Scan barcode
beachbuddy's review against another edition
3.0
While the play is entertaining it unfortunately lacks some of the more interesting parts (formation of a new church, execution of Queen Anne, wives 3-6) of King Henry's reign, likely due to how recent the events still were and Shakespeare's desire not to offend anyone. Instead most of the play is just about various nobles having petty arguments and trying to get each other executed. The play ends with the birth of Elizabeth after which a cardinal prophecizes that she and her successor will be the greatest rulers ever (it should be noted that the play seems to have been published shortly after the death of Queen Elizabeth and the ascension of King James so there's definitely no bias there at all). After the prophecy Henry says that he's finally happy now that he has a child destined for greatness, which I'm pretty sure isn't what happened at all. Queen Katherine gets to curse out her political enemies with some pretty great lines though and there's a doctor whose name is Butt so that's pretty cool.
aliciamae's review against another edition
2.0
Lots of "telling" versus "showing" in what ultimately felt like a major propaganda piece. Overall felt very meh about it.
lulu_loves_conan_gray's review against another edition
2.0
Some good lines, but the entire thing did not wow me.
nexusgoblin's review against another edition
4.0
I honestly never thought I'd enjoy one of Shakepeare's histories, and I enjoy his work immensely. As it turns out this was actually a rather passionate play and it will certainly linger in my mind. I'll be lucky if I only manage to quote it a few times over the course of the next few weeks...
I'm kind of stuck on what I think of Henry though...Is he a good and just king? Or is he a good king who holds the power to manipulate with his words? I personally like him, he's passionate and I think it would take an incredibly stubborn person not to be moved at least a little by his display throughout.
Of course there are liberties taken with the actual history but Shakespeare knew how to tell a tale and he does it well with Henry V
I'm kind of stuck on what I think of Henry though...Is he a good and just king? Or is he a good king who holds the power to manipulate with his words? I personally like him, he's passionate and I think it would take an incredibly stubborn person not to be moved at least a little by his display throughout.
Of course there are liberties taken with the actual history but Shakespeare knew how to tell a tale and he does it well with Henry V
brookamimi's review against another edition
5.0
First reading, 2008: We read this in my Shakespeare English class. I'd never read a Shakespeare history before, but it was far less boring than I had anticipated. There's this one scene between Catherine and Alice that's all in French and made me laugh so much.
Second reading, 2012: Wow. THAT is a war story. Loyalty and leadership and mocking the other side and kissing the girl at the end. But it's much more than the sum of its parts. And I'd love me a man like Harry. (And not because of the newest casting--I even tried him on as Ken Branagh, Ian!) Most of all, it got me to thinking about the "wars" of life and my attitude toward them. There's nothing quite like a book that makes you realize you have some changes to make.
Second reading, 2012: Wow. THAT is a war story. Loyalty and leadership and mocking the other side and kissing the girl at the end. But it's much more than the sum of its parts. And I'd love me a man like Harry. (And not because of the newest casting--I even tried him on as Ken Branagh, Ian!) Most of all, it got me to thinking about the "wars" of life and my attitude toward them. There's nothing quite like a book that makes you realize you have some changes to make.
mlytylr's review against another edition
4.0
my feelings about the play
- too over-the-top to be taken seriously
- i learned that french people are mainly defined by an obsession with dirty puns
- fun times
my feelings about the 2012 tv version i then watched
- DOWN WITH THE WARMONGERING MONARCHY!!
my feelings about the 1989 film version i watched when i was a preteen
- i remember watching this on vhs ... it was so long there were 2 tapes
- actually me and my sister didn't know it was based on a play and spent a lot of time writing down lines from this film, not realizing IT WAS ALREADY WRITTEN DOWN SOMEWHERE
- ahaaaaaaaa
- fun times
- too over-the-top to be taken seriously
- i learned that french people are mainly defined by an obsession with dirty puns
- fun times
my feelings about the 2012 tv version i then watched
- DOWN WITH THE WARMONGERING MONARCHY!!
my feelings about the 1989 film version i watched when i was a preteen
- i remember watching this on vhs ... it was so long there were 2 tapes
- actually me and my sister didn't know it was based on a play and spent a lot of time writing down lines from this film, not realizing IT WAS ALREADY WRITTEN DOWN SOMEWHERE
- ahaaaaaaaa
- fun times
arbieroo's review against another edition
3.0
Previously, things I've read covering the historically crucial events surrounding Henry VIII's divorce and subsequent break from the Catholic Church have focused on Wolsey, More, Cromwell and Henry himself, ignoring Katherine, whom Henry is dumping in favour of Anne Boleyn. This is different: Thomas More is conspicuous by his absence - he's not even name-dropped - and Katherine is very much front and centre of the middle part of the play.
Katherine and Wolsey are presented as Tragic figures: Katherine as undeserving victim, powerless but eloquent in her own, ultimately futile defence. Wolsey as worldly schemer for Rome and his own self-aggrandisement who ultimately repents, apparently sincerely and with great humility, when caught conspiring against the divorce and lining his own pockets from the national Treasury.
What of Henry? He reminds me of Julius Caesar; the instigator of the action but really not the dramatic lead. Intrigue, plots, chaos and death swirl around him but he remains mostly a cypher. He doesn't die half way through, like Caesar, of course. Instead he lives on to see Anne Boleyn betray his hopes by giving birth to a daughter.
That daughter is prophetically praised in the final scene; the baby that will become the legendary Virgin Queen of Shakespeare's day and save Britain from Spain, Rome, all and sundry...
How much of the Tudor idolatry was merely political expediency is open to question, given the extremely sympathetic treatment of Katherine, the fact that Shakespeare was brought up in a Catholic household and the lack of any unequivocal statement about Will's own religious leanings.
The play impresses more by way of the characterisation and eloquence of Wolsey and Katherine than it does as a coherent drama as a whole.
Katherine and Wolsey are presented as Tragic figures: Katherine as undeserving victim, powerless but eloquent in her own, ultimately futile defence. Wolsey as worldly schemer for Rome and his own self-aggrandisement who ultimately repents, apparently sincerely and with great humility, when caught conspiring against the divorce and lining his own pockets from the national Treasury.
What of Henry? He reminds me of Julius Caesar; the instigator of the action but really not the dramatic lead. Intrigue, plots, chaos and death swirl around him but he remains mostly a cypher. He doesn't die half way through, like Caesar, of course. Instead he lives on to see Anne Boleyn betray his hopes by giving birth to a daughter.
That daughter is prophetically praised in the final scene; the baby that will become the legendary Virgin Queen of Shakespeare's day and save Britain from Spain, Rome, all and sundry...
How much of the Tudor idolatry was merely political expediency is open to question, given the extremely sympathetic treatment of Katherine, the fact that Shakespeare was brought up in a Catholic household and the lack of any unequivocal statement about Will's own religious leanings.
The play impresses more by way of the characterisation and eloquence of Wolsey and Katherine than it does as a coherent drama as a whole.