More Thoughts on Henry V

 "[A] simplistic and simple-minded fairy tale in which a plucky prince, abetted by the Almighty, whips a lot of decadent foreigners and wins for himself fame and a cute princess."

Sound familiar?  It's from Gorman Beauchamp's 1978 essay "Henry V: Myth, Movie, Play," and is meant as a denunciation of the Olivier hack job film adaptation of said play.

I spent the evening at the local symphony; Sir Neville Everywhere Marriner conducted a programme entitled "Henry V," which included one of my very favorite pieces of music, "Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis" (Vaughn Williams) in addition to something that amounted to the juicy bits of Shakespeare's Henry V, performed by Michael York over selections from the soundtrack to the Olivier film.  My most excellent spouse complained that York's performance made Henry come off as a villain in places, but I personally suspect it to be intentional.  The source material, you see, is problematic.  A surface reading comes off like a hagiography; Henry is this all-around wonderful dude, coasting from success to success.  Even though the odds are supposedly stacked against him, he never suffers a real setback, much less a genuine fall.  He ends up with the glory and fame and the cute princess and the promise of a bunch of land (all of France) that he doesn't technically deserve.  Here's the thing, though-- Shakespeare's audience would have known what many in a modern US audience may not, which is that Henry's triumph fell completely to pieces within a generation.  The play is rendered a tragedy by its context, if not the text itself.  And there are subversive comic elements in the text that indicate that yes, Shakespeare intended his allegedly noble main character to be undercut.  Now, it's not all a vicious satire, but the overall effect is more... ambiguous.

Interesting stuff.

Oh, yes.  Fire Emblem.  I find it amusing-- and a bit silly-- when fanboys (for they do seem to usually be male) slag off poor Ephraim and Eliwood as being "unrealistic" warrior princes.  Crack open yer Shakespeare, take a nice long look at how Good King Harry is portrayed in the "surface reading" of Henry V and then explain to me what's so wrong about Eph and Eli.  That precise "type"-- archetype, if you dare-- has been around for centuries.  Our prince is so noble!  So approachable!  He calls us brothers and gives everyone encouragement with a smile!  And so on.  Cracking heads and taking names is NOT the order of the day.  So, yeah... anyone calling for FE games to be more "realistic" is barking up the wrong tree when they zero in on Ephraim and Eliwood as franchise problems.

[I'm not saying you have to like either of those guys.  I'm saying their personalities are appropriate to their respective stations, or at least to a very longstanding conception thereof.]