaction to the comments of his own cousin Wertmoreland. It is not rousing, it is not a declaration of impending victory, rather it is a reminder that his officers have a job to do and that job is not despairing. That some of his men are in earshot is happenstance, and they are not the target of his speech. Brannagh's version is the exact opposite, it is a speech to his men, all of them, not just his officers. It is intended, in a way, to show up Westmoreland in front of the men and to shame him and his officers into bravery.
Context is super-important in Shakespeare, and it all depends on the setting.
Theatrically this rendering is great. Look how the groundlings are completely rapt and attentive to every word, movement and gesture of the actor. Yes, this Globe audience knows every word before it was spoken but the 17th century audience didn't and heard them all fresh. With this approach the first time listener can grasp what is being said and marvel at the language of a pure genius wordsmith.
David I have to disagree. He sounds like he is addressing a team of accountants facing off against the librarians. Subtle nuances and nervous laughs have no place in a life and death struggle! This is not Hamlet's Soliliquoy, but he is addressing a group of soldiers. Where do you and others get the idea that this is a conversation between his brothers? The word host implies larger numbers or an army. He is talking to all of his forces at this time.
Absolutely spot on. :)
Absolutely. I grew up with Branagh's version, but after seeing Hiddleston and now this, this seems the most appropriate given the actual script.
One of the best interpretations of this speech that I have ever heard.
Greatest english-speaking actor living.
Michael McKinlay you should get out more😏
@@grahamparr4710 You're not a fan?
Michael McKinlay yes I am, but he has his equals, you must have seen Benedict Cumberbatch's Richard the third, Kenneth Branagh's Henry the fifth.
@@grahamparr4710 Sure. Rylance just brings so much understated and authentic gravitas to his rolls.
Yeah you should look up this guy named Kenneth Branagh
This man is a natural treasure =)
Indeed!
Thank you! Been looking for this.
I've been studying this speech for a while and am suprised I just found this performance. This is how I envision the speech to be performed. Thank you! I thought it was just me.
A very interesting interpretation, Deal. Thanks for posting it.
This is stunning.
I had the honor to see and hear Mr. Rylance performance as Henry V at the inaugural of the Globe Theatre in 1994. What stuck me then and now, is that his vulnerability; this is a Henry that did not know the outcome of Agincourt - and knew what was in store for him and his soldiers if they lost. In short, Rylance captured Henry V as human being in real life. Acting does not get any better than that.
Spoken like a man who knows fuck all about what happened at Agincourt. Henry *knew* the French battleplans. He was confident he could defeat them.
@@johanlassen6448 In the play, him knowing the battle plans hardly matters. As far as Shakes was concerned, Henry didn't know what would happen, BUT the purpose of the speech was to get his men to fight like demons in spite of the odds. You are right though; this pansy bullshit just doesn't play.
You two soulless dogmatists deserve each other. ‘Pansy bullshit’ my arse: Shakespeare doesn’t do authentic battle plans, or pedantic historic detail; he explores the depths of the human psyche with its huge range of emotions and fears, and draws out the intensity of conflict with courage and imagination. That’s why his work survives with such rich value.
This is different, and very effective. I think this is my favorite delivery of this speech I’ve heard so far 👍
Renaissance Man brought me here. I've never been happier to know both a great film and a great speech
" remember, with advantages " ....no other actor or director seems to have understood the dark humor in that bit of verse...I've seen every film version of this play extant, and done the play myself several times, and no-one seems to see the beautiful, almost jokey bit that William S. Put into that line..My favorite version!
P.S. MS Wanamaker is flawless as Chorus... "Oh, for a muse of fire..."
Exactly
He's endowing them with the right to remember with advantages, which is one of the advantages. Dismal interpretation.
Incidentally, it evokes Falstaff. One of the stirring moments of English literature, maybe an intentional statement on the permanence of that moment in Letters, and bequeathing it to us, performed as if he's doing college feminist theater.
Watching this, I finally understand what he meant by “advantages”. Branagh’s delivery seems to gloss over it.
Fantastic rendition
When I first read this speech with my literature class, the guy who was picked read aloud in a manner that was very rousing and up-beat. It was good but I never felt it appropriate to the setting of the scene and from what was said previously. I'm glad to have stumbled upon Rylance doing this speech. This is how I envisioned it being said.
Troy Whiteley Who would go into war after this speech?
