The King

Rating: 4/10 (20 December 2019)

All "The King"'s problems speak from its opening scene. We see the sun dawn on a desolate battlefield, where Sir Henry Hotspur (Tom Glynn-Carney) assesses his victory, and stabs a crawling survivor to death in the mud. It is a brutal and unflinching deed, committed by a handsome young man with a contemporary haircut.
That says it all, really. "The King" wants to have it both ways: to portray the Middle Ages in a historically accurate manner and to appear relevant to 2019 audiences at the same time. Yet the one devaluates the other.
Take Henry IV (Ben Mendelssohn): None of the exalted nobility and gothic gloom of John Gielgud here -- that's way too theatrical for such a serious undertaking. So what does Mendelssohn bring to the character? He plays him like Denethor of Gondor. Just watch any of his scenes: once you've noticed, you cannot unsee. How this is more realistic or benefitting the character in any way beats me.
Similarly, Joel Edgerton has rewritten Falstaff, 'Shakespeare's greatest creation' (Orson Welles), to make him less larger-than-life. And what do we get? A more buoyant Davos Seaworth.
Edgerton's performance ensures what I have been suspecting all along, namely that "The King" wants to be "Game of Thrones". It wants to indulge in the same courtly intrigue and massive onslaught, but hides behind the name of one of history's greatest authors. This produces a fascinating trail of derivation: a film inspired by a series adapting a novel inspired by the plays this film insists on adapting.
So Falstaff becomes a war-marked mentor and Bardolph, Pistol and Nym are out. Lord forbid we enjoy ourselves. 'Don't you get that "The King" has something serious to say?' you might argue, 'You cannot remain serious with constant comical intermezzos.' The thing is that Shakespeare could do precisely that. His plays remain simultaneously funny, touching and thought-provoking to this day because he was a great writer and had a matchless feeling for narrative tone and pacing.
It is the lack of these exact qualities that sinks "The King" -- not the mere fact that the script differs from the play, but the manner in which it does.
The big new spin that writers Edgerton and David Michôd put on the story is that Hal is a pacifist now. He doesn't drink and hang around because he is young and cocky, but because he is revolted by life at court and the cost of war.
Chalamet certainly deserves the praise he has received for his work here. He gives everything the script demands and more (his pronounced cheekbones even make for a visual similarity with the real Henry V), but it is precisely this script that is lacking. In the entire film, Hal's gloomy attitude is disrupted not a single time by a moment of happiness or joy. Yes, Laurence Olivier may have been too much of a golden boy, but Chalamet is so edgy it feels like a missed opportunity that he doesn't apply eyeliner. As a result, the film has but one tone, and it happens to be a very weary one.
The turning point in Hal's development occurs when his brother Thomas (Dean-Charles Chapman) is sent to beat down Hotspur's rebellion. Last seen snoozing in a tavern, Hal suddenly appears on the battlefield in full attire, challenging Hotspur to a duel to prevent further casualties. Besides the fact that an adaptation of "Henry V" borrows its core dramatic material from "Troy" of all films, the dialogue in this scene is unbearable. 'This is *my* battle! (...) If I have my way, there'll be no battle (...) These men are not our enemies!' Such eloquence would not misfit a Roland Emmerich film -- or, indeed, "Troy". The writing and directing are at times so terrible it makes you want to throw up.
If you're not too busy wiping puke off your carpet you will notice that the ensuing sword fight is actually great. The duel is awkward and dirty, dominated by constant panting and the rattling of ill-fitting armour. If this is the realism the filmmakers were striving to achieve, props to them. Such a shame that most of the film is 'Agamemnon vs. Westeros'.
When Hal finally becomes Henry V, king of England, the film arrives at its core dilemma: will the pacifist Hal manage to... No. The answer is 'No.' "The King" wants to be all about the gradual corruption of power, but within two minutes Henry has a grudge against France, and within 20 he is beheading his own courtiers. He bites his lip twice, then starts a war. Anakin Skywalker's conversion to the Dark Side was more gradual than this.
The meat of the film is an hour of pedestrian warfare. Don't look for any tactics or character insight; it is just fighting in a supposedly realistic yet aesthetically appealingly manner. Even the odd appearance of Robert Pattinson's positively psychotic Dauphin -- the only character who appears to be enjoying himself -- can only raise the spirits for so long.
Just when you think the worst is over, the film ends with a comically shallow message about manipulation and (out of nowhere) female empowerment; as if were saying 'Don't you see how relevant I am!?'
I am sorry, "King", I was busy ordering a carpet cleaner.