[Ronly Bonly Jones]

"Henry the V"

Sorry. Wrong. A propaganda film about a major war criminal, composed by a suck-up to the sovereign state and a toady to Queen Liz (Shakespeare, not Branaugh). Great lines, evil history. Like having Hitler declaim in iambic pentameter. Sorry. In particular, the line where the King is told by one of his soldiers about how "We should obey the King in spite of the fact that he's probably wrong because and our obedience will wash the stain of the bad cause out of us" (a paraphrase, obviously, I'm not Willieboy) was proven invalid at the Nuremberg trials.

"Das Boot"

Or, "How We Decided To Kill ON Behalf Of A Genocidal Maniac Despite The Fact We Knew Better."

Neither are the least bit conservative.

[Burkeman1]

Oh Come on. I am talking about "Henry the V" the story as told by Shakespeare (whomever he was- most likely the Earl of Oxford) not the true history. As a stroy it has great conservative subtext.

"Das Boot" is a great conservative film as well as it exposes the puffery and lies of modern totalitarian states in waging war. I forgot to mention another film- "Metropolitan" by the same director that did "Barcelona". The "Last days of Disco" is another sleeper by the same director.

[nickcarraway]

Please, let's not confuse literature with history. First of all, Shakespeare was a creating a dramatist, not a historian, and he never claimed to be a historian. He often borrowed source material, but only followed it as far as it suited his artistic vision. If you want to look to Henry V for history, look to it for a reflection of the time it was written, not as a document of history from an earlier century.

Shakespeare used Holinshed's Chronicles and some Latin biographies contemporary to Henry's time for his background. But what really intereted Shakespeare in creating his play (besides entertaining his audience) where questions about what qualities a leader should have and various philosophical/ethical questions.

And, most importantly, the reading you give to Shakespeare intentions to the play are highly suspect. Your contention that Shakespeare was merely cheerleading for Henry is contradicted by many critics. The play present Henry both as a military hero and as a very self-serving/manipulative. Many of the rousing speeches find contradictions in the actions of the play. This is literature, it is mistaken to assume an author agrees with everything each of his characters say. Specifically, you refer to a certain scene where characters discuss the implications in following orders when they may be wrong. Shakespeare is presenting a moral dilemma that was pertinent to his audience. Please don't simplify it to claim that Shakespeare was endorsing Nazi war crimes. Do you believe every movie that portrays WWII makes such an endorsment, merely by showing german soldiers who were following orders?