Henry IV Part II (1979 TV Movie) User Reviews (9)

Quayle's Towering Falstaff

[tonstant viewer · 7/10 · 12 August 2006]

This video features a towering performance by Anthony Quayle as Falstaff that will live in your memory.

99% of actors want to be loved by the audience, even the villains. The part of Falstaff is written with so many opportunities for funny tableaux, then finishing off with a heart-rending bid for tears, that it brings out the shameless exhibitionist in just about anyone who's ever tried the role.

Anthony Quayle does something completely different. He constructs a Falstaff with top, bottom and sides, with every action and reaction motivated as something the man might do, rather than as yet another chance to seduce the audience with a cute bit of business, or as the Gaels refer to it, shtik.

Given Anthony Quayle's vinegary, often bilious stage persona, the result is a Falstaff who calculates, ruthlessly exploits all around him, relies on his charm to lie his way out of scrapes, and thoroughly deserves his humiliation at the end.

In other productions, Falstaff is often an endearing Santa Claus-like scamp who is wronged by a callous and arbitrary King (see Orson Welles in the wonderful "Chimes at Midnight"). However, as embodied by Anthony Quayle, we accept that it is absolutely necessary and understandable that Hal reject Falstaff. We feel for the rogue knight and regret his collapse, but we also know that the new King is right to do what he does. In this way, Quayle's Falstaff is remarkable.

The rest of the proceedings are not quite on this level. Jon Finch's performance as Henry IV was sturdy in Part 1, but unravels along with the King's health in Part 2. When Finch errs, he does on the side of moistness, and much his work here strikes me as squishy and sentimental. Your mileage may differ, but I grew impatient with his less-than-royal wallowing.

Otherwise, I don't know whether to admire Gordon Gostelow's Bardolph more for his acting or his makeup - either way he's quite a picture. And Bryan Pringle's Pistol seems almost more Dickensian than Shakespearean. Brenda Bruce continues to bring out the humanity in Mistress Quickly, and Frances Cuka's Doll Tearsheet is surprisingly contemporary.

Finally, an impatient note about the sound. With all the attention paid to restoring the image of a 25-year old video for DVD release, it's a crime that the quality of the audio was not remedied as well. It's not that people upstage are more distant from the microphone (which they are), it's that the volume level is all over the place, and it's difficult to find a setting that will not have you leaping out of your seat to fix roaring or whispering, sometimes both in the same sentence. Keep your remote handy.

"Uneasy Lies The Head That Wears The Crown"

[bkoganbing · 9/10 · 14 February 2013]

As the saga of Henry IV continues in Part II, we see surprisingly little of the King as played by Jon Finch. The rebels who were not part of the battle that insured his crown in Part I are busy plotting away again to possibly get another insurgency going. And Prince Hal who came to his father's aid and literally saved his life on the battlefield and killed Hotspur in single combat has fallen back on his dissolute ways and conniving with people in low places, chiefly an old braggart Sir John Falstaff.

Henry's got three other sons so the succession for the House of Lancaster is assured, but his oldest Prince Hal as played very winningly by David Gwillim is back doing his drinking and wenching and lowdown behavior as we saw him in Part I. Second eldest son John Of Lancaster seems more fit for the job of king, but it's the future Henry V that is in line. Of such rivalries kingdoms have fallen apart and eventually this one does, but not for another 20 years or so.

Anthony Quayle's Falstaff is seen here as a bit more a shady character than he was in Part I. He's got a few things cooking and he has hopes that when Hal becomes king he will remember his bosom companions of his partying days. What a shock Quayle is in for.

Though he's seen less Jon Finch really comes into his own in the title role. Henry IV is getting older and very conscious of his mortality and worries about his kingdom if his idiot son succeeds. A bit of promise shown in Part I seems to have been overtaken by Hal's desire to party and party. In Finch we see a portrait of a man in physical and mental agony and maybe questioning did I really do the right thing by usurping Richard II. Finch played this character in the three successive plays and we see him grow and change in the role. It's one of the biggest strengths of the BBC Shakespeare series.

This play comes a bit short of the excellence of Richard II and Henry IV Part I, but it's still outstanding theater as presented to us by the BBC.