@@millertheory7935 I'd have thrown a saddle on my horse and headed for Calais and home after Rylance whimper
@@shielablige9399 Exactly! The poor bastards that heard this speech most certainly did not slaughter some ten thousand French soldiers, the men that heard this speech laid down and died! This isn't a "goodbye" speech, it's a "Let's kick some fucking ass!" speech. This delivery, it's just limp. Boring. Not the voice of a warrior.
It’s a fresh take and i like it.
Love the versatility of Shakespeare. Mark Rylance's calm delivery of this speech works just as well as an actor who performs it with more forcefulness and elan.
Also, Mark Rylance would have been a great actor to play Stannis on GoT. Could definitely picture him in that role if there were no Stephen Dillane.
No Shakespearean, but man does this performance hit me. It really captures the incredible humanity of this speech without self-aggrandizement
I love Mark Rylance. He always starts so underwhelmingly, but he always overwhelms me before he's finished.
I saw this production at the Globe some years ago, but unfortunately not at this particular performance - at least, I couldn't spot myself in the audience (I was up at the front, below the stage). Rylance's delivery and acting style is always understated, but |I found it very moving.
That’s a really interesting delivery for this scene. Very powerful.
Mark Rylance is magnetism embodied. I'm here trying to study for the final year of my degree but cannot help being pulled along this Rylance rabbit hole. Feels so enriching, I'm going with it. Such allure! Mmm.
How is this performance magnetic at all?
A very apt analysis and I thank you for it. Though I enjoy this actor I
was a little confused about this particular performance until I read your comment.
Personally, I prefer Branaugh's version, but I agree that this would be a more accurate depiction of Henry's emotions in that moment. You sense his trepidation at the odds but at the same time understand that he is determined to fight. Brilliantly portrayed.
A great take on a great soliloquy. Bravo.
I love Mark Rylance! A great actor!
Oh wow. I didn’t realize who that was. Thanks! I am a huge fan of Jamie Parker and Tom Hiddleston as Hal.
Whoa dude. Rockin’ character work
Mark Rylance is amazing. He delivers as if he were a person, Branagh is a character.
A lot of people say Branagh is over the top but what is Henry V doing here? He is trying to inspire his men to get them fired up for a fight against overwhelming odds. Branagh makes me think - yes if I were there I would be up for it!! This version wouldn't really inspire me if I were a soldier.
Is the whole performance available anywhere, do you know? A marvellous reminder!
Much different take on the speech than we are used to. Even less "heroic" versions of this play usually don't have the king so low-key, melancholic and conversational at this scene. But it somehow does not seem wrong at all.
Amazing how differently Shakespere can be interpreted
Great interpretation, very refreshing. And I say it having just seen the Jocko Willink’s version which is a world apart.
Best actor alive
Also: it's so interesting to compare this version with Branagh's. Take "we few, we happy few, we band of brothers." Branagh says the same thing three times--"happy" just underlines it, "band of brothers" puts it in neon lights--but it's vague what he could even mean: he's expressing camaraderie, but would you ever speechify in so high-handed a way to someone you'd call a "brother" in any sense?
But with Rylance there's a subtle but crystal clear progression. "We few" calls back to the original fear of being outnumbered, which lets the shift to "we happy few" respond to that fear by pluckily recasting it. And with "we band of brothers" Rylance's minimalism lets the power of the line stand on its own: it transfigures the speech, shifting it from (Hal-like) pluck to solemnity.
Love that he speaks at normal speed. So many actors seem to rush their lines in Shakespeare.
I've really enjoyed the comments on this video. I think there would be a strong temptation for any actor to reach for Olivier's magisterial delivery or Branagh's inspirational show-stopper. Ryland found a totally surprising--personal--approach and made it work by putting it into a setting with only a few of his commanding officers, not to the entire army.
Talbot. I remember. What a great car.
The full recording is on CZcams at czcams.com/video/Hl4oHBt6cvw/video.html
This was recorded May 29, 1997. The full version has in introductory opening recorded earlier that season with Zoe Wanamaker. I still have my ticket from this performance and got a close up at twenty five minute mark in the full recording. This performance is one of my favorite memories from traveling abroad.
Thanks, Michael!
The Best Version. By far.
I can't see a massively outnumbered happy few moving heaven and earth after this speech... I think most would take the passage home than follow this woofter into battle
I understand why I many prefer Branagh's or Olivier's versions. They delivered the speech in a more rousing manner. It makes more sense in the way the movies presented the scene. Both, Branagh & Olivier, were in front thousands (or hundreds) of their men. Rylance's delivery makes more sense in the setting that he is in. It is more intimate. It would be ridiculous if he delivered it in a more bombastic manner.
