The King Review

The King is the most recent film that retells to the story of Henry V and his 1415 campaign in France. It comes across as the English version of Braveheart.

Prince Henry (Timothée Chalament), or Hal to his friends, is the reluctant heir to the English throne. He is a disappointment to his father (Ben Mendelsohn) and the king doesn’t want his eldest son to succeed him. When Henry IV dies, Henry V has to become king, and even though he tries to maintain a peaceful policy he’s forced to go to war.

The King is based on William Shakespeare’s Henry IV Part 1 and 2 and Henry V as well as historical events. This puts The King at a disadvantage because it leads to comparisons to other adaptations of Henry V, especially the Kenneth Branagh version. The King brings in the character of Sir John Falstaff (Joel Edgerton) who was a character invented for the plays and the film did its own version of scenes like the gift of tennis balls. The King is not a loyal adaptation of Shakespeare. Shakespearian language wasn’t used in the film and I was taken aback when I heard a character swearing for the first time.

Nor is The King was the film historically accurate. The filmmakers were of the view that the historical fact wasn’t going to get in the way of its story. This is where most of the comparisons with Braveheart come from because that was a film that treated historical facts as an afterthought or inconvenience. Both The King and Braveheart had a reluctant hero. All William Wallace wanted to do was grow crops and God willing, raise a family. He only rebelled when his wife was killed. Henry V didn’t want to be king, but he was the only heir left and was forced into war when his enemies try to kill him. The arc of the film was Henry V had to accept his role as king.

The King is fiction with characterisation, conspiracy plot, and events. In reality, Henry V was far from a pacifist, he was a warmonger: he was pressing his claim to the French throne. Some historians thought Henry V was reckless with his invasion, especially going into Agincourt with a sick army that was outnumbered 3 to 1. He was one of England’s greatest commanders of the Medieval Period, he was able to conquer half of France and got his son to be King of both England and France.

The Battle of Agincourt was given the Battle of Stirling Bridge treatment – by being totally historically inaccurate. The English were outnumbered but they had chosen the right battlefield, had the perfect weapon, and had luck on their side due to the weather. Falstaff does state some of these facts and plans a strategy to trick a heavily armoured French force to attack and were bogged down in the mud. But anyone with knowledge of the battle knows it was fought on a flat muddy field, not the French charging down a green hill.

History Youtubers like History Buffs and The Cynical Historian are going to have a field day if they ever do a video on the historical inaccuracies. The Cynical Historian was upset by the ending of Outlaw King, so he is going to be furious by what happens to the Dauphin in this film.

Some historians, like Christophe Gilliot, the director of the Azincourt 1415 museum,  has called The King Francophobic. This is a bit unfair to the film because most French characters were shown in a neutral light and there were nefarious forces on the English side. It was not like Braveheart where every English character was evil, stupid, or both. The Francophobia was concentrated on Robert Pattinson’s portrayal of the Dauphin. Pattinson was told to do an exaggerated French accent which must have been interesting for Chalament because his dad is French. The Dauphin had all the worst French stereotypes, he was vain, pompous, and arrogant and he was shown to be both cruel and a fool.

The King was a lavish production with a great cast. The film had talents like Chalamet, Edgerton, Mendelsohn, Sean Harris, Dean-Charles Chapman, and Thomasin McKenzie and as expected they gave excellent performances. Despite the mangled characterisation and history, Chalamet shows off his talents as the young aimless drunken to the reluctant yet skilled fighter and commander who has to accept his birthright.

The film looks great – there was an investment in the cinematography and the costumes. The King went for the mud and grit look that Outlaw King went for. The opening scene at the end of a battle at set down was atmospheric as Henry kills an injured foe. The Battle of Agincourt was shot in a tight manner that focused on a character as they go into action. This was showed the ferocity of battle and give the eye a focal point because the English and French soldiers were dressed the same. It does lead to the question of how did men in the field know who friend or foe was?

The King will annoy history buffs like Braveheart, Pearl Harbor, and The Patriot had done. It was a great looking film, but this wasn’t enough to save it from its historical inaccuracies about a period that a lot of people in England will know, the ludicrous ending and the stuffy presentation.