No signs of uneasiness here

[TheLittleSongbird · 9/10 · 26 January 2019]

The BBC Television Shakespeare series is fascinating for seeing so many talented actors and seeing the plays, familiar and not so familiar, adapted and performed relatively faithfully on the whole. Some are better than others, with not every performance in the series working and there could be issues with low budget production values and in some productions stage direction.

When it comes to the best productions of the BBC Television Shakespeare series, to me 'The Second Part of King Henry the Fourth' is also among the best like the first part. The first part had more momentum perhaps, a few lapses in it later on here, but the character development is richer here, the drama just as poignant (that death scene, sob!) and the comedy even funnier, making the second part every bit as good. Even with excisions, the drama and action is still coherent and doesn't feel disjointed. Have enjoyed to loved most of the BBC Television Shakespeare performances though, but it was lovely again to see one of Shakespeare's best mixes of comedy and drama done so beautifully and those not familiar with it will find themselves educated.

It is visually a solid production with attractive enough costumes and sets that have authenticity, while not elaborate or lavish the action feels opened up and not confined. The use of music was lovely, couldn't question any of the placements and it is lovely music in its own right.

On a stage direction level, it is one of the main reasons as to why 'The Second Part of Henry the Fourth' is another one of the series' best. It is always absorbing, and it is agreed that it mixes both comedy, which is again very funny and often hilarious (not feeling overdone either), and drama, which is poignant. Not only because the energy is never lost, it's never static (even the more action-oriented scenes), it is always tasteful with no pointless touches and that it never resorts to overblown excess that swamps everything else.

Also because of the subtleties and the details, big and small, where the characters are so well fleshed out motivations are clear and everything seems to happen for a reason and not randomly. Although Henry is seen less here, his development is one of the most striking assets and is very believable, not rushed at all.

Jon Finch commands the title role beautifully and with remarkable nuance, never is there uneasiness. Even better is Anthony Quayle having the time of his life as Falstaff while David Gwillim is movingly conflicted as Hal, Hal's development is another high point. All the roles are well filled but especially these three.

To conclude, excellent and just as good as the first part. 9/10 Bethany Cox

The development of Finch's Bolingbroke makes R2, H4 pt 1 and H4 pt 2 superlative

[antiqat · 10/10 · 11 July 2005]

Several people have commented on the strong performance Jon Finch gives in the BBC versions of Richard II, Henry IV pt. 1 or Henry IV pt. 2. On first watching I thought Finch an odd choice as Bolingbroke opposite Jacobi's Richard, since Richard needs to have the more elegance and grace of the two for the play to work well. But Jacobi manages an effeteness that works surprisingly well against Finch's robustness. As the play goes on, it's Finch's nuanced performance that catches the attention. He sustains the performance powerfully and subtly through the 3 play sequence - interestingly, a previous commenter saw King Henry as focal point of the Henry IV plays with Falstaff and Prince Hal at the margin, a reversal the usual critical take on the play and the impression it makes when read. Individually each of the plays have excellent performances (Jacobi's Richard, Gray's York, Quayle's Falstaff) but it's all three taken together that achieve the extraordinary, with Finch's development from calculating ambition to success that fails to satisfy to diseased and guilt-tormented disillusionment, at its center. This is one of the more memorable Shakepearean performances I've seen on film. As for production values ("stagey" comments), though the budget was low it was spent in effective ways, excellently researched and executed costuming and simple, but appropriate, sets. Production and acting are "stage"/technique-y, but this works with the plays' larger than life characters and language especially the rhymed verse of RII. These actors speak the difficult language admirably. The three plays, along with Measure for Measure and perhaps Hamlet, are the best in the BBC Shakespeare series, all in all.

An excellent play and a sound interpretation of it.

[Tar-Ancalime · 13 June 2004]

The movie has a really good cast that understands its lines and knows how to speak Shakespeare. From the realistic performance of the dying King Henry, to the characteristically bumbling Falstaff, to the brave and valiant Prince Hal, I thoroughly enjoyed their performances.

This version is surprisingly good as a stand-alone movie - although it is based completely on the play (a third part out of four), it manages to give the viewer an understanding of what was before it and what is to come. It helps to know the background or have read the play, but I didn't find it necessary to read along to their lines in order to understand what was happening.

