 |
I want you . . . to be a naysayer!
|
I think I’ve narrowed down my topic to analyzing Henry’s speech with
Katherine to show that because he is genuine with her, he is also genuine with
his other audiences. HOWEVER, I want some controversy! I want to see those
people out there that disagree with me! I want to hear (in a respectful way)
how wrong I am. What about Henry makes you think that he’s manipulative? What
about him just makes your blood boil? Believe it or not, these opposing
opinions will actually help me. I need to get a feel for the opposing audience
and how they respond to Henry. If I’m missing something, I want to know about
it. I want you to be a naysayer!
Okay--my primary objection would be that even if you were to prove that Henry is being genuine with Katherine, how would that translate to be genuine with everyone else? He has most people leave the room when he woos Katherine, leaving him in a room with just two women. Is this because he can't let the men see him be genuine? Can he be genuine with women because he doesn't need them to see him as a leader in the same way he needs men to?
ReplyDeleteIn other words, convince me that the one scene between Henry and Katherine at the end has any bearing about how he presents himself to his men.
I agree with Nyssa. It's easy to put on a face and a front to get what you want out of people. Who says he wasn't lying to Katherine?
ReplyDeleteMy issue with the entire play is that it is about a war of conquest. Yes, the English are the "good guys" and Henry is the "Hero" but how can you call someone a hero who invades a foreign country just because he wants to and is responsible for the deaths of his followers as well as his foes? While I admire Henry's valor I don't see how it's justified. Just something I'm concerned about.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most problematic parts for me is how he doesn't extend mercy to his own friend and orders his execution. At least in the Branagh version, it's very clear that he wants to set his friend free, but he has to protect his image as a strong king so he orders the execution. You could argue that he just had to keep the law, but isn't he the king? Couldn't he find a loophole? He found a way to claim that he rightfully owned FRANCE, why can't he free his friend from a minor offense?
ReplyDeleteIt would seem he cares more about being seen as a strong and powerful ruler than about his personal relationships from that.
PS Great use of a picture for this post.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very controversial topic but I feel like it could so easily go either way, even with evidence. Something like this could be very hard to prove and evidence you offer could also support the opposing view. If you are prepared to take on this task, more power to you!
ReplyDelete