From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Regarding Henry:Henry V vs Henry V: Shakespeare and Men's
Date: 9 Apr 92 01:10:42 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In article <1992Apr4.205435.17200@samba.oit.unc.edu> joan@med.unc.edu (Joan Shields) writes:
>>In article <1992Mar16.230957.13516@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>>You're missing the point.  THERE IS NO BATTLE SCENE IN THE "REAL" HENRY
>>>V.
>
>No, I think you've missed the point.  Shakespeare wrote plays, plays are 
>done on stages, it's very difficult to stage an exciting battle on a stage
>so, he had most of the action take place off stage.  If it had been
>feasible to do a battle on the stage Shakespeare probably would have
>written it in. 

Axiom (feel free to argue): Shakespeare was a poet first, a dramatist
second.

Result: Shakespeare's action is conveyed through LANGUAGE.  It is
therefore significant that Shakespeare omitted speeches by The Quality
during the battle itself, and it is a significant differences from other
plays in which The Quality talks during the fight.  Shakespeare
substitutes the clownish incident between Ancient Pistol and the
Frenchman.

Shakespeare is telling us that he's a bit tired of the history play as a
genre, he's a bit tired of "imperialism's face, and the international
wrong."  He tells us this through omission.

 Old Will wasn't writing plays for "art's" sake, he was
>writing plays to support himself and to entertain the general population.
>If he were alive today he would probably be writing blockbuster films.  

I get so tired of hearing this, Joan, for to me it demeans Shakespeare's
accomplishment.  Yes, Shakespeare hoped to get paid for his plays.  He
had, after all, the Elizabethan equivalent of child support to pay, in
all probability, for Hamnet and Judith, his putative children.  But it
may very well be that he had a burning desire To Write and a love of the
language, and by happy chance found a way to at least in part express
that fact.  At such a historical distance, we are like astronomers,
discussing the existence of invisible planets through the gravitational
perturbations of massive neighbors; but the author of the Sonnets and
the narrative poems was NOT the 16th century equivalent of Stephen King.
And if you knew the true abuse to which Hollywood screenwriters are
subject, you'd know that the author of Lear would not put up with it for
a second ("o reason not the need!").

>(Yes, I know there are valid questions about whether or not Shakespeare
>really did write the plays but... that's not imoportant right now.)

This dovetails neatly with your previous statement, for I sense you
cannot understand why unexampled genius should dare raise its head among
the canaille.  Being other than a happy Philistine and author of
moneymaking films, being Sensitive, writing


     "...the more perjured I,	
     To swear the truth to so foul a lie!"


is not supposed to happen among the Lower Clawsses.  Whence this
continual sly questioning of the authorship of Shakespeare.  Robert
Greene's early attack on Shakespeare (a phamplet by a jealous
college-educated rival, the forerunner of today's Baconians, which
describes him as "a tiger's heart wrapped on a player's hide") makes it
clear that yes indeed a (gasp) butcher's boy did yes indeed have the
feelings that The Quality thought were its private preserve.  Shudder.