I most enjoyed the scene of the death of the King and least enjoyed the idiotic messing around of Falstaff - but I have to give credit to the director; those were the very feelings I had about the play. Overall, it manages to be more than a decent interpretation of Shakespeare and a good way to spend two hours of your time.

The DVD, though, is not so great: the sound is pretty bad, the chapters are arranged annoyingly, and it occasionally flickers (not due to my player). I recommend watching the VHS, an inherently inferior format though it mostly is.

A great continuation of the story

[alainenglish · 8/10 · 24 August 2007]

The second part of King Henry IV, and the third in Shakespeare's eight-play Histories Cycle, is excellent. Once again the usual problems abound over staginess and unabridged use of the text (this is good for hardcore Shakespeareans, yet might might alienate more casual viewers).

This story sees the decline Henry IV (Jon Finch) and the ascension of his son and successor King Henry V (David Gwillim), who must learn to mature a great deal if he is to properly inherit the mantle of the crown. All the while there is a great rebellion going on, in which Falstaff (Anthony Quayle) perpetually schemes and manoeuvres his way out of scrapes...

For me the scenes with Finch and Gwillim as king and heir held more meaning than Falstaff's squabbling. The King's "Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown" speech, the death-bed scene between father and son where the former fully determines his son's intentions with the crown and the scene immediately after where Hal takes up the throne are superbly well acted. Finch conveys the guilt and inner torment that wracks the dying King fantastically, and Gwillim makes a convincing transformation that renders his eventual rejection of Falstaff entirely natural.

It's a pity that Quayle's Falstaff, however realistically conveyed as it is, just isn't funny enough to balance out the royal intrigue, and his scenes are overly wordy and go on for far too long.

Nevertheless, this is still enjoyable and a worthy follow-up to it's predecessors.

I've learned to appreciate this Falstaff

[The-Sarkologist · 6/10 · 17 May 2013]

Upon watching this movie, in which the actors from the previous movie (if one is to consider that this is actually part two of a two part play, though there is a lot of debate over whether that is the case, which I will not get into here) come over into this film, I realised that the character that plays Falstaff wasn't actually all that bad. I guess what I like about the BBC versions of the Shakespeare plays is that they are very close to the actually play, following the play act by act, scene by scene, and line by line.

In this part Henry IV is dying and Prince Hal is coming to terms with the responsibilities of kingship. There is another rebellion in the works, and while the rebellion is basically nipped in the bud pretty quickly, the punishment to the agitators is not meted out until the beginning of Henry V. Our favourite characters do return, however the relationships have changed.

Falstaff, from the previous play, managed to steal a knighthood by claiming to be the person who slew Henry Scroop, though we know that it was Hal. However, he has not changed. At the beginning we have him trying to worm his way out of a number of commitments that he had made to the proprietoress of the Boar's Head Tavern, however interestingly enough when he does return to the tavern, he is all over another woman who has made an appearance. However poor old Falstaff is forced, once again, to go off to fight a battle (though it is interesting to note that in Henry V he all but vanishes, no doubt trying to avoid becoming entangled in the war in France. Having to participate in two rebellions is probably more than enough for him).

I am not really sure what I prefer with the Shakespearian movies though, because a lot of them bring themselves into the modern day, whereas with these BBC versions they are still very much stuck in the past. I have recently seen a version of Henry IV (which included both parts) on stage, and the setting, as well as the costumes, were very much modern day (with even rock music playing in the background). I guess keeping with the original setting does help with us understanding the context of the play, however with the idea that Shakespeare is timeless, by bringing them into the modern world helps us understand the timeless elements much more clearly as they bring them into a context that we ourselves understand.

Brilliant empathy in a shell of guilt

[Dr_Coulardeau · 10/10 · 19 November 2016]

Henry IV Part One was in many ways plot-lacking and not that dramatic. It had some brilliancy from the innovation of Falstaff and the Prince of Wales having a night life in some tavern with shady people and even some crooks, with a lot of humor in that environment, Falstaff being some kind of popular character at times gross and full of wit. I must say that Shrewsbury was slightly light to hold our attention and fascinate our interest.

