The First Part of Henry the Sixth

'King Henry VI' is one of Shakespeare's longest and the story of it one of his most complex and most mature, and while not one of my favourite plays of his (maybe because other plays are more familiar to me from studying them in school , so namely 'Macbeth', 'Much Ado About Nothing', 'Othello', 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' and 'Antony and Cleopatra') it is still very interesting and has memorable characters and quotes. Every Shakespeare play is worth getting acquainted with, even the lesser known/performed or more controversial ones, the same can be said for this.

As has been said by me more than once with reviews of other productions of the series, although the BBC Television Shakespeare is not a series where all the productions of all of Shakespeare's plays, its interest point and one of the main reasons to check the productions out (especially when available competition is limited), are consistently great, for me a vast majority of the productions are well done to excellent. 'Henry VI' is the second of only two plays to be split in performance for the series in more than one part, the first being 'Henry IV', this review is for the series' production of the first part and the production fits in the good category on the whole. It more than makes do as a production of a not-often-performed play.

Will admit to not being the biggest of fans of the production values, well the sets really, even with the more abstract look which had the potential to make it more interesting it did look drab and under-budgeted. Not the most appealing or interesting productions to look at from personal tastes.

The staging at times could have opened up more, as parts are on the stagy and static side so there are a few dull patches. Ian Sayor mugs his way through Charles, as does Julia Foster, and Brenda Blethyn, complete with a jarring accent, until her poignant final moments is too pantomimic as Joan. A shame as Joan is a fascinating character in the play, one of the stronger Shakespeare female characters in my view.

Conversely, am going to be one of the people to defend Peter Benson. He is too old for the title role, but brings a lot of authority and sincerity to it. It is him and the remainder of the cast that makes 'The First Part of King Henry VI' worth watching and elevates it significantly to a better level. It was an intriguing and brave move having most of the cast doubling roles, and they do very, very well bringing contrasting personalities to them. David Daker is the most consistent of the actors doubling, where he is equally effective in both roles, especially as Vernon. The cast standouts though are a thoughtful David Burke, Tenniel Evans (in triple roles, and at his best as Mortimer), Trevor Peacock as rousing Talbot and particularly Bernard Hill's chilling Duke of York.

Felt that the costumes were at least tasteful and were more appealing on the eye, while the staging is on the most part done with a lot of spirit and thought, avoiding being cluttered or having overblown speactacle that would potentially swamp the drama and there is enough momentum and action to avoid the static trap (on the most part, it is not completely avoided). The emotional impact is there and a lot of it is to do with Shakespeare's writing being so good and that the cast speak and act it so wonderfully. The camera work has enough intimacy while not being too restricted.

Summing up, has its flaws and there are far better productions in the BBC Television Shakespeare series but a well done production on the whole. 7/10

Absolutely hooked, a real page-turner. Each scene is a gem and I really can't see how anyone could portray Henry VI better than Peter Benson. Your heart just aches for him. Brenda Blethyn is also excellent as a cunning Joan of Arc (and her accent is a Yorkshire one - not Cockney as a previous poster has claimed). The reason for this - I assume - is to portray her humble origins to an English audience. Her fight scene with Trevor Peacock's Talbot had me rolling in the aisles, " I'll chastise this high-minded strumpet!" I also like the simple set, which makes the complex story easier to follow. Better than Footballers'Wives as far as mass market entertainment goes.

The BBC TV Shakespeare hadn't a lot to spend on settings, and none could be more basic than this, with rickety doors representing the gates of Orleans and other cities. There's also a lot of doubling, which means that, e.g., Tenniel Evans as the French general reappears within seconds as the brave Duke of Bedford. Yet the complex plot is unravelled with wonderful clarity, thanks to fine speaking which does full justice to the young Shakespeare's verse, shrewd casting and Jane Howells' spirited direction. Trevor Peacock's staunch Talbot, Frank Middlemass's baleful Wichester/ Cardinal Beaufort and David Burke's sturdy Gloucester, Lord Protector, stand out. Joseph O'Conor, veteran Derek Farr and Bernard Hill are excellent, and if Brenda Blethyn as Joan La Pucelle is too much the pantomime principal boy, she goes movingly to her terrible end. Peter Benson seems rather old for the supposedly youthful King Henry, but speaks beautifully. I can hardly wait for Part 2 (like this, now available on DVD).

Opinion is divided as to whether William Shakespeare's King Henry VI, Part 1 is the first-composed of a three part series or a prequel to a two-part play written earlier. There is also speculation that the play was written in part by other authors or not by Shakespeare at all (mostly because of its vicious treatment of Joan of Arc), but that kind of speculation is not limited to this particular play. Ratcheting up the feeling of patriotism after the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, William Shakespeare's King Henry VI, Part 1 is unabashed Tudor propaganda and a reflection of the Lancastrian point of view. As a propaganda tool, it is meant not only to unite England behind Queen Elizabeth against foreign threats but to remind the English that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Covering English and civil affairs toward the end of the Hundred Years War, Part 1 covers events from the funeral of Henry V in 1422 to the death of Lord Talbot in France at the Battle of Castillon in 1453 and concludes with the marriage of the young King Henry VI to Margaret of Anjou. It has been pointed out that this play, as well as other history plays, present a muddled view of history, and most do not credit Shakespeare with using Holinshed and Hall's Chronicles as anything but a tool to further his dramatic imagination. In fact, Shakespeare may have rearranged the chronology of events so convincingly that today his versions of history are often mistaken for what actually occurred.

Marred by ludicrous casting decisions in the BBC Time-Life version from 1983 that put the 64-year-old Peter Benson as the 21-year-old King Henry VI and Brenda Blethyn, a 37-year old British actress with a pronounced Cockney accent as the 19-year-old French peasant warrior Joan of Arc, Jane Howell's film version of King Henry VI, Part 1 is true neither to accepted history nor to Shakespeare's vision. Since the King was a young man, the BBC moguls concluded that he must have been soft spoken, effete, and ineffectual and Peter Benson was chosen as the man for the job. Likewise, Ms. Blethyn portrays Joan of Arc as a prostitute and a witch, the way Shakespeare wrote her character.

When she is captured and brought to trial, she denies her common-born father saying she was conceived of richer blood, and then argues that she is a virgin, and then that she is pregnant, finally attempting to name three different fathers. Joan's dramatic entry into the war at Battle of Orleans is considered a turning point for the French and she was ripe fodder for English writers until the time she was canonized in 1920. Though in many respects this particular performance leaves much to be desired, there is some masterful writing, especially in the Temple Garden scene when York and Somerset declare war on each other, and, even in this much maligned production, there is much to be esteemed.

Shakespeare is always great (even Titus Andronicus is great).

This version -- or rather, this imagining -- of Shakespeare is horrid, however. It's embarrassingly low-rent. For what should have been filmed as "the definitive productions of Shakespeare," the first tetralogy are pathetically presented in a horrid avant-garde style that may have worked on a short-run on stage, but filmed for all time just make one embarrassed that this was the best they could do.

Fie, FIE, Aunty Beeb, and fie on the director and set designer and costume designer.

It makes me weep that THIS is what they did.