Newly crowned king, Henry V has thrown off his wild ways as easily as he did the moniker Prince Hal, and with that he is forced to rebuke the men who were at one time his best mates. But Henry has a country to lead, and claims to French land, which must come first. So when the French Dauphin sends a mock instead of an earnest answer, Henry gathers his troops and sails to France. Grossly out numbered, Henry leads his men to victory at the battle of Agincourt, securing his claim on the land and gaining a Queen. **Spoiler alert I know, but the text is over 400 years old and based off of history, so fair game.**
The Chorus starts the play begging the pardon of the audience that they will have to use their imaginations because, poor players as they are, they are not able to produce the fields of France or great kings on their “unworthy scaffold.” Charles Pasternak, both director and Henry V, takes this opening speech to heart. The Whitmore-Lindley Theater is blank save for its black walls and a handful of chairs. There are no doublets or suits of armor for the actors, instead white sashes to indicate the French and Red for the British worn over unadorned modern day clothing. It is simple, it is efficient and Pasternak proves that Shakespeare doesn’t need all of the hoopla and frippery to be good.
Charles Pasternak
Photo Credit: Rob Cunliffe
This production is filled with great moments. Pasternak’s rebuke to Montjoy was spot-on and his St. Crispin’s day speech was beautifully done. Leon Russom as the Chorus and Ted Barton as Exeter imbued a deep and refined understanding to their parts. The mispronunciation of the Dauphin’s name, which set my teeth on edge at first was in fact calculated and had a fantastic payoff. The presentation of the medals to the French created a palpable tension that heightened the entire proceedings, and the scene in the second act that was lit entirely with flashlights cleverly created both an intimacy and anonymity to the campfire talk. These smaller moments were very effective, while some of the big picture aspects were not.
Due to the sparseness of the set, one scene was able to flow into the next almost without interruption. This was also aided by the fact that all of the players remain on the stage at all times. Those not in the action faded into the background. For the most part, this worked really well. The “offstage” actors that were up against the wall become another member of the audience enjoying the show set forth before them. However, the convention wasn’t consistent and there were scenes where it became hard to distinguish if an actor was “offstage” but didn’t quite make it back to the wall, or if they were “onstage” and not engaging in the action, as they should. For those scenes the picture became cluttered and hard to decipher where your attention should be placed.
Several of the opening scenes that take place in Henry V’s court were also staged very awkwardly with the king standing in the audience aisle looking onto the stage at the characters addressing him. This makes sense from the stand point that Henry has very few lines in these scenes, so the court members who are doing most of the talking are face front to the audience. However, it fails because the appeal of these scenes is not in what the court members have to say, but in the reaction of the king. According to the staging, the least important member of King Henry V’s court was the king himself. What should have been the main focal point of the scene was instead almost completely removed. This served to marginalize his leadership from the people around him, which Pasternak wasn’t able to reestablish until the famous “Once more unto the breach dear friends” speech.
The second act is definitely stronger than the first due to the pacing alone. The cast feels rushed throughout the entirety of the first act, which was especially apparent during some of Henry’s longer speeches and the hurry during scene changes that were already incredibly efficient due to the nature of the staging and set. I can understand the impetus behind director Pasternak’s break-neck pace during the first act, it contains the lion’s share of the text, however, I think Pasternak would have been better served by some judicious cutting of the script if time and length were such a concern. A slower pace, at least in places, would have allowed some of the subtler moments in the text to be played out more fully.
For the most part, these are nit-picky critiques based on the fact that this is a good production that has the potential of being a great production. The only truly unpalatable aspects were the Irish and Scottish accents attempted by a couple of the actors, which were inconsistent and came across as caricature. Again, a small thing, but when added up makes this production good not great. Since he was doubling as both director and lead, Pasternak definitely could have benefitted from a good assistant director to keep an eye on the overarching story.
*Coverage provided for the Culver City News