HENVY V.

New Zealand Listener, Volume 15, Issue 369, 19 July 1946, Page 5

HENVY V.

Sir,-I have read with interestr an article in your paper on the film version of Henry V., which we expect to be released shortly. I have a criticism to offer, but as one who has seen the film by the courtesy of the firm handling it, I should think it churlish to find fault. were I not first able to commend it very strongly. I was most impressed and entertained by this outstanding film, which I am waiting eagerly to see again. But one special spot I see in the sun of this brilliant success. Why has the producer seen fit to travesty the part of the two bishops? One is represented, beyond all question, as a simpleton and

a clown, and the other, while less stupid, suffers his fooling and plays up to it. Now even those who delight to scorn religious persons and institutions must, if well informed, admit that these parts are not in character; and others will find in them a painful lapse in taste. Shakespeare’s bishops in general, and these two in particular, are men who command respect, personally as well as through their office. It is inconceivable that a student of the play should have missed the atmosphere of the scene in which Henry appeals to the Archbishop for a solemn verdict upon his claim to ' France. The King himself makes clear that the lives of many of his subjects, perhaps his own, depend on the answer received; yet in the film that answer is given to the accompaniment of irresponsible fooling. Shakespeare knew how to amuse high and low, and did it, as liberally in this play as elsewhere; but it is not in the tradition either of scholarship or of good taste to spice one of his most impressive scenes-a Council of State-with buffoonery. The producer has, in fact, run away from an awkward problem. How to present effectively the long speeches of the Chronicle Plays .is now past our finding _out, Fearing boredom so early in the play, unwilling for some reason to "cut," the producer decided to carry off the tedious speech — on which the lives, limbs, and happiness of thousands depended — with mild but most ill-con-ceived clowning. To do this, he had to make the characters of the bishops fit the part. Yet ng word Shakespeare put into their mouths justifies this nitiful

expedient.

C.

T.

(Wellington) —