the story. In Branagh's version, you become part of
the story and experience it on an emotional level, journeying with the
characters and partially experiencing what they experience. In Olivier's
version, you sit back and watch the story and experience it on a mental
level, though without the involvement or the aspect of journeying
While it is difficult to decide which version is more effective, it
can at least be noted that they each represent very different ways of
telling the same story. This also seems to relate to the time at which
each film was created. In a review of Olivier's version of "Henry V"
published in Time Magazine, Olivier's way of telling the story is described
as revolutionary. The film is described saying, "For Shakespeare, it meant
a new splendor in a new, viral medium" (Agee 1946). The review then goes
"Almost continually, it invests the art of Shakespeare--and the art of
cinema as well--with a new spaciousness, a new mobility, a new
radiance. Sometimes, by courageous (but never revolutionary) cuts,
rearrangements and interpolations, it improves on the original" (Agee
This quote suggests an important aspect of Olivier's approach by shows that
at the time, Olivier was making inventive use of the medium of film. While
it is easy to watch the film now and judge Olivier as not making a very
good film, it must be noted that there is a strong tendency to judge the
work in terms of what is expected in a film today. Film has become such a
common medium, that viewers today are very familiar with it. This results
in viewers judging films based on what they expect a film to be, often
without a real awareness that they even have expectations. It's like
reading a book and expecting the story to start at page one and continue to
page two. It is so natural to expect this that readers aren't even aware
that it's an expectation. The same ...