Abstract
The paper presents a discussion of the male characters in both plays and then constructs a comparison between the two plays in terms of the father/son relationships therein.

From the Paper
"Polonius and Laertes, on the other hand, are portrayed as opposites in character. Although the play sees more of their relationship in the play, the viewers/readers cannot conclude that a happy relationship exists between the two of them. Laertes is a good and trusting son, who obeys his father unconditionally. Polonius, meanwhile, is a suspicious character that perceives his son as an alcoholic and womanizer. Polonius' distrust in his son was seen at Act Two, Scene One, when he ordered his servant Reynaldo to spy on his son Laertes at France. He even went to the extent of making Reynaldo tell a lie by telling the Danes (Denmark people) that Laertes has full of vices to affirm if Polonius' suspicion is true. Laertes, a man who left in good faith that his father bids him well, is unknowingly "stabbed at his back" by his own father because of Polonius' suspicious nature. Although Polonius' has not been a good example for his children, Laertes showed unconditional love for his father when he returned to Denmark to avenge his father's death wherein Hamlet was the murderer. In the end, both Hamlet and Laertes died, two men who sacrificed their lives to give justice to the death of their fathers."

Tags:Polonius, Laertes, Reynadlo, denmark

From the Paper
" William Shakespeare's Henry V and Kenneth Branagh's movie version from 1989 are certainly similar works, because they derive from the same text, yet by looking at the basic play and the movie's mise en scene it is possible to see that Branagh has used the Bard's words to serve his own images in bringing out a contemporary message.

Branagh's film version is not the celebratory work that Laurence Olivier's 1944 British motion picture was: Olivier directed and starred in this movie as the English and the Allies were close to victory against the Germans. Branagh is true to his generation and their anti-war sentiments that were created during the Vietnam War of the 1960s. Therefore, the recent movie version shows the real price of war--the violence and bloodshed.

Abstract
Honor, the central theme in Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part 1, is embodied primarily in the two main characters. This essay compares and contrasts the concept of honor as lived by Hotspur and Prince Hall, making frequent use of quotes to substantiate claims. Other characters, King Henry and Falstaff, who Shakespeare finds useful in this major treatment of honor, are also discussed.

From the Paper
"One of the main themes around which Shakespeare dramatizes the history of his country in The First Part of King Henry IV is honor. To the Elizabethans honor was a major topic of debate as it had been to Englishmen of all ages. Honor is a complex subject, highly personal to some, highly public to others. Honor can be something for which one quietly stands, or about which one shouts in flowery language. The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast some of the various forms taken by honor as represented in Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part I."

Tags:falstaff, hal, hotspur, prince, Shakespeare, Henry, IV, honor, Elizanethans

Abstract
This paper discusses how Shakespeare's characters always cause us to wonder, and how, in his play, "Henry IV Part I", it is interesting to consider how Hotspur and Hal's lives would have been changed had they become friends. It looks at how, certainly, both would have benefited greatly from the experience. Hal could have taught Hotspur to relax and enjoy life a little bit more, and Hotspur could have taught Hal how to be more serious about life, especially his duties as prince. By examining both characters, it shows how we can easily see how each character's weaknesses and strengths could have contributed to a friendship that may have achieved peace in a different way.

From the Paper
"On the other hand, Hal is slow to move toward his position as prince. He prefers to spend time in the tavern with Falstaff and our first impression of him is that he is quite lazy. He has fun with his friends and even repays the travelers the money that was stolen from them. In essence, Hal does not seem to want to grow up. This is most obvious in the scenes at the tavern. Hal seems to be aware that the happiness he finds at the tavern is something he will not or cannot find in a courtly life. He can also be himself there. He can drink and have fun. He tells the others, "I am now of all humors that have showed themselves humors since the old days of good man Adam to the pupil age of this present twelve o'clock midnight" (II.v.82-4). Although we have no problem understanding why Hal likes his life at the tavern so much, we also realize that Hal is not exactly eager to fulfill his duties."

Tags:falstaff, friendship, prince

Abstract
This paper compares the use of rhetoric in two of William Shakespeare's most famous soliloquies: The "To be or not to be..." speech in "Hamlet" and the "St. Crispins" speech in "Henry V". The goal of the paper is to compare the sincerity in each given the character speaking and the context in which the soliloquy is delivered. Hamlet is contemplating suicide. King Henry is trying to motivate his outnumbered army.

From the Paper
"Although a read of Shakespeare's "To be..." speech from Hamlet and a read of his "St. Crispins" speech from Henry V show similarities in the use of rhetoric, an examination of the context of each speech hints at more sincerity in the former than in the latter. This is not to say that young Hamlet doesn't show his own share of deception throughout the play; however, in this particular speech, he is wrestling with all that he has had to endure with the death of his father and the implication of his uncle and mother in the crime. Often referred to as the most famous speech in English literature, Hamlet's "To Be..." speech is an internal exploration of the dilemma he finds himself in the midst of the mystery of his father's death."

Tags:compare, rhetorical, speeches

Abstract
This paper takes a look at how Shakespeare shows his audience the noble and ignoble nature of honor and chivalry in the behavior of the play's main characters Henry Percy, Henry Prince of Wales, Sir John Falstaff, and King Henry the Fourth. An examination of "Henry IV" shows how Shakespeare demonstrates these 16th century values of honor and justice to his audience.