Remember what the chorus is for. It's to tell the audience that 2 armies could not fit on the stage. But that doesn't mean that you have to scale down the tone of the speech, only because a few guys fit on the stage!
@@drjjpdc Exactly. This version of the speech is wimpy and boring. He doesn't do what Shakespeare wanted the speech to do, and it shows. I mean, shit; the audience is bored to tears. This isn't how the St. Crispin's speech is supposed to play! You should even have those fuckers in the upper rows comping at the bit to go to war with you! Good god...
@@graysonbaker1744 Well said lad!
Freaking brilliant
This is really beautiful but I never thought of Henry as a nerd.
Poor Henry.....having to go through all of that.
I love this performance but I also understand why many viewers find it lackluster, dull, tired, or uninspired. Other than Tom Hiddleston's delivery in The Hollow Crown series Rylance's St. Crispin's Day Speech is one of a kind. We are used to Branagh, Burton, Olivier, etc... We are used to a rousing speech in the vein of Patton, Braveheart, Independence Day, (all inspired by Henry V.) What these all share is a steady, triumphant build-up of positive energy leading to a victorious climax that makes you want to get out of your chair and take up arms! Rylance chooses (as he often does) the opposite choice. Rylance's Henry is not blood-thirsty and does not relish leading his men into almost certain death. Rylance's Henry loves his men and therefore is forthright, and speaks plainly to them. To put it most simply he is honest with them. He doesn't want to manipulate them with emotional bravado. He says, "look if you want to go- go! Your passport shall be made and we will not judge you for leaving... It IS serious and dangerous what we are doing and the only reward I have to offer is- that- he who fights with me and dies with me today shall be my brother. If I have to go in alone I will. I'm giving you the choice to follow me." It's an honest, sober, and in my opinion beautiful delivery. Not to discredit Branagh or any one else but I consider this the most truthful execution of the speech to date. There is no one way to do Shakespeare. Rylance is great. So is Branagh.
It is not the most truthful execution at all. Not only is it not in line with what Shakespeare intended, but it also rings false when compared to the details of the battle itself. Henry knew what the French were planning. He knew he had good chances to win the battle. The purpose of the speech was only to rouse his men, and you certainly do not do it with that self-defeating tone.
Johan Lassen While it’s impossible to know exactly what Shakespeare intended I’m sure you’re right about this speech. It was probably rousing when Burbage did it for the first time. Who knows.
He knew he had good chances? Perhaps. He also begs God to spare his men during the battle because he fears that he will be held accountable for the murder of King Richard done by his father’s men. That seems to justify an element of doubt.
The purpose of the speech was ONLY to rouse his men? Shakespeare never said that. The words are there. That’s all.
As I said before- there is no one way to do Shakespeare. Rylance is great. So is Branagh.
This is perfectly acceptable way to do the speech and it’s breathtakingly human.
I truly do love this interpretation. It's original and shows a sense of fear and doubt that no other version I've come across does. My only problem is the context of the whole play, which does seem to glorify Henry V (with exceptions and some ambiguity). He sounds almost pained here, which is a wonderful take on the speech, but hardly fits with the image of a celebrated king. I must assume that it is indeed in line with the tone of the rest of this performance.
It’s fascinating to me just how divisive of an actor Mark Rylance is. Some seem to find him underwhelming, his acting choices wrong-headed. While some see him as the greatest living actor. I suppose I’m in neither camp, but leaning more toward the latter; I do think he’s a truly great actor.
Rylance makes almost all other stage actors, especially shouty sixth formers like Kenneth Branagh, look clumsy and forced….he is like a prime Roger Federer or George Best…makes fools of all around them! He is AUTHENTIC!
Fuckin love Mark Rylance. He makes every other actor look like a hammy 6th former in a play looking for a walk on bit in hollyoaks
Wow. The calmest St. Crispin's Day speech ever! I liked it, but it shocked me.
Revelatory. I came in expecting Rylance doing Olivier or Branagh, but a little better (because Rylance is Rylance), but this made me wonder at how anyone could have thought to have delivered the speech any differently than he did. Why would Henry say those words--those intimate, reflective, sometimes-funny words, obviously meant to encourage himself as well as his friends--in some kind of grand performance? Of course Henry wouldn't want his friends to remember him that way, if he or they died, and of course he's too smart to know his tired, long-tested soldiers would respond with anything other than eye-rolls.
