The First Part of Henry the Sixth

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).

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.

'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.

Part of the trilogy plays about the reign of Henry VI by William Shakespeare, this production of Henry VI Part One introduces many of the principal characters involved in what later became the War Of The Roses. The character of Henry VI who is played by Peter Benson was the center of a lot of forces moving around him that he could not control, nor did he care to try.

Talk about the apple falling far from the tree Henry V, mighty military leader, victor at Agincourt, conqueror of France who even usurped the succession to the French crown as well who died quite suddenly when this Henry was a mere infant. His mother Catherine of France who his father appropriated as a bride as a spoils of war never went back to France. Instead she married a near do well knight named Owen Tudor and had some kids with him. The descendants of that marriage also came to rule England, but that's getting ahead of ourselves.

Henry VI had no interest at all in conquest and military matters. He was a scholar and devoutly religious. The main thing his reign is known for is the founding of Oxford College. As a minor at this point his two uncles, brothers of his father ran the realm. The Duke of Bedford played by Tenniel Evans was the regent in France and the Duke of Gloucester played by David Burke ran things at home in England.

And there were cousins galore because way back in the last century Edward III had a number of sons and the descendants of all of them eventually got to scrapping in the War Of The Roses over who would be ruler. The characters in that struggle are all introduced here.

Two things happen in Part One that are the main features of this play. The first is the story of Joan Of Arc who in Shakespeare's work is not quite the saint that future writers make her. Or that French legend has here. Remember Shakespeare was ever the English propagandist and Joan La Poucelle as she is called here is presented as the town tramp who was calling on the black arts for French success. Brenda Blethyn plays her here and this is one the Bard's great parts for women.

The second thing is also to do with a woman. For retreating and ceding conquered territory to the Dauphin Of France, a French duchess is given as a bride to Henry VI. Margaret Of Anjou is not a main character here, but English audiences in the 1590s when this play was first presented knew well of her role in the War Of The Roses. Julia Forster plays her here, a timid, but at the same time resolute woman who is looking forward to being Queen of England.

This is a good production as all the features of the Bard that the BBC did back in the day. A lot of people are Tudor fans, but personally I think nothing matches this period for double dealing intrigue.