Is Netflix's The King a historical epic or a Shakespearean game of telephone?

Entertainment · Published 3 October 2026 Swipe more like this →

In short: The King reimagines the rise of Henry V, blending Shakespearean drama with 21st-century cinematic flair. While visually arresting, the film sparked intense debate among historians for its creative liberties. It is an adaptation of an adaptation, moving further from the 15th-century reality with every layer of artistic interpretation.

Directed by David Michôd and released in 2019, The King draws its narrative from William Shakespeare's Henriad—a collection of plays covering the reigns of Henry IV and Henry V. The production, which features Timothée Chalamet as the titular monarch, intentionally sidesteps historical documentary conventions. Instead, composer Nicholas Britell crafted a score intended to feel like a foreign planet, utilizing modern tape filters and metallic sounds to evoke the 1400s through a contemporary lens.

The film's departure from history is extensive. While the movie portrays Henry V as a reluctant warrior manipulated into conflict, historical records suggest the real monarch was an expansionist eager for war. Other discrepancies include the timeline of Prince Thomas’s death, which in reality occurred eight years after the coronation, and the depiction of the Battle of Agincourt, which ignored the strategic use of defensive stakes and misidentified the terrain. Even the Dauphin of France, shown dying on the battlefield, actually succumbed to dysentery months later.

These inaccuracies are compounded by the film's reliance on Shakespearean fiction. The character of John Falstaff, Henry’s close companion, is a literary invention, likely inspired by the historical knight Sir John Fastolf. Furthermore, the film compresses years of political maneuvering into a tighter, more dramatic arc, such as the marriage to Catherine of Valois, which took place five years after Agincourt rather than immediately following the victory. Ultimately, the film serves as a modern dramatization of a 16th-century interpretation of 15th-century events, prioritizing thematic resonance over factual fidelity.

Despite the criticism from historians, the film received generally favorable reviews, with critics praising its gripping performances and ambitious scope. It stands alongside other notable adaptations of the Henriad, such as Orson Welles's 1965 film Chimes at Midnight and the 2012 television series The Hollow Crown. By framing the narrative as a subjective exploration of power and deception, The King invites viewers to consider how history is constantly reshaped to suit the storytelling needs of the present.

General information, not professional advice. Spotted an error? Flag the card or see corrections and complaints.

Intellect Plus is a visual educational discovery platform for exploring fascinating facts and ideas. Brain Food, Not Brain Rot. What is Intellect Plus?

Related

• How accurately do Hollywood blockbusters depict the monarchs of England and Great Britain?
• The dramatic saga of Henry VIII's reign and his many wives
• How the BBC transformed Shakespeare's complex history plays into a modern television epic
• Is Shakespeare's Henry V a patriotic masterpiece or a chilling portrait of war crimes?
• How a boy king’s crown became a catalyst for civil war
• Why Martin Scorsese's most prescient film was once considered a commercial failure
• The Killing Fields: A harrowing cinematic exploration of friendship during the Cambodian genocide
• How Cecil B. DeMille turned a biblical epic into a global cultural phenomenon
• Why a television movie about hitmen became a violent, iconic piece of cinema history
• What if Pete Davidson had never become a comedian? A semi-biographical film explores.
• Why Ernest Hemingway called this 1946 noir the only good adaptation of his work
• A spy origin story that struggled to find its footing at the box office

More in Films · More in Entertainment · Latest · A–Z · All topics