The Second Part of Henry the Sixth

This is one of Shakespeare's earliest and weakest plays, but that doesn't excuse this production. The two leads (Peter Benson as King Henry and Julia Foster as Queen Margaret) are intolerable. Benson has some excuse, since playing a weak and useless king (who was in fact insane) makes it difficult to avoid acting weak and useless. Julia Foster, however, seemed to avoid acting altogether, in favor of simply glowering throughout the entire play. (In Part I, this made male characters' infatuation with her simply ridiculous). As usual with the BBC Shakespeare, however, most of the minor characters are well-portrayed; with, however, the exception of Ron Cook as the future Richard III, which bodes ill for the sequels.

As was regrettably fashionable at the time, the production is minimalist while the directing is over-done, especially some of the later battle scenes. But when the leads and the director get out of the way, some of the Shakespeare shines through.

While not one of my favourite plays of William Shakespeare (perhaps mainly because of only getting acquainted with it fairly recently), 'King Henry VI' is still very interesting. It is one of his longest and most mature, and has memorable characters and dialogue. The above quote is only one example of great lines and there are stronger contender admittedly for best lines, this was pick quote out of the hat-like really. Even when Shakespeare was not at his very finest, all his plays are worth getting to know, some with limited available competition on DVD/VHS.

The BBC Television Shakespeare series is interesting, for having productions of all of his plays and for seeing fine actors that were already experienced in Shakespeare or were early on in their careers, even if it is also not a consistent one. Most are decent to brilliant, though it is not without its disappointments (the weakest as far as the previous productions of the series go being 'A Midsummer Night's Dream'). '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 second 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 and another play where DVD/VHS competition is far from large, another available version being the adaptation as part of 'The Hollow Crown' series.

Am beginning with the good things, having started with the bad things in the review for the also good if not great first part. Of which this production of the second part is a marginal improvement on, having not liked Brenda Blethyn's interpretation of Joan (personal opinion of course and probably not shared with some) and she is not here.

It's the cast that makes 'The Second Part of King Henry VI' worth watching. Some people have problems with Peter Benson in the title role, am going to continue being one of those in defense of him. He is too old for the title role, but brings a lot of authority and sincerity to it. 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. Found the cast standouts this time to be Trevor Peacock as an absolutely terrific Jack Cade, David Burke's thoughtful Gloucester and Bernard Hill's chilling York. Ron Cook also makes his first appearance as Richard III, before he became king, and it's a promising one. Paul Chapman fares strongly too as Suffolk.

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). Jack Cade's commanding rebellion scenes are indeed among the stirring scenes of the series. 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.

However, am still not one of 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.

Julia Foster's Margaret also came over as insipid and like she didn't want to be there.

Summing up, another good if not great production. 7/10

The War Of The Roses gets going in Henry VI Part 2. But before that we are treated to a treasure trove of intrigue that would make the Tudors and The Borgias blush.

At the end of Henry VI Part One Peter Benson as Henry and Julia Foster as Margaret Of Anjou are wed. They are brought together by the Duke Of Suffolk played by Paul Chapman who has a very good reason. There's a good chance that he and Queen Margaret were kanoodling behind the Duke's back. It was rumored about later on that the son Margaret had was Suffolk's and later his parentage was questioned by the Yorkists.

But Suffolk is only one of the nobles who are intriguing against stout old Duke Humphrey uncle to the King and formerly his regent. Seems that Humphrey kicked out his first wife, paid off the church to annul his marriage and illegitimatize his children. He took what we now call a trophy wife who liked to dabble in the black arts and she gets set up good and proper and arrested by those out to blacken Humphrey's reputation. David Burke is the old Duke and Anne Carroll is the trophy duchess Eleanor.

While all this is going on the Duke of York who long ago felt he ought to be king as his lineage is better and the present king is an idiot. He's watching all this and when on an expedition to Ireland he turns the troops over to his personal use and loyalty and lands claiming the crown. Helping him out and Shakespeare plants the distinct hint that Bernard Hill as York may have fomented some domestic rebellion. In 1450 The Jack Cade rebellion started with Cade presented as a rather thuggish sort claiming both royal lineage and a plan for social reform that Karl Marx would have found too radical. Trevor Peacock as Cade who sees popular opinion sway with the breeze is who you will most remember from this production.

About 20 years of history is compacted into 3 and a half hours. But the characters do hold your interest. We also see Queen Margaret put the backbone into the Lancaster cause as Henry would rather be either in church praying or in the library studying.

Back when this was first on television, at least on American television the historical plays were presented in chronological order. So audiences saw how the House Of Lancaster under Henry IV usurped the throne from Richard II and then saw the great warrior King Henry V defeat the French at Agincourt and almost take over France. Then in these first two parts of Henry VI we see how he's just not in the same mold as his ancestors.

The War Of The Roses truly deserves a mini-series, I hope the BBC did one or will do one that we across the pond can see. In the meantime this is a fine production of Henry VI Part 2.