Pues me ha gustado mucho. Los cambios de nombre y títulos de los personajes a veces despistan, pero me sigue fascinando este teatro en el que todo lo hace la imaginación y nada los recusos técnicos de escena. Aquí Shakespeare utiliza la historia del desdichado rey para plantear un buen montón de temas interesantes: ¿puede una buena persona ser buen gobernante? ¿qué papel deben tener los nobles y consejeros del rey? ¿el honor o el interés personal o familiar está por encima de los del país? ¿la debilidad justifica la rebelión?

En realidad, esta obra son tres, publicadas por separado e imagino que también representadas de forma autónoma. La primera parte se centra en la niñez del rey, que no aparece en escena, y asistimos al final de la Guerra de los Cien Años, con la intervención decisiva de Juana de Arco (presentada como una bruja, claro) y la derrota inglesa. En la segunda parte, el rey Enrique, un joven poco dado al gobierno y mucho a la mística (a veces un poco tontaina, la verdad) deja que sus nobles le dominen y no es capaz de solucionar de raíz las disputas que darán origen a la terrible Guerra de las Dos Rosas. Por fin, la tercera parte narra el principio de esta guerra, con sus vaivenes, con la reina Margarita actuando copmo auténtico caudillo y con la muerte ignominiosa del pobre Enrique, con lo que la casa de York pasará a ocupar el trono inglés. Así, de paso, me he enterado un poco de la turbuenta historia inglesa de finales de la Edad Media que, en definitiva, seguramente era lo que Shakespeare pretendía de sus espectadores.

Ya digo que me ha gustado la agilidad de la acción, incluso a veces la demasiada ligereza con que los personajes cambian de bando. Ahora recuerdo la escena en que están ante el rey de Francia la reina Margarita y el embajador del rey Eduardo IV, ambos intentado conseguir la alianza francesa para su causa, y cómo el embajador, duque de Warwick, cambia de bando al dejarle Eduardo en ridículo cambiando repentinamente de idea sobre con quién casarse (le había enviado para proponer a Luis el matrimonio con su hermana). Es una escena muy rápida pero en la que se ve la fuerza de los sentimientos; por una vez, uno piensa que, en la realidad, habría actuado exactamente igual que el personaje, que cambia de bando de forma casi instantanea. ( )

2021
Part One: https://www.librarything.com/topic/328037#7422238
Part Two: https://www.librarything.com/topic/330945#7473121
Part Three: https://www.librarything.com/topic/330945#7502897
(reviews at LibraryThing pages linked) ( )

Henry VI pt 1

Pretty good. Perhaps on a second reading, or if I get the chance to watch a performance I might appreciate this more. If action were enough to satisfy me this would earn four stars, but I need a character I care about, and Henry VI pt 1 failed to provide any really notable characters. Talbot could have been the guy, but he never gets fleshed out. Joan has potential, but, again, remains flat. Suffolk shows “slimy villain” promise – maybe he'll develop in Pt. II?

The Archangel recording of this, which I listened to while following along in the text, is marvelous. The battle sounds, death gasps, etc. all make the action very clear.
____________________________________________________________________________

Henry VI pt 2

A step up from Henry VI Pt 1. This has all the rip-roaring action and, unlike Pt 1, this one has some entertaining characters. None of them are lovable or, even, truly memorable, but Margaret's sleazy manipulations of her sweet but dim husband, and Suffolk's lust and outrageous arrogance are pretty funny, and York's crafty ambition makes a nice foil for Henry's placid limpness. Richard is shaping up nicely, and I look forward to seeing more also of Warwick and Young Clifford in Part 3. The play's ending would be impossibly abrupt and unsatisfying if I were not planning to go immediately on to Pt. 3, but that was the case in Pt 1 as well. 3 1/2 stars, rounded up to 4.
__________________________________________________________________

Henry VI part 3

Okey doke! Now this is more like it! In Part 3 we get rousing action and great characters! Plus, more dramatic death scenes (I count six, where the person dying gets an exit speech, though there might be more) than you would imagine it was possible to cram into a three hour play.

Spoilers ahead.

Queen Margaret and Gloucester (Richard III) come in neck-and-neck for the title of Most Fiendishly Evil Character. Gloucester is ahead by one murder, but Margaret carries around a napkin soaked in young Rutland's blood in order to be able to rub it in his father, York's, face so I give her some credit for that kill too. Richard is ice cold, but Margaret becomes positively operatic in her demonically furious tirades. Joan of Arc, back in Part I, was practically demure next to her. Richard is deliciously sly, but Margaret is utterly shameless in her self-serving hypocrisy, raging in Act 5 at Edward, Clarence, and Richard for killing a child (her son) despite having gleefully taunted York with his young son's death in Act 1, and also in rallying her troops in passionate support of a husband she scorns. In any other play, Clifford would hold the title of Most Evil, but here, while putting forth a fine, workmanlike effort, he lacks the pizzazz of his rivals and comes in a humble third.

One thing that surprised me was the way in which Henry VI, previously a pious but uninspiring “wet noodle” sort of character, here, in Part 3, becomes quite sympathetic. Not that you want him to be king – heck, even he doesn't much want that – but you can't help wishing Margaret and Warwick would have just left him alone and let him wander off to live quietly somewhere in the boonies, with his books and his beads. In some ways he reminded me of Richard II, only with much less ambition and greed. I guess it's the sadness and the introspective speeches. Well, and the fact that I watched a version of Richard II with David Tennant as Richard, and Tennant read the part of Henry VI in the Archangel recordings I listened to while reading the Henry VI trilogy. That certainly contributed to the impression. Anyway, in a play with a real shortage of “nice” characters, Henry doesn't have much competition.

This earns a solid 4 stars, and now I'm on to Richard III, where I'm looking forward to seeing a bit more of Edward IV's clever new bride, Elizabeth, and, of course, the diabolical Richard! ( )

I read part one of Shakespeare's "Henry VI" a month ago and didn't enjoy it all that much. I'm happy to say that parts two and three are not only far better than the prequel but stand on their own as excellent reads.

Both parts two and three mainly focus on squabbling over the throne-- Henry VI inherited the crown from his father when he was just nine months old... he is relatively docile and gives away hard-won territories to France in negotiations with for his bride. This causes the Plantagenets to rise with a vengeance with various schemes for taking the throne.

The action is really great in these two plays and there is terrific dialog as well. Thoroughly enjoyed these plays (and probably would have rated them higher if part one was not also part of this volume.) ( )