The King directed by David Michod, is based on the historical William Shakespeare’s play of the same subject matter. In this movie, we follow Henry or Hal and his early reign of the English throne. I chose this movie because of my love for history and political intrigue, the struggles of medieval conflict, and of course its accurate depiction of Medieval England architecture, and culture. This movie showed an in-depth tale of King Henry’s life before his crowning and his conquest of France. This movie shows Henry develop from a fun-loving, irresponsible, teenager who lives a life of debauchery, whoring and drinking to a responsible, serious conqueror and king.
We are introduced to the main character Hal in his normal pre-king state, hungover laying in his bed being woken by friend and companion John Falstaff. His father summons Hal, and while there informs him that his brother Thomas of Lancaster would inherit the throne instead of him and that he was to go to battle the next day, against the Hotspur rebellion. This battle is interrupted by Hal who wins a duel against its leader Sir Henry Percy ending the battle before it begins. This angers Thomas, as his glory was stolen by his eldest brother and prepares to seek glory in whales, where he is killed in combat. It is with this death that Hal is once again summoned to his dying fathers’ bedside where his father’s last words reinstate him as inheritor to the throne, and it is with this Hal’s transformation truly begins.
Henry is now officially crowned giving him the title of king, and the throne of England. At his coronation celebrations, the Dauphin of France sends a play ball, sent originally as an insult to his reign Henry takes it as a reminder of his life before kingship. This, however, is only the beginning as later in the movie, Henry confronts an assassin sent by King Charles VI of France. This would be followed by a swift declaration of war by King Henry and the rest of the movie is there off about the conflict between the two nations. The movie’s conclusion begins at the battle of Agincourt with a decisive English victory, the Dauphin of France killed, and John Falstaff found dead in the mud. Charles VI of France would eventually surrender to Henry, granting him lands and his daughter Catherine’s hand in marriage. The movie ends with Henry discovering the falsehoods of the past actions taken by the French and is seen holding Catherine’s hands while people cheer “King Henry” to celebrate his victory over the French.
I fervently enjoy the coronation ceremony dinner as we see the now King Henry being bestowed with gifts from other leaders from foreign countries, such as the king of Bohemia giving him a chalice, the serene doge of Venice giving him a mechanical bird from Constantinople, and the Dauphin of France. In this scene, Henry gifts all the presents to family members giving the chalice to his sister, queen of Denmark, and giving the bird to his Cousin, except for the ball from France that he keeps. I enjoy this scene because it is the last time, we see the old Henry before the pressures of kingship and war consume him forever. However, the importance of this scene is both the set design and the clothing worn by the actors. The set design of this scene is very basic in its design in the middle of the room is a table filled with chests and gifts. Flanking it are tables full of nobles, the clergy, advisors, and King Henry. Hanging from the walls are canvases bearing the crest and shield of England, and some historical drawings of past crowning’s of English kings, as well as Saints, and preachers most likely famous in ancient English history. However, not much detail can be seen as the camera does not stay in place long enough and the set is too dimly lit for any major details to be made out, almost as if the paintings are to serve to add to the aesthetic of the scene and make it more historically legitimate. Secondly, the dress even though more fancy is quite plain and simple with it being mainly long flowing robes in simple dark colors. This style of clothing, while simple shows nobility as it has a more vibrant color than traditional shades of brown that is common among the peasantry of medieval cities, and towns. This shows more historical accuracy as during those times bright vibrant colors were not cheap so the poor peasantry and even some of the less wealthy nobility could ill afford brightly colored dress and clothing.
The musket was introduced into European battlefields until the 1500s but before that battles were fought with shields, swords, and battle armor with the last two being important to militaries to function. However, as known now, swords and armor were a type of artform for blacksmiths and weaponsmiths. As each took time to make, and are vitally affected by the skills, and technique of the smith in question. During the movie, we see collectors after the battles picking up swords from fallen soldiers indicating a value associated with the weapons. This would also include armor and even a nobleman’s garments were looted by the victorious army. This act would also be committed by local peasants who would pick whatever remains including broken swords, and damaged armor for its metal. Now while swords can be mass-produced by a set of skilled blacksmiths a true weaponized art form would be plate armor, as all plate armor was customized, and custom-fitted for the wearer. Another way plate armor was deemed art was the addition of custom emblems, crests, and other memorabilia.
I highly recommend The King to anyone who is a huge history buff, someone who enjoys political intrigue, and a medieval time frame. But while it is true to history in some parts some factors must be considered, one being that this was adapted from a Shakespearean play, which may have had some biases into what goes into the script. Another conflict would be the addition of made-up characters such as Falstaff who was just used for comedic relief in the original play script. Another inaccuracy will come from the problem that is the genre of the movie, as it is a dramatization of real events it focuses less on the overall accuracy and more about the story arch and the plot. While this movie had some inaccuracies and was not based on true history but instead a play, I loved this film and I’ve re-watched it countless times for my own personal enjoyment.
