Over the past three years we have seen the unprecedented rise of Timothée Chalamet in Lady Bird, Beautiful Boy, and Call Me By Your Name – all critically acclaimed films. This year, the Oscar-nominated actor blesses us with his interpretation of Henry V in David Michôd’s The King. The historical drama is based on a series of Shakespeare plays called ‘The Henriad’ that follow Henry V’s ascension to the throne as he grapples with betrayal and war – notably in the Battle of Agincourt. While England returns victorious, Michôd certainly does not as he fails to offer new insight or originality to an already exhausted plot line.
Though we can admire Michôd’s efforts to produce an inherently violent ‘mud, blood, and guts’ film, it is Chalamet’s mesmerising performance which is – dare I say it – flawless. His distinguished talent is far superior to this mediocre, underwhelming production.
The film fails in many ways. First, the only way The King would ever surpass Branagh’s or Olivier’s adaptations of Henry V would be through a strong cast. While we have already established Chalamet’s dazzling acting abilities, Robert Pattinson is horribly miscast as The Dauphin and his poor attempt at a French accent only triggers ridicule and mockery in the cinema. The major downfall here is that in want of a strong cast, Michôd has overlooked the fact that a less-known French-speaking actor would have executed the role with more finesse and integrity. In this way, Lily Rose Depp’s performance as Catherine de Valois offers an impressive and elegant contrast.
Secondly, the film offered nothing innovative to other historical retellings. Michôd’s attempts to bring originality are limited to the comedic scenes of Joel Edgerton’s character (John Falstaff) which, along with Chalamet’s scenes are what provide true momentum to the plot.
Finally, Michôd’s real downfall lies in his confusing and conflicting approach to the film. The film is divided into two sections which fail to complement one another. The first half explores Henry’s personal development to becoming a publicly admired King while the second half centres around the mayhem of Agincourt. Chalamet’s Henry acquires presence and gravitas as the film progresses, however, his character development diminishes toward the middle of the film as the action takes over. The poignant scene where Henry is forced to confront the reality of who is spared from the slaughter at Agincourt and who is left to die is a pivotal moment in Henry’s evolution as King. Unfortunately, its importance is overshadowed by the shambolic chaos of the battle.
There is no doubt that Timothée Chalamet wears the true crown in this film, and it would come as no surprise to me if David Michôd misses out on his crowning achievement in the upcoming awards season.