But this second part of King Henry IV is quite different. We are at the end of the rebellions. The last one, that of the House of York and their archbishop has to be curbed and brought down. It is in the most vicious way. Prince John of Lancaster is leading the army. He makes the rebels believe, after a fair lesson about the archbishop daring lead a rebellion against the King, the true representative of God in England, that they will answer their demands and provide due correction to what requires some redressing, and thus that peace can be declared and celebrated with wine. The rebels are dumb enough to disband their troops who rush at once away, and then Prince John can have the rebels arrested on the spot and led into captivity for execution. True enough Prince John had not promised any pardon to the rebels, only the redress of their grievances.

This performed with little means of course we would only have Falstaff and his wit along with the Prince of Wales and his wallowing in popular mirth to carry the play. It is done with a lot of pleasure and fun, plus some marital or matrimonial suffering for the women, at times wives, of these drunkards and merry suckers. Falstaff adds some tricky situation in Gloucester where he has some "friends," or so he calls them, a certain Shallow that lives with a certain Silence, two country justices, in whose home he stops over going to and returning from the war to have fun, drink and eat. He owes Shallow some money, maybe one thousand pounds if we believe the two borrower and borrowee, So we have some hectic celebrating there. But the play would still be light.

Yet in fact the play is carried by Henry IV in his deranged sickness. He is not insane and he has not lost his memory. He remembers too well how un-lawfully he seized the crown, and he is haunted by this feudal crime that was disguised as a voluntary abdication. It is this haunting guilt that makes him sick, deranged, practically insane though with his full consciousness and memory. There the King is brilliant in his slow degeneracy from haunted to fully paranoid and psychotic in his guilt that makes him identify with the crown and thus with his crime and his body becomes the prey of all sorts of ailing because of this assumed and interiorized repentance and disgrace. Brilliant in face language and body language (essential with all the close-up images due to the fact this is a TV film, Brilliant in his language that is engrossed with all of Shakespeare's style.

This phenomenal performance is amplified by that of the Prince of Wales who rushes on the last day of this ordeal and stays with the King he believes is dead and he yields to the childish desire to try the crown on and goes to another room to strut with it in solitude. Unluckily his father is not dead and he comes back to life and finds out, with all the courtiers around, that the crown has been taken away. The Prince of Wales is brought back and he gives the crown back and there the accusation from the father, the contrition of the son and the acceptance of this confession by the father is worth a life time of good theater. These scenes are so powerful that good acting added to the great language provides the best ever, the most emphatic ever situation that becomes poignant when the King finally dies practically in front of us.

But Shakespeare then has to transform the Prince of Wales from a wild teenager who is sowing his wild oats everywhere in London into the new King straight away after his father's death in court, and he has to pacify his three younger brothers and associate them to the new power that is going to be free of any guilt since he received the crown in the best and most legal way. He does that with what sounds like love even if he is the King and they are not. He may love them after all. But he has to assert his power with the Lord Chief Justice who once, on the King his father's order, actually put him in prison. He does that with the grace and the authority of a king acknowledging the Lord Chief Justice's absolute fairness and equanimity when dealing with the ruffian he was before up to just right now.

You can imagine the joy of Falstaff and his band who believe they have won the main prize of some bingo game. They go to the coronation and in the street the king comes by Falstaff tries to attract his attention. The King's answer is a model of greatness and grace wrapped up in pure authority.

And even in this situation he promises a change of heart if they deliver a change of behavior. And he has them arrested and banished ten miles away. I must say that this play gets to some real grandeur because of these elements: the death of Henry IV and the (re-)birth of Henry V.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

fine acting all around, but too many excisions

[mhk11 · 8/10 · 28 September 2012]

It's remarkable that the 2007 reviewer has characterized this production as "unabridged." From beginning to end, large portions of the text have been omitted from this production. Some of the excisions are well-judged, whereas quite a few others are dubious; my main complaint about this otherwise excellent production is that so much of the text has been left out.

One other complaint, which applies to Part 1 as well as to Part 2, is that Anthony Quayle was not fat and was in that respect decidedly unsuited to perform the role of Falstaff. His acting in that role is superb, but all the jokes about his huge girth are peculiarly incongruous -- as a result of which the humorousness of Falstaff is attenuated.