English 144: King Henry V

I find the prologue of each act very helpful in understanding the truth of things. The prologue gives the full view of what is truly happening. I think without the prologue, everything would be lost and the true intentions of characters unknown. This might make things more interesting or it could just upset the audience. This is why I found it so interesting when in class Andy said that versions of this play have been printed without the prologue. I wonder if the audience gets lost, do they find everything more confusing or interesting, is there any affect at all? So much changes without the prologue though. Take the first act for example. Because of the prologue, we know the churchmen’s true intentions for trying to get King Henry V to go to war with France. Without it, all background information is taken away from us. The audience will be led to believe something completely different, that the bishop is truly trying to help King Henry V stay in power by going to war. It is interesting how something not much thought of can change so much. I would like to see how the audience took in the same play but without the prologues and compare that to the audience who saw the play with the prologue. Maybe there is no real difference, maybe the same message gets across in the end. I do not know.