It’s 2019, and we love the Middle Ages. I mean, think about it. What was one of the biggest TV series of the decade? Game of Thrones. Actors sporting various accents, wielding big weapons, and looking greasy. And we lapped up the swords-and-sorcery of it all.
The question is, why? People will say they love GOT for several reasons – the performances by stellar actors and actresses, the lush set and costume design (not to mention VFX,) and the intricacies of the plot and characters. For some reason, we just love watching people with British accents shout at each other for long and dramatic periods of time, preferably while wearing chain-mail or a long robe or something. (Or, in the case of GOT, nothing at all.)
What I’ve noticed in recent media is a type of replication of that genre without completely ripping off of Thrones. When you think “medieval fantasy,” you think grit, you think New Zealand or some equally picturesque landscape. You picture guys with long hair and beards galloping around on horses while a Hans Zimmer score plays in the background. There’s dramatic dialogue that no one would say in real life.
And you get most of that in The King. With fewer dragons.
The King (2019)
Rated: R
Starring: Timothee Chalamet, Joel Edgerton, Robert Pattinson, Ben Mendelsohn, Lily-Rose Depp
Content warning: This is a medieval history film, so yeah, there are battles. Surprisingly, many of them are fairly bloodless or gore-less. Of course, it’s still intense and a bit claustrophobic at times. There is a scene where the camera does not flinch from a grisly beheading. A child is stabbed (onscreen) and his severed head is shown later. Characters are bloodied in various situations, and one character falls ill and is covered in gross-looking boils. Prince Hal is a philanderer, and he and his compatriot Falstaff are seen in a handful of compromising positions with prostitutes. “F–king” is said a handful of times. Let’s debate the historical accuracy of that another time.
We’ve heard the story of Henry V before, whether we know it or not. You know the phrase “band of brothers?” That comes from William Shakespeare’s Henry V, a historical play about Hal’s transition from unruly prince to a dignified king who leads his men to victory in the Battle of Agincourt. We’ve seen the likes of Kenneth Branagh and Tom Hiddleston take on the role onscreen.
This time, we have relative newcomer Timothee Chalamet, who rose to stardom in the past few years after starring in Call Me By Your Name and Ladybird. In The King, he takes on the titular role of King Henry, who begins the film as Prince Hal, a generally apathetic and glib man-child. He doesn’t care about the crown, the kingdom, and certainly not his father, Henry IV (played by the always-impeccable Ben Mendelsohn, almost unrecognizable in a long, greasy wig.) Prince Hal is the epitome of an unruly teenager, answering his father with slurred mumbles (but with a British accent.)
He only cleans up his act when his father dies (sorry for the spoilers, but this is history so I don’t feel that bad) and his younger brother is subsequently murdered in battle. Guess what? There’s no one else to take the crown other than Hal himself. Chalamet plays the transition well, but a bit incoherently. There’s not quite a moment where he fully realizes himself as king, which makes the plot start off a bit rocky. Several moments in the beginning would have made perfect Litmus tests to show the audience that he has fully assumed his position, but the story breezes past them without giving them so much as a second thought.
If you’re familiar with the Shakespeare text, you’ll know that there is a pretty clear transition in that story (while not all entirely historically accurate.) Once he is king, Henry makes some hard-and-fast decisions, especially when it comes to going to war with France. The King’s Henry is hesitant, and somewhat easily manipulated. It makes for a main character who is a bit difficult to root for at times. Mix that with Chalamet’s expressionless-but-intense delivery and we have a bit of an opposable doll for a hero.
Things do get spicy, however, when we follow Henry and his intrepid buddy Falstaff (Joel Edgerton, who grunts his way through fairly dry one-liners) to France to unite the two kingdoms by killing a bunch of people. Henry butts heads with the Archbishop (who has a lisp? That is never explained? Other than for comedic effect? I think?) and other members of his court, including William, who takes on a somewhat paternal role in Henry’s life. Henry makes some pretty shrewd military decisions that lead him to war with the Dauphin of France.
And let’s talk about the Dauphin of France, who might be the kingpin of this whole film. Let me start off by saying I had no idea Robert Pattinson had such strong acting chops until I saw The Lighthouse. That could easily be my own ignorance, but this guy is good. While most of the film has a somewhat dour tone (I mean, it’s about one of the biggest, bloodiest battles in British history) Pattinson’s caricature of a somewhat-mad, mostly-droll prince is almost its saving grace. His ten minutes of screen time prevents the film from becoming so down-in-the-dumps it’s not even enjoyable.
I might sound a bit too critical, so let me be clear: this is a good movie. Most performances are good if not great (Chalamet was a solid “good,” and I think once he develops his chops more he will be “great.”) The costumes, sets, and locations are gorgeous, despite their somewhat bleak palette. The dialogue teeters between Shakespeare affectation (“You shall suffer the indignity of serving me, the wayward son you so revile”) to modern sensibility (hence several uses of “f–king.”)
But a lot of this movie seems like a copy. It tries to be “like” Shakespeare’s epic without “being” it. Just listen to Henry’s speech at the Battle of Agincourt. It’s basically his St Crispin’s day speech but modernized (“We are England!” which has some subtle-not-so-subtle Brexit flavors to it.) It seems to be “like” Game of Thrones with its struggle for crowns, family drama, and gritty disposition, without “being” a fantasy war epic. After two hours and twenty minutes, it never quite found its footing.
What makes it watchable, however, is the potential that it had. Did we need another version of Henry V’s story? I’m not sure. Did we need a scene of Chalamet speaking fluent French? Debatable. Did we need Pattinson wearing a period-appropriate wig and sliding around in the mud of Agincourt? We absolutely did.
We could have, however, done without the crushing moodiness. Pretty sure Chalamet didn’t smile once in the entire film. His haircut seemed to be his only real character development. Chalamet’s potential was unmet in this film, which I believe was the fault of the writing, not his ability.
Maybe this film wasn’t the sweeping war epic it wanted to be. It was more of a little dust broom used to clean up the edges of history and make it a bit more digestible for modern audiences. But in a year off off-tone Game of Thrones copycats, this film was original enough to be enjoyable.
Audrey D. DeBoer 