Paul Peter Manos

The two cinematic ghosts hovering over this wonderful update to the Hal-Falstaff story are Carl Dreyer (“Joan of Arc”, 1928) and Orson Welles (“Chimes at Midnight”, 1965). For example, the battle scene in the mud is similar to Welles’s frightening mud-slog and Adam Arkapaw’s cinematography evokes Dreyer’s scenes of psychological darkness in time & place. Forget (if you can) Olivier’s 1944 Henry V and Shakespeare’s plays (and also Baz Luhrmann). Instead, Director David Michod has made a first class effort of doing what Zeffirelli did in 1968 for “Romeo and Juliet”, updating an old Shakespearean tale - this time of an irresponsible but intelligent young man nursing a grudge against his dad who has to find his way to his own two feet when dad’s no longer around. Joel Egerton, not as corpulent as Welle’s Falstaff but here more empathetic, is reimagined as the foolish friend in careless days who reveals himself when required as the wise father figure. At the same time, Chalamet succeeds in showing how ‘heavy lies the crown’ when everyone else’s expectations dwarf his own. Two aspects stand out for me from his acting: the speech he gives to the troops required vocal strength from him I’ve not heard before. It worked; it gave me chills. The other darker aspect was the old rubric: power corrupts. At film’s start, Falstaff presents himself to Hal with a wound; Hal proceeds to heat an instrument in the fire to cauterise it. As Hal grimaces in anticipation of the hot knife, Hal flicks Falstaff’s ear. The trick works; Falstaff is distracted when Hal applies the knife to the flesh. At film’s end, the young king discovers he has been similarly tricked. But was the purpose of the later trick to heal? Hal’s response shows he has learned, but did that response indicate he has been changed by power? The audience has to choose.