]

ee ee ee eee ea

a

Shakespeare's

lines alive
in new make
of Henry V

HENRY V. By William Shakespeare.
With Kenneth Branagh, Paul Sco-
field, lan Holm, Emma Thompson.
Directed by Kenneth Branagh. At
Cineplex Odeon theatres.

There are those who will cite the
anti-war nature of this 1989 version of
William Shakespeare’s classic history
play, Henry V. Take that with a grain
of salt. In depicting the famous Battle
of Agincourt, in which England’s
troops allegedly were outmanned 5-1
and emerged victorious, the filmmak-
ers find beauty amid the carnage.

Shakespeare’s history plays, which
included Henry IV parts one and two,
were propaganda pieces designed to
illuminate the glories of the rule of his
monarch, Elizabeth I. He depicted the
earlier 1Sth-century rulers struggling
against a decaying feudal system,
establishing an unbroken lineage of
descent leading to the mercantile-
based Tudors of renaissance England.

British jingoism though they were,
the history plays settled the question
of whether propanganda could still be
art with a resounding “‘yes.” The late
Laurence Olivier put this to effective
use in promoting the war effort with
his 1942 film version, until recently
considered the definitive one.

Olivier’s cast of thousands is miss-
ing in this acclaimed remake, the pro-
duct of up-and-coming Irish actor,
Kenneth Branagh. Instead, in relating
the tale of the sometimes brash but
admirably courageous young King
Henry V and his assault on the power-
ful crown of France, the director-
actor favours tight close-ups of the
famous battle. We get a front-row
view of medieval warfare, with the
deadly rain of arrows from the British
longbows mowing down French
troops and dogged, hand to hand
combat in a field slick with mud and
gore.

It is a hell, yes, but a hell that has a
terrible beauty, somewhat like the war
scenes in the noted story of black civil
war soldiers, Glory. Although the
battle is a slaughter, the scenes are far
easier to stomach than those in some
of the more graphic retrospectives on
the Vietnam war.

But a man mourning the loss of his
friends and young son after the battle
reminds us of conflict’s terrible cost.
And there is a sense in this version
that Henry’s claim to the French
throne has been somewhat artificial-
ly created through an ambitious
clergy.

The acting is uniformly superb.
Branagh is of the school that sees
Shakespeare’s lines as living speech,
expressed in conspiratorial whispers
or screams of excitement instead of
continuous measured cadence.

— Dan Keeton

THE HANDMAID‘S TALE. With Natasha
Richardson, Robert Duvall, Faye Duna-
way, Elizabeth McGovern, Aidan Quinn.
Directed by Volker Schlondorff. Screen-
play by Harold Pinter. Based on the novel
by Margaret Atwood. At Cineplex Odeon
theatres.

The Republic of Gilead with its auto-
cratic regime of Reaganite, Jimmy-Swaggart
thought control that so chilled readers has
come to the big screen. But has the transi-

“tion been successful?

It depends, sisters and brothers, it
depends.

It depends on whether you who read the
novel and were spellbound and terrified by
the desolate world created by Canadian
author Margaret Atwood will be satisfied
with a reasonably well-paced adventure.
And whether you who did not read The
Handmaid’s Tale will find that adventure
and the world in which it takes place a good
enough reason to willingly suspend disbe-
lief.

But it seems that those who appreciated
the novel’s slow pacing with its reflective
character will find this movie wanting.

The Republic of Gilead is the United
States of the not-too-distant future, but it
was born in the mind of Atwood sometime
in the early Eighties (published in 1985),
when Ronald Reagan was in the saddle,
bolstered by the right-wing theology of tele-
vision evangelists Jimmy Swaggart and Jim
Bakker. Mikhail Gorbachev had not yet
appeared to bring the great thaw in the Cold
War. Grenada had been invaded, Nicara-
gua was threatened and it didn’t take too
great a mental leap to imagine the whipped-
up patriotism becoming something far
more terrible.

Atwood’s world: A repressive theocracy
has taken control of what was the United
States. Many are its victims, but what we
mainly see is how it has subjugated women
(is it coincidence the film is released around
International Women’s Day?). They are
divided into several classes and are identi-
fied by uniform. Among these are the Wives
(blue), the Aunts (brown), the Marthas
(housekeepers in grey) and the red-clad
Handmaids (women still fertile at a time
when toxic wastes are causing widespread
sterility in men and women). The Hand-
maids’ job is to breed for the ruling elite.

Chalk one up for Atwood, who struck a
telling and timely blow at the political
agenda of right-wing evangelism.

Following the novel fairly faithfully, the
protagonist Kate (Natasha Richardson)
finds herself in the house of the Com-
mander (Robert Duvall), a local potentate
whose wife, Serena Joy (Faye Dunaway)
was Once a television evangelist. Serena is

The Handmaid's Tale on film fails to find the book’s political heart.

barren, so on certain nights the three stage a
grotesque ritual: Serena and Kate lie on the
bed and clasp hands while the Commander
mounts Kate to perform impersonal coitus;
he does not even unknot his tie.

