At last, the final part of of “Henry VI”, a moment I have been waiting for. Is this anticipation the result of a great and amazing story? I wish, but unfortunately I just want to get it over with since the 1st part was only decent, and the second was awful. I have little faith in this part being any better, so just getting it over and done with and move on is the best I can really hope for at this point.
The big problem is that English history is full of infighting and hideous politics that just doesn’t translate to an interesting story. It’s hard to get in to a story when the characters not only fail to interest you, but when you find yourself wishing they’d all just throw themselves on their own swords and be done with it. The 2nd part yielded no real protagonist, but rather a bunch of antagonists fighting and scheming against one another. Since the cast of characters remains much the same, I can’t say I have much hope that this third part will redeem the first two.
Story
Well, Shakespeare went and did the impossible. He managed to make me hate English history even more than I already did. Infighting and politics and scheming from a bunch of leaders that are all egomaniacs just doesn’t make for interesting history, and definitely doesn’t make for a good play. The actual history at least has some interesting elements to it, but this play rendition of that history has absolutely none. Shakespeare’s version is obviously not historically accurate, but he unfortunately decided to take the crappiest parts of that time in history and leave out the rest. The end result is simply an awful play that had its moments at the start, but quickly became a chore by the 2nd part.
The biggest problem with the play is that everyone is a villain aside from Henry VI himself, and he is actually hardly a factor in the storyline at all and makes few appearances. The focus of the play is on the York faction which consists of the Duke and his sons and those loyal to them, and also the Lancastrian faction which is primarily controlled by the Queen and her son. King Henry himself is basically just caught up in the midst of it all and is more or less a victim of the actions of the two factions. It’s pretty much a lose/lose situation for King Henry and he makes it quite clear that he understands that.
Henry does manage to come to an agreement with York where he will be allowed to finish his rule and the crown will then pass to the York faction. Unfortunately the egotistical forces at play make short work of that agreement and war erupts once again. The wars themselves aren’t even that interesting as they’re portrayed in the play. At least this time they’re not all completely one-sided in one factions favor where one act sees the death of a large chunk of the cast, but that still does little to augment the rest of the faults.
On the Lancastrian side you have the egotistical Queen and her son who are less than thrilled with the agreement with York, since it means the young Prince will not inherit the throne. At least Cliffords role is somewhat justified since the York faction slayed his father and I actually see revenge as more justifiable than declaring war for the sake of ones pride and ego.
The York side isn’t much better since it’s all about the Duke of Yorks belief he should be King, even though his actions demonstrate he doesn’t deserve the station. He is killed though and his sons take up his claim, though they are even less deserving than he was. In fact, while York is the one that made the agreement with Henry, it is his sons who again push him to bloodshed and war instead of the peaceable agreement he made. This only proves them to be bloodthirsty swine and shows York to be a dishonorable fool who again proves he doesn’t deserve the throne.
Edward seems to act like a child and seems more concerned with pride than he does with what is right. Richard is a schemer and Clarence is a dishonorable turncoat. They’re all hypocrites though, since they despise Clifford and claim him to be a bloodthirsty force of evil for killing members of their family. Sure, Clifford did kill their father and brother, but their father also killed Cliffords father and was the first one to draw blood. It seems hypocritical to claim someone to be outright evil and vile when they were in fact the first victims of the blood feud that your own father began.
The lack of any decent characters isn’t the plays only problem. It also jumps all over the place, going nowhere at one point and then taking 20 steps forward in a single leap. One moment you have peace and then a few lines later you’ve got war again. At least this time there were only a few useless scenes, although a number of other scenes still played out far longer than was necessary.
At its core though it is simply a play that consists of the wicked fighting the wicked, and in the end no matter the outcome the wicked are still going to win. It’s hard for me to really get in to a play like that simply because it’s hardly even a tragedy. A tragedy would at least have a protagonist that might die in a bittersweet fashion or make a difference, but that’s not even the case here. Instead it’s just a political play full of warring ego driven morons who turned England upside-down in an effort to stroke their own ego’s and boost their pride.
Characters
Here is the plays biggest failing. If it at least had interesting characters it might have been more enjoyable. The worst part is that Shakespeare seemed to go out of his way to villainize nearly everyone except for King Henry, despite the fact that King Henry was scarcely even in the play except when it was necessary to victimize him again. The only part of the play where he really shined and had a strong presence was the very scene where he was finally slain.
Queen Margaret is a powerful force in this play. In the previous play she was more in love with Suffolk than a powerful force and schemer, but Suffolk isn’t a factor now and she plays the role of the leader of the Lancastrian’s. Shakespeare still paints her as a wicked person and definitely doesn’t do her any favors. While the last play had her play the role of Suffolk’s vile little pawn, now she becomes a bloodthirsty and egotistical Queen that will drag all of England in to war rather than concede to her husbands accord with York.
