Untitled

New Zealand Listener, Volume 15, Issue 382, 18 October 1946, Page 5

Sir-Seeing Henry V. was like viewing a magnificent spectacle-but I came away wondering how many of those who have attacked Professor Sinclaire’s criticism of the film production were defending Shakespeare’s small contribution to

the show and how many were defending the feast of glorious technicolour. No doubt they applauded the film with the best of intentions and it is easy to understand that many who previously profession boredom with Shakespeare were agreeably surpfised to find that he too could be dished up in appetising form, complete with all the condiments, judiciously cut by the enterprising producer, and in fact: presented in such a way that*they could spend their usual Saturday evening at the pictures without any undue strain on their intellect or imagination. But’the question is whether this photographic wizardry served to reveal or conceal Shakespeare. To most true lovers of Shakespeare all this gadgetting did not ring true and, as Professor Sinclaire says, the film i¢ ten parts gadgetting to one part Shakespeare. The great virtue of the historical plays is Shakespeare’s amazing capacity to describe sufficiently in words: "how the swift scene flies" to "conjure up within this

wooden cockpit the vasty fields of France." Performed with great simplicity on the stage (for which it was written) Henry V. is far more dramatic and splendid than is this most costly film production. I venture to suggest that Olivier has seen that it will profit him greatly to make films whereas to remain as a great Shakespearean stage actor would profit him but little. Who can blame him for wishing to make his fortune? He has obviously seen that to make his film a box-office draw, he must lather it with a good amount of the "gadgetting" which the film-going public both expects and demands. It is more than probable that Will Shakespeare himself, born into the Atomic Age, would have risen from bell-hop to film magnate and@ found in Hollywood the best market for his ingenuity and imagination. But Shakespeare, with unerring taste and judgment, would not have tried to mix technicolour and Elizabethan drama. May T draw attention to two particular points in the film where I thought the producer erred: (a) In introducing a rather loud angelic choir which sang appropriate Walton music while we made our parachute jump into the Globe Theatre. (b) In cutting the glove incident Act IV., Scenes 7 and 8-a dramatic sequel to the events of the night before. ;

C. M.

WATTS

(Wellington),