Want to know how to make Shakespeare seem relevant? Simply market the production in such a way that you emphasize how it "says something" about modern the times. In the case of "Henry V," the contemporary parallel is quite obvious: a wild party boy inherits both the throne and a war from his father and ends up selling his countrymen out for a selfish victory in an unjust war. Sound like anyone familiar?
Elizabethan playgoers would have recognized the eponymous king from his role in the previous two-part "Henry IV," in which he gained his reputation as the insubordinate Prince Hal, accompanied by his partner-in-crime Falstaff. This sequel tells the story of Hal's transformation into the ideal warrior king who, after abandoning Falstaff early on, rouses his troops to battle and brings the French under British rule. For the imperialist at heart, it's a charming war tale. For the modern liberal, it is a fascinating examination of the archaic machinations of battle and the cult of masculinity ascribed therein.
Although the production gets off to a studied start, most of the actors ultimately glow beautifully in their roles. Under the direction of Normi Noel, the production deemphasizes the visual spectacle (16th-century stages did not use sets either) and instead focuses on the verse, which should come as no surprise. After all, this is The Actors' Shakespeare Company's production, and the weight of the play is squarely placed upon the shoulders of the small ensemble. Consisting of only five actors, the cast takes on over 30 roles with mostly impressive results.
As Henry, Seth Powers attacks his role with force. He possesses a booming voice and physical stature that is perfect for Shakespearean scenarios. Although seeming to suffer from an uncontrollable and constant fidgeting that appears to be an actor's shorthand for depth of thought, Powers gifts the stage with an aura of power necessary for such a macho role. With leading-man good looks, he cuts a striking figure on stage. But he could stand to cut down on the mugging slightly, as he often looks more "blue steel" than steel-wielder. Were there any scenery to be chewed, no doubt Powers would be picking pieces of it out of his teeth from time to time, but a quiet, deep-thinking hero (? la Hamlet) Henry is not.
The actor who comes closest to transcendence is the fantastic stage veteran Paula Langton, whose renderings of Fluellen, the Duke of Exeter and Alice (nurse to French princess Katherine) are delightfully varied yet consistently moving. Her ability to connect with the other actors onstage, a characteristic sadly lacking in most other actors in the production, is equally as impressive as her range. Mastering both French and Welsh accents, she moves about the stage with the sure-footedness of a veteran, never faltering on a word or incisive gesture. Langton in the role of Henry would have been truly inspired casting.
Both of the show's female actresses certainly take the lion's share of the charisma, with Molly Schrieber's interpretations of both the Dauphin of France and the childish princess Katherine, two of the production's most stirring and adeptly comical roles. A later scene in which Langton, as Alice, teaches the young Katherine English is one of the most emotionally tangible, with Schrieber kneading a pillow in a puerile fashion throughout. Moving from the na've princess to the impetuous Dauphin, she makes the latter equally accessible, and the complete transformation seems effortless.
The culminating scene between Henry and Katherine, in which he attempts to prove his love for her in broken French, proves the best showcase for the strongest three actors. Happily, Powers finally drops his distracting fidgeting, feeding off of Schrieber's flirtatious energy. Langton, mostly silent throughout, manages to impress with her mere presence. For once, all the actors do not rush through their lines, but luxuriate in the clever and romantic prose. It is the lighthearted highlight of the production.
Ken Cheeseman and Doug Lockwood, who round out the cast, are the only truly failed elements of the play. Their readings are flat and rushed, and their emotive range is limited or nonexistent. Both seem content with the sheer burden of memorization required of the lines, rather than considering each for its resonance in a given dialogue. When they interact with Powers and Langton, their shortcomings are amplified and they often seem like indifferent islands in the midst of the passionate tempests created by the other players.
That said, the effect of their flat line readings is more subtly perturbing than overwhelmingly obnoxious, a testament to the commanding presence of King Henry and the pitch-perfect humanity conveyed by Langton and Schrieber. As a showcase for these three actors, "Henry V" is a worthwhile night at the theatre. The subversive message about today's administration is merely additional gilding on an already golden lily.
