Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
The King is the 2019 film adaptation of the 15th century rule of King Henry, directed by David Michod and an invaluable historical source. It centers around Henry V, a king that was admired by England and through David Michods portrayal, turned into a legend as he recreated his glorious lead in the Battle of Agincourt against the cruel Dauphin. This adaptation of Henrys life, however, is inaccurate when reconstructing the past, while loosely interpreting real events into the plot, much of the movies storyline isnt factual and was dramatized, moreover, made up for entertainment, therefore verifying its disvalue when reconstructing the past.
David Michod presents Henry as a young morose teenager, who devoted to being everything his father despises. Rather than taking up his responsibility as a prince and learning to become a member of royalty, he is shown to be a troubled, hedonistic youth, drowning himself in alcohol and waking up to a new woman every morning. Especially at start of the film, where in his opening scene he is asleep and has to be hassled awake, seemingly unlike the actions of a stereotypical prince. This perspective is limited in showing his extensive history of war as Henry was actually heavily involved in his fathers court and fought several of his battles. Vita Henrici Quinti, a biography written by Tito Livio Frulovisi during the late 1430s, states that Henry was a fervent soldier of Venus as well as of Mars; youthlike, he was fired with her torches . Then, after describing the battle of Shrewsbury, writes in the midst of the worthy works of war, found leisure for the excesses common to ungoverned age . The film never shows this side of his teenage years, instead, paints his and his fathers relationship as one of hate and alters the events of the Welsh rebellion by having Henrys brother lead it. The reliability of the film is decreased due to this narrow perspective as its clear the false depiction of Henry was created to entertain the audience rather than inform. David Michod clearly prioritized entertainment over historical recount as he changed Henrys character to portray the story of a troubled, self-indulgent boy who was forced into becoming a king, when in reality Henry was always a respectable member of the royal family. Conclusively, The Kings inaccurate representation of Henrys personality belittles the perspective and reliability of the film, therefore diminishing its value when reconstructing the past.
The lack of value in the The King as a historical source continues to be evident during the lead up and events of the Battle of Agincourt. The film presents Henry as a peace-loving king who is reluctant to rush into war with France, only doing so after receiving a provocative gift and an assassination attempt from the Dauphin. In reality, the Dauphin was not nearly as big of a trickster as the film makes him. Henry actually declared war on France as he sought out power and glory. According to Trevor Royles Lancaster Against York: The Wars of the Roses and the Foundation of Modern Britain, the real Henry thought he was divinely ordained to carry out Gods great work . Henry believed he was entitled to conquering France, humbling the powerful nation with display of military might and continuing a battle that began with his great-grandfather Edward III who had staked a claim on both the French and English thrones. Additional inaccuracies of The King are evident during the Battle of Agincourt. The films depiction of the rivalry between Henry and the Dauphin is at its core towards the ending of the movie. Several scenes show their conflict face to face, including the Dauphins closing scene where he and Henry battle each other. However, all of these were created for dramatic effect and to capture the attention of the audience. The Dauphin, according to an article on Screen Rant was nowhere near Agincourt at that time & a year later, it was reported that the Dauphin was actually with his father in Rouen, a good 95 miles away from the site . The perspective of David Michod is inadequate in showing the truthful events of the Battle of Agincourt. His false portrayal of the relationship between Henry and the Dauphin, which was realistically close to nonexistent lowers the The Kings reliability as a source as the scenes shared between the two characters were made up. Furthermore, the incorrect depiction of Henry as a harmonious king lacks in retelling his thirst for power, which was the real reason for his declaration of war on France. The depiction of the Dauphin was also questionable as he wasnt actually at the Battle of Agincourt, let alone did he have a duel with the King of England. Due to the unreliability of The King and its narrow perspective of the Battle of Agincourt, it is clear that it cant be considered a valuable source when reconstructing the past.
Ultimately, The King is an invaluable source in reconstructing events of history due to David Michods carelessness for historical accuracy and priority of entertainment value. These issues resulted in limited perspectives and unreliable scenes that were made up for the purpose of appeasing viewers, therefore diminishing the value of the source and twisting Henry Vs teenage years and reign as King of England.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.