Back More
Salem Press

Table of Contents

Critical Survey of Shakespeare: Film Adaptations

Henry VI, Parts I–III, and Richard III

The so-called “First Tetralogy” (consisting of all three parts of Henry VI as well as Richard III) is a chronological series of plays in which each individual play leads into the next and in which the saintly if ineffectual Henry VI is ultimately juxtaposed with the evil and brutally effective Richard III. Sometimes the plays are performed together as a deliberate sequence and are discussed as such, as in the case of the 1983 broadcasts of the BBC Shakespeare Plays. For additional discussion of the tetralogy as a whole, see especially the entries on the three Henry VI plays, particularly the entry on Part I.

FILM ADAPTATIONS

1983 BBC Shakespeare Production

Directed by Jane Howell, this version of the first tetralogy starred many actors in a variety of roles, including Peter Benson as King Henry VI; Brenda Blethyn as Joan La Pucelle; Antony Brown as Duke of Burgundy; David Burke as Duke of Gloucester; Michael Byrne as Duke of Alençon; Julia Foster as Margaret, daughter of Reignier and later Queen of England; Anne Carroll as Duchess of Gloucester; Paul Chapman as Earl of Suffolk; David Daker as Duke of Buckingham; Brian Deacon as Duke of Somerset; Ron Cook as Richard III; Rowena Cooper as Queen Elizabeth; Arthur Cox as Lord Grey; Annette Crosbie as Duchess of York; Zoe Wannamaker as Lady Anne; Trevor Peacock as both Cade and Talbot; and Frank Middlemass as Winchester.

In their valuable 1988 anthology Shakespeare on Television, J. C. Bulman and H. R. Coursen surveyed and quoted from various early reviews. Thus, Stanley Wells, the eminent Shakespeare scholar, praised the BBC’s four-play cycle in the Times Literary Supplement, writing that director “Jane Howell has accepted the challenge of making the plays work in very much the terms in which they were originally composed, and has displayed great cunning in effecting the transition from the wooden O to the celluloid rectangle. In some respects,” he thought, “she embraces the plays’ theatricality,” noting that in “the first play, particularly, we are very conscious of the conventionalized setting, and it becomes a way of helping us to accept the play’s artificiality of language and action.” Wells added that as “the sequence progresses, however, a sense of reality increases, until in Richard III many of the scenes seem to take place in virtually real interiors.” Concerning the actors, Wells wrote that “Howell does what she can … by providing a wide range of physical types and, more questionably, by endowing them with a variety of regional accents. All members of the cast speak with skill and understanding; some of them handle verse mellifluously in voices whose beauty is unimpaired by regional characteristics.” Nonetheless, Wells felt that most of the “local accents inevitably create something of a plebeian impression which may seem at odds with the dignity and status of the aristocratic and royal protagonists.” He noted that “[s]oliloquies and asides are frequently and effectively spoken directly to camera; rhetoric is given with inward force rather than with theatrical expansiveness.” He particularly admired Peter Benson as Henry VI, saying that he “succeeds in making Henry both pathetically ineffectual and truly saintly. It is a delicate performance, at times permitting an amused response but never cheapening the role.” Like most other critics, Wells also praised the performance of Julia Foster as the eventual Queen Margaret in a “cruelly demanding role” (293), saying “she can be both charming and vicious, a siren and a spitfire.” Commenting on the eventual Richard III, Wells said that Ron Cook first appears as “an amorally intelligent urchin. Short, physically and emotionally tough, he presents a Richard who can feign sympathy with complete conviction and remain stoically impassive in the face of his nephew’s taunts and scorn.” But Wells thought that Cook’s performance was sometimes too understated, so that, “[a]s a result Richard III, in which he is dominant, seems almost anticlimactically sombre; not being invited to share Richard’s ironic perspective and to delight in his triumphs, we feel the more pity for his victims. It is not a virtuoso performance, but it is a legitimate interpretation, in line with the director’s overall sympathy with the abhorrence of violence and the compassion with the suffering victims of aggressive ambition and of war that Shakespeare himself is at pains to stress.” Indeed, Wells thought that the actors’ successes derived in large part from the “sustained power and imagination of Jane Howell’s direction. The method is uniformly honest, and sometimes it succeeds triumphantly, above all in the Cade episodes of Part II.” He called one scene a “real translation of Shakespeare into the medium of television” but asserted that “[o]ther stretches of the plays are more pedestrian.” Nonetheless, he argued that “the dedication with which, almost throughout the fourteen hours of playing time, Jane Howell has served Shakespeare is so admirable that she can be forgiven the indulgence of ending the tetralogy … with a sequence in which we see a pile of bloodstained corpses, hear cackling laughter, and finally see Margaret, on top of the pyramid, exultantly cradling in her arms the corpse of Richard III. It is,” he concluded, “a melodramatically simplistic conclusion to a richly varied experience” (294).

Quoting from another positive assessment—this one by John J. O’Connor in the New York Times—Bulman and Coursen reported his view that “the set itself becomes a symbol of the plays’ content, its bright colors gradually fading to a gloomy gray, its wooden slats covered with the scars of war and destruction. The blatantly theatrical device works splendidly for the purposes of television, a medium nearly always more interested in intense close-ups than in background visuals.” O’Connor noted that the actors had worked together through long rehearsals over many months, so that by the time they “faced the cameras, they were as thoroughly prepared as any stage troupe.” He felt that the “intensive preparations are apparent in the finished product, in its assurance and energy. The performances are almost always substantial, never glaringly inadequate. Some, of course, are more impressive than others. Peter Benson’s otherworldly Henry VI is a model of admirable yet infuriating piety.” According to O’Connor, “Brenda Blethyn’s Joan la Pucelle turns the Maid of Orleans into a scheming fraud whose curse is nevertheless awesome. [But if] one performance had to be chosen as outstanding, it would definitely be that of Julia Foster in the role of Margaret of Anjou.” O’Connor called her “truly formidable,” observing that the “cycle moves on, sweepingly and powerfully, to a shattering image devised for the end of Richard: perched atop a mound of dead bodies, a keening Margaret caresses, ‘Pieta’-like, the bloody body of Richard. It is a stunning coda for this admirable production” (294).