The ritual continues at the other end.
Kate and other Handmaids attend a birth at
the house of another leader. After the baby
is delivered the Wife is the one who proudly
displays the child to the other Wives, as if
she had given birth.

Yet through the grim wall of military
checkpoints, public executions and a rigidly
enforced code of behaviour, little points of
illumination break through: Kate’s friend
Moira (Elizabeth McGovern), a militant
lesbian who bucks authority; a fellow
Handmaid who turns out to be a member of
the Underground; secret trysts with the
chauffeur Nick (Aidan Quinn) arranged by
Serena who knows the Commander is ste-
rile and sees a chance to have-a child
through the lover’s seed; visits to the Com-
mander at night in which Kate can read
forbidden magazines, play Scrabble and
generally let her hair down.

All this was in the book, which I loved.
So why do I havea problem with the screen
version of The Handmaid’s Tale?

Perhaps because in relating the incidents
director Volker Schlondorff and renowned
playwright and screenplay writer Harold
Pinter opted for the sensational and failed
to find the political heart of the story.
Devoid as it is of the intelligent but passive
heroine’s reflections, the film does not
deliver Atwood’s logic explaining how a
right-wing regime might rise in a North
American society. (In the book, Kate recalls
that the regime froze her bank account.)

- Undoubtedly like many other fans of The
Handmaid’s Tale, I constructed my own
movie. Among the scenes I felt essential was
the one in which Kate and a fellow
Handmaid — each under the impression

that the other was the soul of regime-
enforced. propriety — meet each other's
‘ gaze in the reflection of a plate-glass win-
dow and, in a moment pregnant with ten-
sion, reveal their true thoughts. Only a pale
imitation of the scene appears in the film.

Indeed, the film seems devoid of the des-

pair and tension that, when breached by

small acts of rebellion or the tentative meet-
ing of like minds in spite of the ceaseless
scrutiny of the state, gave the novel its
Orwellian, and convincing, feel. Without it,
the film’s people seem absurd, costumed
characters i in an improbable story.

As if in anticipation of the criticism to
come, the film’s backers have been stating
that it is, after all, a film and as such can not
reflect the subtlety of the novel. But film can
be a subtle medium — if not, why do cine-
matic “‘art houses” exist — and I can’t help
wondering how this story might have been
handled by directors such as Britain’s John
Boorman, Robert Altman of the U.S., or
Canadian Norman Jewison, all of whom

|

have proven capable of making their pic-

tures speak volumes, and their characters
say more than mere words.

So it’s more than likely that readers of
The Handmaid’s Tale will not be satisfied’

with its cinematic counterpart. But will

others — including those who would not

normally read such novels, the mass
audience that the film must hope to
reach — be moved and warned about the
fascist theocracy that looms as a potential
future?

If they are, then this movie will have done
the job for which it was presumably
intended. Certainly, despite the welcome

thawing in the Cold War and the subse-

quent disgrace of demagogues like Swag-

gart and Bakker, it is still a possibility to be:

guarded against.
— Dan Keeton

Mayworks is coming. The third annual
festival of labour song, arts displays, con-
tests and what-have-you hits Vancouver
the week of May 1-6. Expect features like
salsa dance instruction, invitations to form
an all-union labour choir, a contest for
labour cartoonists, and much more crea-
tive fodder from the minds of Mayworks
organizers. More details next issue.

* OK *

Central America Week is practically
upon us. It begins March 19, in fact, and
concludes. April 2. Organized by the
Canada-Honduras Information and Sup-
port Association, Central America Week
features talks, films and musical perfor-
mances around events in El Salvador,
Honduras, Guatemala and Panama.
Noteworthy events include a public com-

MayWorks, Central America

memoration for Salvadoran martyr Arch-
bishop Oscar Romero outside the U.S.
Consulate in Vancouver at noon, March
24; a showing of the film Romero at the
Vancouver East Cinema at 2 p.m., March
25; a speech by expelled aid worker to El
Salvador, Karen Ridd, at a dinner at
Shaughnessy Heights United Church at
6:30 p.m., April 2. Prominent Central
Americans will provide updates on Hon-
duras and Panama. There’s much more,
but no space. Phone 872-1382 or 876-2905
for details.

KS SK

The Downtown Eastside Residents Asso-
ciation holds its benefit, “Nowhere to Go
but Up”, at the Town Pump tavern at 66
Water St: in Vancouver on the ‘evening of
Wednesday, March 28. Four’ original

week =

bands. play. Tickets are $8 and can be
purchased at the door.

* K *

Singer-songwriters Eric Bogle and Greg
Brown appear at the Vancouver East Cul-
tural Centre on Sunday, March 25, 8 p.m.
Sponsored by the Vancouver Folk Music
Festival. Phone 254-9578 to reserve.

* OK *

The Vancouver East Cinema premieres
acclaimed Canadian director Atom Egoy-
an’s Speaking Parts, a movie about the
“‘video-obsessed” that has been nomi-
nated for several Genie awards. It runs
7:30 and 9:30 p.m., March 30-April 5.
Egoyan and actor Gabrielle Rose will be
on hand to discuss the film on opening
night.

10 « Pacific Tribune, March 19, 1990