User reviews

Peter Benson as Henry VI has his reign as well as himself come to an ignoble end in the third part Shakespeare's Henry VI. The ironic thing is that left to his own devices he would have given up the kingdom in a London minute. Henry VI had he his heart's wish would have preferred being a monk and slaving over obscure manuscripts and books. The apple sprung so far from the tree of Henry V that many wondered what tree it fell from.

That was part of the problem for his valiant son Edward the Prince of Wales played by Nick Reding. Many suspected his parentage even then, that Queen Margaret might have born Edward courtesy of the Duke of Suffolk killed off in Part 2. Julia Foster really ratchets up Margaret's character who is now fighting for her son's birthright and keeping the Lancaster cause alive. If she hadn't been around about 4 battles would not have been fought.

Those battles make Henry VI Part 3 one of Shakespeare's bloodiest plays and for a photographed stage play they are presented remarkably well. The audience gets a first hand account about what war in the 15th century was all about.

As for the House Of York. Duke Richard played by Bernard Hill who raised the claim the York line had on the throne is killed early on and so is his youngest son. After that the oldest son Edward is singleminded in his pursuit of the crown. He's also singleminded in pursuit of the Woodvilles who provide him with his Queen. That upsets all kinds of arrangements that Mark Wing-Davey the Earl of Warwick who is the most powerful and wealthy lord in the kingdom has made. He turns sides and nearly costs the York faction what fought so hard for.

Ron Cook who was briefly introduced as the future Richard III in Part 2 also reveals his malevolent character in this plays. Again the BBC plays when broadcast in America were shown chronologically and with the same players. For more than anyone else in this series it allowed Cook free reign to develop his character which he took full advantage of.

In fact Cook and Foster are who you will best remember from this final play in the Shakespeare trilogy about the reign of Henry VI.

As one may gather, 'The Third Part of Henry the Sixth' is the third part of the three parter 'Henry VI', one of only two (as said before) BBC Television Shakespeare productions to be in more than one part. 'Henry IV' (both productions very good) is the other. Of the three parts, while the previous two productions of the previous two parts are well worth watching, this is definitely the best with more consistent casting, more sense of drama and the production values appeals more here.

Would put it somewhere in the top middle perhaps when ranking the productions comprising the BBC Television Shakespeare series, whereas the previous two parts would be somewhere in the middle. Cannot stress enough that the series is on the whole a must watch. Okay, it is not a consistent series and not every production is my cup of tea ('A Midsummer Night's Dream' was one of the most disappointing ones from personal opinion) and low budget is evident in some of the productions, but it is truly fascinating. In seeing casts of talented actors either very experienced in Shakespeare, with some such as Michael Hordern and Helen Mirren for examples being in more than one production, or ones in very early roles pre-stardom (i.e. Alan Rickman in 'Romeo and Juliet', another disappointment but he was one of the better things about it). For some Shakepeare plays, tending to be the lesser or least popular ones, the available DVD competition is very limited or it is the only production available.

'The Third Part of Henry the Sixth', as cliched as this sounds, is very good with many great elements. Have very little to fault actually. Did think that the staging of Warwick's final speech could have had more subtlety.

It takes a little time to get into as well, but to anybody who is initially put off by that stick with it as it is well worth it, and the problems that were in the previous two parts are not there as much here.

Found 'The Third Part of Henry the Sixth' to be the most visually appealing of the three productions, more detailed (thought the snow actually to be a nice touch and it didn't distract) and interesting and less drab in the sets, if occasionally a little too gloomy in the lighting. The camera work is very good with enough intimacy, with no gimmicks, chaos or restriction. Felt that the costumes were at least tasteful and were more appealing on the eye. Of the three parts of BBC's 'Henry VI', this is the most compellingly staged, the occasional staginess seen before solved and it feels more opened up. The action scenes have tension and the staging is spirited and thoughtful, a vast majority of it didn't go over the top and never feels cluttered and it doesn't get static or dull.

Again, the cast are the main draw and the performances are excellent across the board. Some people had problems with Peter Benson in the title role previously, am going to continue being one of those in defense of him. He 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. Julia Foster is a big surprise here as Margaret, didn't care for her much in the previous two parts (my opinion) but here she is at her most engaged and doesn't overdo Margaret's ruthlessness, no mugging here.

Ron Cook is malevolent as the future Richard III yet not in an overt way, quite subtle actually. Paul Jessop is a very strong presence as Clarence, while Bernard Hill is as chilling as he was previously. Brian Protheroe's tyrannical Edward is another standout.

Concluding, very good. 8/10

Henry VI parts I-III, followed by Richard III, are extraordinarily good plays by some guy named Shakespeare (hope I spelled his name right.)

I watch the BBC version from the early eighties over and over - ambition, lust, romance, heroism - these plays have it all, and this production is just great.

My only beef, and it's a trivial one because I am a shallow person, is in the casting of Elizabeth Woodville. Nothing wrong with the acting - it's just that Woodville was a great beauty, "the most beautiful woman in the Island of Britain." And the actress playing her, isn't.

But never mind that. It's a great set of plays. Watch it.

The two leads, Peter Benson as Henry VI and Julia Foster as Queen Margaret, are much less annoying in the final part of the trilogy than in the first two—towards the end, they even do some actual acting, which suggests that their monotones in the first five sixths of the trilogy should be blamed on the director. The minor parts, as usual for the BBC Shakespeare, are mostly well-handled, even (this time) Bernard Hill as Richard, though it's still a relief that he's replaced in the sequel. The direction is competent when it's not heavy-handed, sometimes (as in Warwick's final speech) going over the top and distracting from the play and Shakespeare's words. The production continues to be cheap and gloomy, but this only occasionally (as with implausible snow on what's normally conceived as a filmed indoor set) interferes with the play, though it never adds to it.