Yes! Totally fresh, and totally "oh, of course!"
I have to agree. There was a very good chance that everyone on that stage and all his men would be slaughtered. He shows the fear, but through the fear, the terror, he tries to rouse his men...and himself.
I love Mark Rylance for his incredibly sensitive and naturalistic performances; his understated style suits many real life situations. But for once, this one doesn’t work for me. This interpretation doesn’t seem to really understand personal and inspirational leadership in the context of medieval kingship. His men were hugely outnumbered, likely miserable and near exhaustion and needed to believe they could prevail against the odds. Listening to this speech I’d guess they’d opt to depart and take the crowns for convoy !
Rylance knows more about Shakespeare than I ever will. I saw him as Richard iii at the globe and was in awe. But, damnit, I want a rousing Henry v, and this ain’t it.
I came for a pep talk but wound up almost napping.
Agreed !
The Speech should sound different if the KING was heroically declaiming in front of his whole army, as is usually shown in the movie versions, because its such a great visual. However, the scene in this production, is played more intimately as if the king were speaking off the cuff at "Officers Call" privately to his knights and nobles who actually were his (sometimes literally) "brothers in arms". Its also one of the reasons his speech was deliberately cut off so quickly in order to eliminate the usual rousing cheers from the audience off stage as well as from his "army," on stage. Its a different interpretation of the scene by Rylance &Company which is what they are paid to do...
People seem to think this delivery is too morose - but in my opinion it perfectly captures the scenario, its tone is spot on.
St. Crispin's Day is a holiday celebrating martyred twin brothers, it is not just a day in the calendar, but parallels the sacrifices to be made. The whole speech is an appeal to honour and brotherhood - any man that wants to leave may do so, with the shame of abandoning his brothers, later called out by name, "Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter...", those not here today will "hold there manhoods cheap", "I would not die in that man's company", its a dressing down to those that would abandon their honour and duty to stand by their brothers in arms - while those who stay and fight will become heroes, forever remembered on St. Crispins day, likewise, those that shirk their duty will be forever tainted with the shame of having forsaken their brothers. The more intimate setting of a play (as it was intended) makes this style of delivery contextually more relevant to a film with lots of extras.
No, it is a play on the glory you will win if you stay. He is not shaming those who would leave, he is telling them what they stand to gain if they stay. Any man may leave because he does not need them.
For that matter, Henry was supremely confident at Agincourt. He knew the French battleplans. He had already defeated the French before. He had at his command fewer men, but every other advantage such as experience, terrain and the value of fighting defensively. He knew he had good chances to win and that is what he conveyed to his men, not this sorry excuse of a speech.
@@johanlassen6448 Honor and shame are two sides of the same coin - yes, it speaks as a call to honor, but there are moments which also highlight the shame of not doing their duty and obligation - 'we would not die in that mans company' and 'hold their manhoods cheap'.
What Henry thought and said before the battle is largely irrelevant - this is not his pre-battle speech, these are words in a play - just like Marcus Antonius never said 'friends, romans, countrymen, lend me your ears', Henry never said these words. It need to be put into the context of a fictional re-telling of historical events, put on a stage with a few actors and an audience.
@@tiberiusgracchus2077 You are focusing on the wrong thing. He is not inspiring by fear. He is inspiring by telling them what they stand to gain - not by dying, but by winning. They are not "different sides of the same coin".
Henry never said these words, no. You want to talk IRL history? Henry was supremely confident. He *knew* the French battleplans. He knew he could defeat them. It was Henry, not the French, who had been spending the past few weeks trying to get a fight at all. The French had been trying to avoid him. The context of the scene should emphasize those facts as Shakespeare intended. He most certainly did not intend to portray Henry as a scared little runt. That is not a way to lead.
@@johanlassen6448 I said in my first post "The whole speech is an appeal to honour and brotherhood" - I don't think I am focusing on the wrong thing, nor did I say the speech is leading by fear, like I said, honour and shame are two sides of the same coin, those that stand, willing to fight gain honour, those that don't will "hold their manhoods cheap" - its the words of the speech verbatim - and no I don't think we need to talk IRL history, because this is not a documentary, its a play, a work of fiction, the only context needs to be taken into account is that it is a play.
@@tiberiusgracchus2077 Those who hold their manhoods cheap are primarily those who are not even on the battlefield.
