The King attempts to combine Shakespeare's version of events and history and manages to bungle both. You gain great appreciation for the Bard as a dramatist when comparing his efforts to those of Netflix's screen writers (one of who also plays a revisionists Sun Tzu version of Shakespeare's Falstaff).
The movie briefly deals with Prince Hal's wanton youth and difficulties with his father, Henry IV then moves rapidly to the French taunts that induce Henry to invade (ahistoricl as Henry was quite determined to re-start the HYW). As in Shakespeare Tennis Balls play some role and likewise an alleged French formented plot against Henry's (shakey) claim to the throne.
The Battle of Shrewsbury is reduced to single combat with Hotspur and here as in much else Shakespeare's account is closer to history.
Once in France and following the Bard's structure the action moves to the siege of Harfluer which is accomplished by trebuchets though as in history and Shakespeare it was done by canons and and fighting at the breach they created.
The English then begin randomly marching around but then do bump into the French led erroneously by the Dauphin (you might recognize him from Harry Potter and Twilight). The armies face off an Agincourt (location lines given ahisitorically and non-Shakespeare to the Dauphin). The classic scenes of Henry wandering his camp in disguise and learning of the army's dour morale followed by his classic dawn battle speech done so magnificently by the Bard are completely botched. The battle itself only marginally resembles history with Henry misplaced in the woods rather than the center of the line and the English opening the battle with men at arms rather than archers. The light armor tactic is also invented for the bulk of the English men at arms.
Finally the Catherine of France is turned into a modern empowered female and the charming wooing scene is all but reversed. As one bow to historical accuracy Henry does speak fluent French unlike his Shakespearean version.
As to good points, the armor is much better than the average Hollywood/HBO effort. Even some attempts to differentiate between upper level knights and standard men at arms and the silly "uniform" armor of so many current productions is avoided. Acting over all is quite good including our young Henry V. Having the courage to use period correct bowl haircuts should be applauded and not seen since the great Sir Lawrence had one in his version of Henry V.
While creating a production with less historical accuracy than Shakespeare may seem cause for disdain, overall I enjoyed The King (my youngest loved it) and at least appreciate that Netfix is trying to give us historical drama. That it does not equal the Bard's efforts is just too high a standard to set.
Next time Netflix stick to history (or just do the Bard straight up). Remaking the Bard is more bold than wise.
TomT
