The Second Part of Henry the Sixth (TV Movie 1983)

The Second Part of Henry the Sixth (TV Movie 1983). 3h 23m

“While not one of my favourite plays of William Shakespeare (perhaps mainly because of only getting acquainted with it fairly recently), u0026#39;King Henry VIu0026#39; 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.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eThe 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 u0026#39;A Midsummer Nightu0026#39;s Dreamu0026#39;). u0026#39;Henry VIu0026#39; is the second of only two plays to be split in performance for the series in more than one part, the first being u0026#39;Henry IVu0026#39;, this review is for the seriesu0026#39; 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 u0026#39;The Hollow Crownu0026#39; series.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eAm 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 Blethynu0026#39;s interpretation of Joan (personal opinion of course and probably not shared with some) and she is not here.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eItu0026#39;s the cast that makes u0026#39;The Second Part of King Henry VIu0026#39; 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 Burkeu0026#39;s thoughtful Gloucester and Bernard Hillu0026#39;s chilling York. Ron Cook also makes his first appearance as Richard III, before he became king, and itu0026#39;s a promising one. Paul Chapman fares strongly too as Suffolk.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eFelt 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 Cadeu0026#39;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 Shakespeareu0026#39;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.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eHowever, 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.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eThe staging at times could have opened up more, as parts are on the stagy and static side so there are a few dull patches.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eJulia Fosteru0026#39;s Margaret also came over as insipid and like she didnu0026#39;t want to be there.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eSumming up, another good if not great production. 7/10”