shredsandpatches:oldshrewsburyian:I thought I might never see a Henry V production with a representa
shredsandpatches:oldshrewsburyian:I thought I might never see a Henry V production with a representation of his facial scar, and as a Shakespeare nerd and medievalist, I was twice saddened by this. But LO, the Internet has given me 23-year-old Kenneth Branagh (!!) with an entry wound/surgery scar consistent with contemporary descriptions made by his surgeon. I am possibly too pleased by this. [Image source (x), more info on the surgery (x)]I think it’s probably just supposed to be dirt or blood, though? I have a book with some other pictures from this production where his face appears to be clean and unscarred pre- /post-battle.In general, though, I am not really surprised that Henry V’s facial scar isn’t generally represented in a historically accurate manner, if it’s shown at all – you could really only do it in a standalone HV, because Hal’s real-life injuries would certainly preclude his behavior certainly in the rest of 1H4 and probably (depending on how you interpret the timeframe) in 2H4 as well. Like, he’s still able to fight in the battle after being injured and even engage in a pretty intense fight with Hotspur which he then wins, when in real life he nearly died, since, after all, SHOT IN THE FACE. And if you’re doing a standalone HV it seems like it’d be a lot of effort (and cost, if it’s a production where the makeup can be clearly seen by the audience) for something that doesn’t really factor into the play, unless you count the line about his face being “not worth sunburning.” …oh. Well. Alas. The analysis of why it isn’t featured makes sense, but I still like the idea of representing Henry as a man marked by his history in HV, especially as Agincourt is the first pitched battle he fought after Shrewsbury. -- source link
#film at 11#henry v#shakespeare#theatre#kenneth branagh