No, the context that needs to be taken into account is Shakespeares intent with the scene.
Must be an edited version of more than one performance. He's wearing a black leather glove at 3:36 and not wearing it when he scratches his face two seconds later. Incredible actor and performance though.
Great!
Then what was the campfire scene like? Rousing and bombastic?
I don't recall, sorry.
This is the word performance , but why do I like him so much.
great
interesting ..yep , worth watching again.
I have mixed views on Rylance's performance. I really liked this portrayal of a man, hopelessly out numbered 5-1, about to go into battle. But Henry V was Prince Hal of Henry IV, the rebellious son. The son of whom, his subjects had 'in wonder found' something dreadful to hammer The Frence. I prefer the uplifting approach.
Exactly. And 'with advantages' evokes Falstaff. This is a rousing, cock-sure pronouncement on the permanence of that moment in European Letters, bequeathed to those that can receive. The battle is remembered now because of Shakespeare.
Did someone really take a photo with the flash on in the middle of his speech!!?
See the Upstart Crow eplsode "If you prick us do we not bleed" for a great piss-take of Mark Rylance in the character of Wolf Hall.
Mark Rylance doesn't act. He just does Mark Rylance. Whatever the role. If he played Muhammed Ali or the Dalai Lama, he'd be just the same, and some would say how wonderfully understated his performances were.
Tell me you haven't seen Jerusalem without saying you haven't seen Jerusalem.
Theatre performances should not be filmed. I have heard various actors in interviews say as much. I agree. Theatre actors are playing for the audience present, in that space and moment. I just wonder what is lost by seeing this on film rather than in person. (Same question would apply to any stage performance of Branagh or Olivier or any actor). I imagine Rylance would be quite powerful if you were present in the theatre watching him. He is very careful in his movements across the stage and the direction of his voice and gaze--weaving through the other actors and speaking to the audience--in short, playing this quite deliberately for the people in his immediate hearing.
I've returned upon the vigil to feast my neighbours and still I find his delivery flat. Upon hearing this I should think most men would hold their manhoods and think themselves glad they were not there whiles any delivers such monotone.
If I was in this king's army, I would fear my fellowship to die with him. You can't go in to battle without thinking your side will win - otherwise you wouldn't go in to the battle in the first place. Morale is half the battle. If I was in this army, I would apply to have my passport made and crowns for convoy put into my purse.
Still makes me laugh.
If I was in his entourage and heard this speech, I'd be first in line for passport and transport back to England. He's supposed to be rousing the troops. This sounds like he's fine with losing as long as he gets a nice obituary.
He's a great actor but I'm not sure this speech would have inspired me enough to follow him into a battle against seemingly impossible odds. It's certainly very different to the usual stirring stuff we've come to expect.
Globe?
I’d have taken the passport and the coins
Quite. As funeral speeches go it ain't bad though.
Well, this is certainly a different treatment to Olivier and Branagh but this speech is supposed to be rousing the troops. If I were listening to this speech just before the battle I would think the King is having an accident in his armour. To me it needs to be a bit more bombastic to be convincing.
TALBOT what a car !
Rylance's interpretation of this most famous speech can only be described as lukewarm at best. It certainly wouldn't rouse me to fight the French.
Henry V sounds tired. He has no energy. He sounds like he's about to take a nap, not fight a battle.
It does work. Remember - he is scared.
He should not be. And to the extent that he is, he should not show it to those that follow him.
@@nickright7747 No, it would not. Not for an experienced commander. And it was not "almost certain". Henry knew he had good chances to win the battle.
@@nickright7747 He was facing an army which at best was twice his size and half as experienced. He knew the French battleplans. He had already faced them before and defeated them, and they had spent the better part of his campaign actively trying to avoid his army while he was seeking them out. Your facts are wrong. Try again.
@@nickright7747 Shakespeare never intended for Henry to seem frightened.
@@nickright7747 No, what is obvious is that the interpretation is grossly misinterpreting both Shakespeares intent and the actual battle itself. I can virtually guarantee you that if we were to ask Shakespeare himself what he would think of this scene, he would respond that he never wanted to portray Henry as a coward and a weakling.
Not convinced by Mark Rylance’s acting in this role....however, thought he was great in Anonymous
You have to remember theater acting is different from film. This is a great example of this.
It's a horrid example. Theatre acting is supposed to be bigger than in film, not smaller. This performance was just a bad choice on the part of the actor, and the director didn't have the balls to tell him to knock it off.