A Respectable Henry V

The Stratford Festival has a powerful show in their brand-new production of Henry V.  Of all the Shakespearean history plays, this is perhaps the easiest one for a modern audience to grasp, as it requires relatively little knowledge of history to understand.

For all that, though, it is (like all the histories) tremendously wordy, and here we have a production which -- with only slight lapses and one major weakness -- made the verbose text travel clearly out to the audience with meaning, intention, and emotion in full measure.

I was pleasantly surprised to see Des McAnuff stage a show that wasn't full to overflowing with technological whimwhams and foobaz.  And the devices that McAnuff did use (the "horses", for instance) all fitted clearly into the period atmosphere.  Last year's Twelfth Night disappointed me precisely because the elaborate stage technology kept stealing the show from the actors. 
This Henry was a different matter altogether.  The set of leaning timber baulks around a huge drawbridge was both massive and visually intriguing, dark and sombre in mood and yet easy to light clearly.  This production stayed firmly grounded in its historical period, with no efforts to make onstage and out-of-synch editorial comments about the universality of war, and that was all to the good.  The presence of onstage trumpeters playing long straight trumpets, which produce a different, more open sound than a normal coiled trumpet, added strongly to the martial and royal elements of the action, as did the gigantic banners which covered the set in certain key scenes.

Now, to the performers.  Instead of assigning the narratives identified as "Chorus" to one actor, as is often done, McAnuff chose to use his entire company in complex choric recitation for the opening speech ("O, for a Muse of Fire...."), with smaller bodies from the company carrying the remainder of the bridging narrations.

The play proper features a large number of relatively small roles grouped around a very few major parts.  Among my favourites were the reliable veteran Stephen Russell as the Earl of Westmorland, the equally reliable veteran James Blendick as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Sophia Walker as the Boy (one of Falstaff's companions), and Deborah Hay in the small but memorable role of Alice, lady-in-waiting to Princess Catherine of France.

Among the larger parts, Ben Carlson was predictably excellent as Captain Fluellen, another of Shakespeare's delightful Welsh caricatures, Juan Chioran both steady and majestic as Montjoy, the French ambassador, and Tom Rooney both memorably comic and darkly tragic, as Ensign Pistol.

Which brings us to Henry.  And there, as Hamlet says, is the rub.  Aaron Krohn looks the part, but has a light-toned voice with too little variety in his delivery.  And this is a very complex role indeed, a boy becoming a man, a soldier becoming a general, a gambler becoming a king and a king who is taking some very daring gambles.  Krohn pulled it off adequately, but no more than that.  He was (for my money) sadly miscast, and the scenes where he lingered long on stage often dragged.

Now, some people would say that this means the show fails.  I disagree.  Henry V is about the king, but there's much more to it than just the king himself.  It's very much an ensemble piece, and as an ensemble this cast was very strong. The scene changes all moved with the speed and precision that we expect from Stratford, the scenic effects supported the show, and the right scenes all moved us deeply and indeed disturbingly.  It's right that this play should make the audience uncomfortable in places as much as it makes them laugh in others, and so indeed it does.  Were it not for the casting of Aaron Krohn, I would rate this production as excellent.  It's still very good, as good a Henry as I have ever seen, but not a truly top-flight presentation of this difficult and complicated play.