Written by Alex Puga, Image courtesy of Savannah Film Festival
I went into “The King” with the expectation that it would be yet another period film that glorifies its ruler and the wars he establishes. I expected sweeping slow motion sequences, triumphant battle music and the protagonist fighting like a god amongst men. In short, I expected a film that would rely on its star power and ‘epic-ness’ while lacking substance. In all honesty, I was ready to watch a carbon copy of Netflix’s “Outlaw King.” Instead, I watched a slow-burning, cautionary tale heeding the outcomes of toxic masculinity. I know this might offend some people, but to me, “The King” is a satire and an amazing one at that.
“The King” is a telling of Henry V’s rule, a retelling of Shakespeare’s play. The figure himself is famed for being one of England’s most popular kings, the ruler who defeated France (as shown in the film). But instead of being an epic like “The Odyssey,” the film takes notes from “12 Angry Men” and focuses on studying its characters and their self interests.
Joel Edgerton shines in the role of Faulstaff, the only man with a sense of empathy. Robert Pattison as the Dauphin mirrors many of the men in power today. Timothee Chalamet as Hal allows the actor to flex his charm, but in the role of Henry he has more restraint. That’s a great thing. He isn’t likable enough to root for, and he isn’t intimidating enough to fear. Henry is pitiable throughout the film, and I mean that in a good way. And yes, Hal and Henry deserve to be written about as characters separately because in a way they are very different.
Hal is a rebellious boy who runs from the crown and wants nothing to do with it. He only intervenes when he hears of his brother, Thomas, having to fight his father’s battle. We now see a man who stands in front of not only Thomas (who only agreed to fight the battle because he viewed it as a grand debut to his reign as king) but also the English army. Hal puts his life on the line for all of them.
Meanwhile, Henry is a boy forced to be king after a prideful father and envious brother both die. After being burdened with the crown, he longs to change things. Had this been a Disney movie, he would’ve been successful. Sadly, Henry’s goals were crushed by more greedy men who manipulated the king into doing their bidding while believing they were his choices. The result is a battle with France over a baseball.
The battle itself is a staple within the film. There is nothing grand or victorious during the main sequence. Instead we get a sad, muddy and dull scene in which everybody is losing, because in the grand scheme of things, everybody is. This is something Catherine, Henry’s newly arranged wife, makes sure to tell him on their first encounter. She brings to light the fact that Henry has been played by his own court and manipulated into causing the deaths of hundreds in order for each lord to gain land and wealth in France.
Though “The King” wasn’t a revolutionary trailblazer, it is a step in the right direction for films to commentate on politics and social issues without being so forward. It goes against the norms and rules of its genre by toying with the tropes studios rely on for a cash grab. Audiences may not love that their expectations of the film weren’t met, but they’ll surely respect the attempt to break the mold.
