The King (2019)
Review of The King (2019), directed by David Michôd
I remember when this movie first came out about three years ago, and man I’m surprised already that it’s been three years already. Man, it’s 2022. It feels like we first saw Timothee Chalamet in Call Me By Your Name, which is what launched his stardom, for the first time in 2017.
Anyways, I remember specifically the hype around this movie and cringing back then because it didn’t look too great. I honestly didn’t know anyone else who was in this movie, so, in the end, was pleasantly surprised to see Joel Edgerton and Robert Pattinson (with the worst French accent I’ve seen in awhile) appear in this one.
I did, however, know that this was movie that got Chalamet and Depp dating. Can count on me to know random gossip about celebrities I don’t really care about.
It took me three years, but I finally sat down and watched this. It came at a perfect time, since I just finished reading this massive biography of one of the major consequences of the events depicted in this film: the devastating War of the Roses in England. While this film is specifically based on the Shakespearean plays surrounding this era (read more about that here ), it isn’t really true to historical accuracy nor the Shakespeare plays.
Which is okay if you don’t care about that. I honestly wouldn’t have figured out this wasn’t true to the literary source material, but I begin noticing the historical inaccuries. But it’s fascinating to see content from this time, as it was so brutal and ugly. And guess what? We get that in this film.
Onwards with the review!
In the early 1400s, King Henry V has just risen to the throne after his father’s death.
Our main protagonist on this film is Henry, Prince of Wales, who is just about to become the King of England. Depicted by Timothee Chalamet in the strangest bowl haircut that’s both admirable and quirky, we quickly learn that Henry doesn’t really care about acquiring the throne despite being the eldest son.
In fact, his father doesn’t want his lazy and incompetent eldest son to be on the throne, either, and decides that his younger brother is going to get the throne. After a ballsy act in which Henry upstages his brother by killing the rebel his brother was after, the brother then proceeds to die in battle.
And guess what? We no longer have a choice in who gets the throne. We’re stuck with our dearest Henry, who doesn’t seem too charming at this point in the film. And conveniently his father dies soon after, so Henry becomes Henry V.
What’s interesting about our Henry V historically is that he’s known as one of the greatest medieval kings in English history. His father and he definitely had their issues, but Shakespeare also had an interesting take on his life. It’s said he wasn’t actually quite the youth that we see in this film and in the Shakespearean tradition, as he seemed to be more military-inclined when he was a young man.
He was indeed leading the military on the Hundred Years’ War battles, and he actually became the heir to the French throne because of how he conquered the French territories during this time.
Our Henry in The King honestly isn’t very likable. After that rough introduction of who he is, he doesn’t have any redeemable qualities outside of his military tactics. We see a [historically inaccurate] plight against one of the French dukes for the rest of the film, which then leads to the real-life Battle of Agincourt.
It is here we meet Robert Pattinson as the French Dauphin who sent Henry a kiddie ball at his coronation, and my god do I have to applaud Pattinson here.
This isn’t one of his finer moments. I often think of this review on Letterboxed that just says this: “Hearing Robert Pattinson tell timothée chalamet that he's going to drain his blood and the whole theater laughing...the twilight era lives on.” That’s my impression of his acting performance here.
I think we’re supposed to sympathize with Henry in this part of the film. He is depicted as not wanting any of this. He likes his bed, his prostitutes, and doing nothing.
And now his brother is dead, his father dies soon after, and Henry is stuck being king. I think maybe if we had less moments on the battlefield, which is kind of hard considering what this Henry is known for, and had more moments off of it that are tender, then this must’ve struck more of a chord.
We know Henry V as the warrior king, but then what? Are we just going to continue telling the narrative of war and violence? I think it would’ve been more interesting to delve into his life outside of the war, because he died young. He died in 1422, two years after the kingdoms seemed to be merging, and his infant son was named king. And that started the disaster that was war all over again, then it escalated in England to become the War of the Roses.
Overall Thoughts
I think this film had potential, but it doesn’t really add anything productive to the themes and history it’s trying to depict. I think it’s a decent primer into the historical era this film was set in if you’re into medieval English history. This is right before the Tudor Dynasty with Henry VIII and his many wives, as well as Elizabeth I. Many often forget that the era before the Tudor Dynasty was plagued with war and devastation. The War of the Roses era is particularly brutal.
I do wish the cast was utilized better for more nuanced roles. It seemed like a lot of the characters just didn’t have any sort of fleshing out done.
We have the warrior king, the Dauphin who’s kind of an asshole, then the pretty French girl at the very end who seems to be the only voice of reason in this entire mess. There’s also major historical inaccuracy here, which is chill, but it’s insane how it’s manipulated. Pattinson’s dauphin was actually a really meek guy who was really sick. Henry V was also extremely brutal and insanely aggressive.
Well, that’s Hollywood for you.