Bulman and Coursen also quoted a review of the whole cycle by G. M. Pearce, who wrote that the “huge cast was managed with a certain amount of doubling, sometimes rather disconcerting in its effect, as when Henry VI, played by Peter Benson, turned up as a priest early in Richard III after his sharp thin profile had been clearly recognized on his bier a few minutes before.” Pearce noted that the overall staging suggested “a deliberate lack of realism” and that the “same basic set was used for the four plays, but it was given a different angle in each case” (295), although he thought that the “individual plays had their own specific flavour, with the smoothest transition being from 3 Henry VI to Richard III.” Praising the colorful and often symbolically contrasting costumes, Pearce did express some misgivings concerning Benson’s Henry VI, saying that he “changed disappointingly little during the three plays. Even if the inner character remains constant in Shakespeare’s characterization,” Pearce thought that “more attempts could have been made to indicate the passing of years,” but he admired the effectiveness of Benson’s voice, especially in moments calling for an “even, mellifluous softness.” In contrast, Pearce felt that “[e]vil was the hallmark of Ron Cook’s Richard III and he drew the audience into his devilish maneuverings by the force of his magnetic personality, directed at the camera. He needed this, because although his stature and physique were very well suited to the role, he was short on personal charm and brought out little of the element of black humour. It was hard indeed to believe that the spirited Lady Anne of Zoe Wanamaker would ever have succumbed to such a runt.” Pearce continued that “[w]ith his light northern intonation and flat voice, Ron Cook did not make the most of the poetry in the role, and the opening soliloquy was disappointingly pedestrian,” although Pearce did admire Cook in the ghost scene, and, in general, concluded that the “cast appreciated the opportunity of a sustained development and were strong in their praise of Jane Howell as director. Despite certain weaknesses, only in part due to television, it was an interesting production, with a stronger sense of continuity than was possible even in the two parts of Henry IV and Henry V, also shown in sequence by the BBC” (296).

Michael Manheim also reviewed the entire BBC first tetralogy for the Shakespeare on Film Newsletter. Calling it “fascinating, fast-paced, and surprisingly tight-knit,” he reported that Howell saw “the role of King Henry on the one hand and of the emerging Richard of Gloucester on the other as set apart from the many other important characters in the plays. Her Henry is a non-political man in an era dominated by political men. He is here seen as an incipient pacifist living among power brokers who consider no means of resolving political differences other than violent ones.” In contrast, “[p]aralleling Henry, [but] at the opposite end of the spectrum, is the figure of Richard, who also pulls away from the others—this time in the direction of still greater violence and relentless duplicity.” According to Manheim, “Howell recognizes that the essential integrity of Shakespeare’s first historical tetralogy rests firmly on the polar opposition of its ‘saintly’ hero and its super villain.” Commenting that “Howell’s staging of the many battle scenes supports the inherent pacifism she sees as central to these plays.” Manheim not only noted that in Part I, “rapid reversals are conveyed by the simple device of swinging doors” but also wrote that “Howell individualizes these battles, seemingly so similar to one another as one reads them on the printed page. Each has its own noteworthy feature.” He observed that “Ron Cook has a magnificent opportunity to show the more boyish Richard, one of three rowdy brothers who seize power in England following their father’s murder. Cook,” Manheim thought, “is unfailingly at his best whenever Richard’s ‘alacrity of spirit’ and the essential toughness of his soldierly determination are called for. Quite surprising” to Manheim, therefore was “the flatness of Cook’s treatment of Richard’s famous soliloquies in 3H6 and R3” where he thought Cook managed to “get through them with the least amount of passion possible. Perhaps Cook feels they have been overdone in the past” (4). But Manheim, like most reviewers, thought that Julia Foster as Margaret was “quite sufficient to the role. Her savagery is bloodcurdling, and she gives Margaret’s curses and prophecies in the last play a Hecate-like dimension.” In addition, Manheim admired the acting of Antony Brown and Trevor Peacock in a review that was almost entirely enthusiastic (4).

Bibliography

1 

Bulman, James C., and Herbert R. Coursen, editors. Shakespeare on Television: An Anthology of Essays and Reviews. UP of New England, 1988

2 

Manheim, Michael. “The Shakespeare Plays on TV: The ‘Henry Vl-Richard Ill’ Tetralogy.” Shakespeare on Film Newsletter, vol. 8, no. 2, 1984, pp. 2, 4, and 12.

Citation Types

Type
Format
MLA 9th
"Henry VI, Parts I–III, And Richard III." Critical Survey of Shakespeare: Film Adaptations, edited by Robert C. Evans, Salem Press, 2025. Salem Online, online.salempress.com/articleDetails.do?articleName=CSSF_0019.
APA 7th
Henry VI, Parts I–III, and Richard III. Critical Survey of Shakespeare: Film Adaptations, In R. C. Evans (Ed.), Salem Press, 2025. Salem Online, online.salempress.com/articleDetails.do?articleName=CSSF_0019.
CMOS 17th
"Henry VI, Parts I–III, And Richard III." Critical Survey of Shakespeare: Film Adaptations, Edited by Robert C. Evans. Salem Press, 2025. Salem Online, online.salempress.com/articleDetails.do?articleName=CSSF_0019.