The Duke of York has a small role in the play since he is killed off early. This time he does come to an agreement to spare England war and still reclaim the throne for his line and gains a little redemption. Unfortunately his sniveling children argue to convince him to go back on the agreement and again fight for the crown now. It matters little since Margaret’s forces then arrive and lay siege to his castle, but they were likely set to go to war again anyways.
Edward is York’s eldest son and the King that “succeeds” Henry VI. He often acts like a child who unfortunately holds the lives of thousands of his countrymen in his hands. He also foolishly courts a widow who has come to reclaim her dead husbands land, practically blackmailing her in to marrying him. This act eventually pisses off his allies, brother and the country of France since members of his court were trying to win the sister of the French King as his bride. Edward shows little sense of how to run a country or care for people, and is portrayed as someone who is primarily concerned with himself.
Clarence is the second eldest son of York, and comes across as a dishonorable turncoat. He initially turns on his brothers due to Edwards dishonorable actions when he marries the Lady Grey in spite of Warwicks attempts to win King Lewis’ daughter for him. I can respect that somewhat since he’s standing up for what’s right and for Warwicks honor, even though his motives aren’t quite that positive since he is courting Warwick’s daughter. Unfortunately he turns on Warwick later and is largely responsible for his defeat and death. To be the cause of the death of his wifes father is an incredibly dishonorable and disgusting thing in my opinion, and is actually one of the historically accurate elements of this play. Both Clarence and Warwicks daughter deserve no respect from me, since he is largely responsible for his death, and she remains with him in spite of him killing her father.
Richard is the youngest of the three relevant sons of the Duke of York. There is a fourth younger sibling that is killed by Clifford early in the play as an act of vengeance against the Duke of York for the death of his father, but he only factors in to a small degree. Richard is a schemer who is on Edwards side, but is actually constantly scheming against his brother to get the crown for himself. This eventually occurs down the line, although that portion is past this plays end. The villainy of this character is no surprise since he is considered a villain in real history as well, famous for being the King that is suspected of having Edwards heirs slain so they would not be able to take the throne when they came of age. He is one of the few in the cast that is still often truly seen as a villain in history as he is in this play.
King Henry himself plays a small role in the play, usually in short scenes lamenting the current circumstances of being victimized by one of the two factions. He finally presents himself as a strong individual in his death scene where he argues with Richard and prophesies the bloodshed and pain he will cause. It’s a tragic end to a tragic character that was really the only protagonist in the play, although his role is primarily that of a victim of stronger wills and egos. In reality history is not as kind to Henry VI as he is generally considered to have been insane and generally incapable, so in this rare instance Shakespeare actually did a historical figure a favor instead of making them a villain.
Writing
The writing is not much different than the first two. Shakespeare still manages to demonstrate his talent as a wordsmith who can write great lines and good verse. There’s not a lot that I have enjoyed in these three plays, but I will say that one positive aspect is Shakespeare’s writing and how smoothly it reads in these plays. I would have greater praise if the subject matter was more worthwhile, but sadly this good writing was wasted on subject matter not worth the effort.
Of course, some of that is Shakespeare’s fault. I may not be a huge fan of English history of this period, primarily due to all the infighting and civil conflicts caused by leaders more concerned with their own egos and pride than they were with the countries welfare. Still, there are some intriguing elements and events in that time period, but Shakespeare failed to really capitalize on that. I kind of got the impression that he was more concerned with battles and making certain historical figures look bad than he was with presenting the more interesting events from that time in history. The plays could have explored the subject matter much better than they did, and that would have worked better with the good writing Shakespeare presented in the actual lines.
Closing Comments
Well, my first foray in to the histories has not been a good one. This is still not nearly as bad as “Troilus and Cressida”, which still holds the crown as the worst Shakespeare play I have read so far, but I would say it likely takes the second place behind it. In this instance it’s not really Shakespeare’s writing and how he laid won the words that became a problem, but rather how he set about exploring the subject matter and how he presented that on the page and stage. It’s not the best time in history for a great play, but it still had a lot more potential than Shakespeare made us of.
I’m hoping the coming histories are more interesting than this. I still have some hope since this is generally considered to be his weakest play in the histories so there is still the possibility the rest will be enjoyable. Still, I know one of the plays focuses on Richard when he is King, and I also know that play continues portraying him as the villain. I’m hopeful there will be a protagonist in that one instead of just another round of antagonists fighting antagonists. Still, what worries me the most is that all of these historical plays will be pseudo-tragedies like this one only without the more intricate story of his actual tragedies, which definitely does not do it for me. I guess I’ll find out if there is hope of improvement or if I’m doomed to hate the histories soon enough.
© 2010, Keonyn. All rights reserved.
Tags: Barnes and Noble, Historical Fiction, Shakespeare, The Yale Shakespeare, William Shakespeare
