From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Henry V
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:33:26 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In article <1992Mar31.145035.22856@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU writes:
>In <1992Mar30.233931.16904@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lhb6v@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Laura Hayes Burchard) writes:
>
>>I finally got around to seeing Branagh's Henry V this weekend.
>>I was duly stunned and regretful I hadn't gotten around to seeing it
>>on the wide screen.  But I had recalled the reviews describing it as
>>an anti-war movie, which wasn't what I saw.
>
>
>I didn't get much from the reviews either. If I was dumb enough to get
>myself into a war as a combatant I would follow someone who made a speech
>like that. I really wonder if the Reviewer went to the wrong movie.
>
>Interviews with Branagh that I have seen and read indicate that he
>certainly is not pro-war. But at the same time he knows that Henry V was.
>I think he tried very hard in the film to create a character in Harry that
>the viewer could understand. Even if we didn't agree with his invasions of
>France we can see his reasoning. And even after he wins the devastation
>and human cost of the fighting is brought home by the Duke of Burgandy's
>speech.
>
>Calling the film anti-war dismisses the true themes in the film. If you
>have to try and look for a statement about war in the film it would be
>something like this: "Wether or not a war is just it has a cost. It is
>important to be sure that the costs are worth the benefits."

I have isolated these three paragraphs from Geoff's posting because they
highlight a strange attitude towards the Branagh Henry V and war in
general.

In the first paragraph, Geoff writes "if I was dumb enough to get myself
into war as a combatant...".

In the second he waxes eloquent about the costs of war.

In the third he tries to apply cost/benefit analysis to war.

It appears to me that to Geoff, if war benefits a society more than it
costs, those dumb enough to be persuaded to actually fight the thing
should march off a la Pistol, Nym, Bardolph and Boy.  While we at home
should sing loud hosannas that we ain't going, and tot up the benefits.

Shortly after the brutalization of Iraq, the New York Times' business
section printed an unspeakably vulgar little article on the front page
of its business section, lauding the easy winnings of a clean war.  This
article was illustrated with a Fascist Art Deco design of Yuppies, hair
blown by the wind, lording it over ugly little men who were the actually
fighting soldiers.

I placed this article on my door at work.  Over it, I placed one of the
most searing images of the war, of a young, non-Yuppie soldier (with the
coarse blunt hands of the white poor), crying bitterly as he had learned
of the death of his buddy.  By friendly fire.  

Geoff, tell him that the costs outweighed the benefits.  Tell Bardolph,
and tell Boy.

>       "Economic deprivation makes freedom less relevant to a people."
>						-Paul E. Tsongas

On the contrary.  Freedom is more important than relative deprivation.
ESPECIALLY freedom from beancounters like Tsongas.