Agincourt is undoubtedly one of England's most famous battles, and Henry V one of Shakespeare's best-known history plays. Variously seen as anti-war or passionately nationalist, the play explores the difficulty of being both a lover of peace and a wager of war as Henry is, while presenting us with the usual stereotypes of the enemy, such as the "confident and over-lusty French". Both the play and British Shakesepeare Company's production carry these off confidently.

In 2003, the play was performed at the Royal National Theatre as a propaganda piece against the Iraq war. Thankfully, BSC has provided a production which doesn't over-emphasise the political parallels and is less overtly political, being staged in Elizabeth costume and without stentorian references to modern politics. As such, it develops more fully an awareness of the political situation in England at the close of the 16th century, with Elizabeth I about to die, and an increasingly worrying France looming across England's Protestant borders.

David Davies offered an outstanding performance as the Chorus, making an excellent job of an awkward and antique dramatic role, giving it energy and humour and thus illuminating the connections and structures of the play. Christopher Lewellyn, in the role of Fluellen, was equally superb, handling a Welsh accent, a cudgel and a leek with aplomb. James Alexandrou (pictured) was impressive in the role of Pistol and his exchanges with Fluellen were a high point of comic relief in the play. Also notable was Robert Crumpton's self-satisfied, petulant Dauphin, whose preference for his horse over his mistress left little to the nimble imagination.

My only serious complaint about this production was Robert J.Williamson. Although his direction was excellent, his performance in the title role left something to be desired. At the key moments, during Henry V's set pieces such as "Once more unto the breach, dear friends" or the famous "We few, we happy few", he was capable of being magnificent, but also of overacting, and he delivered a rather bathetic performance. In the spaces between, his comparatively weak delivery resulted in a rather lacklustre impression. Although Henry was a "plain king", there is no excuse for a plain performance.