Tags:honor, elizabeth, I, england, virtue, valor, glory

Abstract
This paper looks at how in the play "Henry V", Shakespeare presents a portrayal of an ideal king and discusses the qualities that he possesses. It examines how Shakespeare uses the story as a tool to depict the qualities that an ideal king would possess and how he does this by showing Henry different situations to see Henry reacts to them. It also analyzes how Shakespeare also contrasts the difference between a good king and a good man since at time Henry is forced to do things for the good of the country that would in normal situations be considered wrong, unjust and immoral.

Outline
Introduction
Transition: Prince Hal to King Henry
Learned
Just
Merciful
Charismatic and Inspiring
Focused and Dedicated
Heroic and Brave
Problems
The Man Behind the Crown
Conclusion

"Henry V" is not the only Shakespeare play that focuses on Kings and their qualities. Shakespeare, in his historical plays, has examined many different types of leaders, from Richard II, whom he shows to be a weak, indecisive king, struggling to keep control, to Richard III, portrayed as a homicidal tyrant who never let anything or anyone get in his way.

From the Paper
"In "Henry IV part II" we see the prince Hal as unruly, wild, out of control, and with friends that would certainly not be considered good enough for a future king. However, at the beginning of Henry V King Henry is respectable, learned and completely different to his former self, they could almost be considered two different people entirely. The transition between these two different personalities is never fully explained, but it seems that the catalyst was his father death, and thus his inheritance of the throne and the responsibility of being King. Henry is forced to become a good king because the country needs a good king, and Henry is loyal to his country."

Tags:prince, hal, agincourt, harfleur

Abstract
The paper argues that the marked disparity between the directors' representations of the enemy in "Henry V" highlights and epitomizes the different socio-political perspectives of the two films. The paper discusses how Olivier's film delineates a historical epic and patriotic propaganda film, while Branagh's film captures a realistic and alleged anti war viewpoint. The paper goes on to show how the directors' manipulation of the French enemy shapes not only how the audience views and interprets Henry's project but also his character. The paper illustrates how to achieve their contrary visions, both directors altered Shakespeare's text, deleting or reassigning lines and characters whilst skilfully exploiting the resource of the camera to evoke the desired audience response.

From the Paper
"As with Shakespeare's text, the central conflict in both films remains between the English and the French, yet a very different image of England's enemy emerges in these two films. Our first glimpse of Olivier's French court reveals a scene seemingly designed as a static tableau reminiscent of medieval manuscript illustrations, such as those produced by Limbourg of Les Tres Riches Heures du Duc be Berry (Loehlin:1996:37) in the fifteenth century, and thus contemporaneous with the Battle of Agincourt. Olivier's mis-en-scene is lavishly dressed and costumes are sumptuous and colourful, creating visual charm for the audience. Lack of character movement and the use of mid and long-range camera shots frame the pictorial effect of these scenes."

Tags:propaganda, patriotism, anti, war, Dauphin, Montjoy, French

Abstract
This paper looks at the similarities between Shakespeare's "Henry V" and Machiavelli's "The Prince", and the concept of the perfect king. The two plays are discussed, and the concept that either Shakespeare is drawing his inspiration for his dramatization from Machiavelli or that both Machiavelli and Shakespeare have similar ideas of what the ideal ruler would be.

From the Paper
"In Henry V, Shakespeare presents Henry as the ultimate ideal of kingship. The only question is where does this idea of a perfect king come from, and after reading Machiavelli's Prince and Henry V one begins to note similarities. Not the least of which is the passage quoted above, a true Machiavellian manoeuvre. In this passage, the governor of Harfleur, the French city under siege by Henry's troops, has refused entrance to the army of Henry. As Machiavelli says, "it is wiser to have a reputation for meanness which brings reproach without hatred, than to be compelled through seeking a reputation for liberality". Therefore, Henry, following this advice of Machiavelli, does exactly that, and frightens the innocent people of Harfleur into opening their city gates through the sheer grotesqueness of his command. We frequently see these similarities between the actions of Henry, at least through Shakespeare's portrayal, and the recommended actions of a good prince, as documented in Machiavelli's The Prince. Therefore, one might draw the conclusion that either Shakespeare is drawing his inspiration for his dramatization from Machiavelli or that both Machiavelli and Shakespeare have similar ideas of what the ideal ruler would be."

Tags:england, european, italy, kingship, leadership, machiavelli, relations, renaissance, rulers, shakespeare

Abstract
The essay attempts to determine how far the character of King Henry in Shakespeare's play, "Henry V", uses rhetoric to communicate what is true, or whether in fact he uses language to simply flatter his listeners with what they want to hear. The paper further attempts to show how far King Henry uses rhetoric as a method of manipulation in order to achieve his goals.

From the Paper
"Henry, like his father (and very unlike Richard II) is aware that the power of language can be used as a valuable political device. He uses his skill as a rhetorician to achieve success as a leader. He has the capability to change his emotions according to the situation, therefore adapting to the audience he wants to persuade. Similarly Othello's Iago uses rhetoric as a powerful tool of persuasion. Through words he is able to convince Othello of his wife's unfaithfulness, thus playing a major part in her murder. With Iago's extreme dishonest use of rhetoric, the question remains; how honest is King Henry V?"

Tags:rhetorical, ability, inspire, awaken, followers, intimidate, enemies, governor, harfleur