The Second Part of King Henry the Fourth, including his death and the coronation of King Henry the Fifth

As the saga of Henry IV continues in Part II, we see surprisingly little of the King as played by Jon Finch. The rebels who were not part of the battle that insured his crown in Part I are busy plotting away again to possibly get another insurgency going. And Prince Hal who came to his father's aid and literally saved his life on the battlefield and killed Hotspur in single combat has fallen back on his dissolute ways and conniving with people in low places, chiefly an old braggart Sir John Falstaff.

Henry's got three other sons so the succession for the House of Lancaster is assured, but his oldest Prince Hal as played very winningly by David Gwillim is back doing his drinking and wenching and lowdown behavior as we saw him in Part I. Second eldest son John Of Lancaster seems more fit for the job of king, but it's the future Henry V that is in line. Of such rivalries kingdoms have fallen apart and eventually this one does, but not for another 20 years or so.

Anthony Quayle's Falstaff is seen here as a bit more a shady character than he was in Part I. He's got a few things cooking and he has hopes that when Hal becomes king he will remember his bosom companions of his partying days. What a shock Quayle is in for.

Though he's seen less Jon Finch really comes into his own in the title role. Henry IV is getting older and very conscious of his mortality and worries about his kingdom if his idiot son succeeds. A bit of promise shown in Part I seems to have been overtaken by Hal's desire to party and party. In Finch we see a portrait of a man in physical and mental agony and maybe questioning did I really do the right thing by usurping Richard II. Finch played this character in the three successive plays and we see him grow and change in the role. It's one of the biggest strengths of the BBC Shakespeare series.

This play comes a bit short of the excellence of Richard II and Henry IV Part I, but it's still outstanding theater as presented to us by the BBC.

The movie has a really good cast that understands its lines and knows how to speak Shakespeare. From the realistic performance of the dying King Henry, to the characteristically bumbling Falstaff, to the brave and valiant Prince Hal, I thoroughly enjoyed their performances.

This version is surprisingly good as a stand-alone movie - although it is based completely on the play (a third part out of four), it manages to give the viewer an understanding of what was before it and what is to come. It helps to know the background or have read the play, but I didn't find it necessary to read along to their lines in order to understand what was happening.

I most enjoyed the scene of the death of the King and least enjoyed the idiotic messing around of Falstaff - but I have to give credit to the director; those were the very feelings I had about the play. Overall, it manages to be more than a decent interpretation of Shakespeare and a good way to spend two hours of your time.

The DVD, though, is not so great: the sound is pretty bad, the chapters are arranged annoyingly, and it occasionally flickers (not due to my player). I recommend watching the VHS, an inherently inferior format though it mostly is.

Several people have commented on the strong performance Jon Finch gives in the BBC versions of Richard II, Henry IV pt. 1 or Henry IV pt. 2. On first watching I thought Finch an odd choice as Bolingbroke opposite Jacobi's Richard, since Richard needs to have the more elegance and grace of the two for the play to work well. But Jacobi manages an effeteness that works surprisingly well against Finch's robustness. As the play goes on, it's Finch's nuanced performance that catches the attention. He sustains the performance powerfully and subtly through the 3 play sequence - interestingly, a previous commenter saw King Henry as focal point of the Henry IV plays with Falstaff and Prince Hal at the margin, a reversal the usual critical take on the play and the impression it makes when read. Individually each of the plays have excellent performances (Jacobi's Richard, Gray's York, Quayle's Falstaff) but it's all three taken together that achieve the extraordinary, with Finch's development from calculating ambition to success that fails to satisfy to diseased and guilt-tormented disillusionment, at its center. This is one of the more memorable Shakepearean performances I've seen on film. As for production values ("stagey" comments), though the budget was low it was spent in effective ways, excellently researched and executed costuming and simple, but appropriate, sets. Production and acting are "stage"/technique-y, but this works with the plays' larger than life characters and language especially the rhymed verse of RII. These actors speak the difficult language admirably. The three plays, along with Measure for Measure and perhaps Hamlet, are the best in the BBC Shakespeare series, all in all.

The BBC Television Shakespeare series is fascinating for seeing so many talented actors and seeing the plays, familiar and not so familiar, adapted and performed relatively faithfully on the whole. Some are better than others, with not every performance in the series working and there could be issues with low budget production values and in some productions stage direction.

When it comes to the best productions of the BBC Television Shakespeare series, to me 'The Second Part of King Henry the Fourth' is also among the best like the first part. The first part had more momentum perhaps, a few lapses in it later on here, but the character development is richer here, the drama just as poignant (that death scene, sob!) and the comedy even funnier, making the second part every bit as good. Even with excisions, the drama and action is still coherent and doesn't feel disjointed. Have enjoyed to loved most of the BBC Television Shakespeare performances though, but it was lovely again to see one of Shakespeare's best mixes of comedy and drama done so beautifully and those not familiar with it will find themselves educated.

It is visually a solid production with attractive enough costumes and sets that have authenticity, while not elaborate or lavish the action feels opened up and not confined. The use of music was lovely, couldn't question any of the placements and it is lovely music in its own right.

On a stage direction level, it is one of the main reasons as to why 'The Second Part of Henry the Fourth' is another one of the series' best. It is always absorbing, and it is agreed that it mixes both comedy, which is again very funny and often hilarious (not feeling overdone either), and drama, which is poignant. Not only because the energy is never lost, it's never static (even the more action-oriented scenes), it is always tasteful with no pointless touches and that it never resorts to overblown excess that swamps everything else.

Also because of the subtleties and the details, big and small, where the characters are so well fleshed out motivations are clear and everything seems to happen for a reason and not randomly. Although Henry is seen less here, his development is one of the most striking assets and is very believable, not rushed at all.

Jon Finch commands the title role beautifully and with remarkable nuance, never is there uneasiness. Even better is Anthony Quayle having the time of his life as Falstaff while David Gwillim is movingly conflicted as Hal, Hal's development is another high point. All the roles are well filled but especially these three.

To conclude, excellent and just as good as the first part. 9/10 Bethany Cox

It's remarkable that the 2007 reviewer has characterized this production as "unabridged." From beginning to end, large portions of the text have been omitted from this production. Some of the excisions are well-judged, whereas quite a few others are dubious; my main complaint about this otherwise excellent production is that so much of the text has been left out.

One other complaint, which applies to Part 1 as well as to Part 2, is that Anthony Quayle was not fat and was in that respect decidedly unsuited to perform the role of Falstaff. His acting in that role is superb, but all the jokes about his huge girth are peculiarly incongruous -- as a result of which the humorousness of Falstaff is attenuated.