Following the recent
finding of the remains of King Richard the Third beneath a car park
in Leicester I thought I would look back on a production of
Shakespeare's 'Richard III' that I was involved in 2008. It was
directed by Cynthia Marsh for The Lace Market Theatre in Nottingham
and Richard was played by Chris Ireson. Although still of some
playing length the play was cut and the dress code a mix of modern
and Elizabethan styles. It also played in repertoire with a play
called
Terrorism by The Presnyakov Brothers with a translation bySasha Dugdale and this was directed by Martin Berry.
The links were
the emotion of fear and the chaos and friction that irrational and
real fear cause. Some of the cast in Richard III were also in
Terrorism. I was not so brave to commit myself to both plays in one
week and quite content to gets to grips with the Shakespeare, thank
ye all the same.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7635c/7635c9ae5808b7d0cdf1a55fbcf43011e7076658" alt=""
The casting for Richard
III was for over fifteen actors who often played multiple roles: I,
for example; played Derby (Lord Stanley), a gentleman, a citizen,
Rivers (brother of Elizabeth; Lord Mayor, Tyrell, Surrey and, to add contrast a bit of humour, a very
camp Bishop of Ely.
One young man, new to
the theatre and never seen again afterwards, played Grey, Lovell, a
guard and one of the murderers and decided that, unfortunately, due
to a vigorous bought of projectile vomiting, he couldn't make our
last performance on the Saturday
matinée.
His mother phoned in just one hour before we were due to 'go up'
(start the
matinée
performance) and so the rest of the cast frantically busied around
sharing his roles between them. Thankfully his woeful acting skills
weren't up to much and he had very few lines, therefore we were able
adjust and to get by without him. I think it leant to a much more
pacey show! There was certainly a sword sharp edge to the
performances that afternoon. We told some friends who had been to see
the show and they said they couldn't tell that we had an actor down.
There's no business like show business as they say.
To paraphrase Cynthia,
the director, she felt that the two plays presented during this
exciting week were disparate; one late 16
th Century, one
20
th Century; one presenting a violent King the other
presenting modern day violence in all its forms. She said that
'Richard the Third propagandised the founding of the House of Tudor
to Elizabethan England beset by its own succession worries. Terrorism
locates violence and bullying in the routines of contemporary life:
travel, sex, work, gossipping and the banter of the changing room.'
Source: programme notes.
Interestingly, the very
unusual fact that we had two plays running together during our week
long run echoed an almost bygone age of repertory theatre and like
our Richard III actors playing several roles, seemingly effortlessly,
(historically, known as the sweating lords for very good reason as,
like us, they ripped off one costume and donned another set of
clothes and identity) they would also have played several parts in
Rep. Given the massive amount of Shakespearean text our Richard and
the cast had to learn and perform this was no mean feat!
Some interesting things
about the play Richard III generally.
-
Shakespeare's main
source for the play was the historian Raphael Hollinshed and
Shakespeare's (strongly Tudor influenced) portrait of Richard took a
great deal from Sir Thomas More's work, History of King Richard
the Third.
-
The ruthless ambition
and semi satanic moral code given by Shakespeare to Richard were
intended to make the usurpation of Henry VII (grandfather of Queen
Elizabeth) seem necessary. Remember that Shakespeare's company needed
the financial and royal support of the Queen to exist. The plays
written could not afford to be seen as anti Queen Elizabeth or of her
line. Heads would roll!
-
Some modern day
defenders of Richard (the man) believe that Shakespeare's portrayal
of him as Richard Gloucester and King Richard in the play are unfair.
Alas the play's popularity and continual success in the theatre and
in film continues to convince people that he was evil, manipulating
and violent.
-
Richard III shows off
some of Shakespeare's early formal verse at its best. The
extraordinary scene where Richard woos the ultra reluctant Anne (act
1 scene II ) gains many of its effects by means of its clever use of
parallel, quasi sing song constructions. “Was ever woman in this
humour woo'd? Was ever woman in this humour won?” Despite
initially hating him, Anne is won over by his pleas of love and
repentance and agrees to marry him. When she leaves, Richard exults
in having won her over despite all he has done to her, and tells the
audience that he will discard her once she has served her purpose.
Nice guy! Poor gal!
-
Other
courtly women in the play hate the manipulating king more and more as
he plots the murders of children and adults alike on his rise to
corruption and power. The distraught Queen Margaret exemplifies this
point in her famous speech lamenting the existence of King Richard
and his terrible deeds: we join the speech at it's climax here:
Queen
Margaret: ... No sleep close up that deadly eye of thine, unless it
be while some tormenting dream fright's thee with a hell of ugly
devils! Thou elvish-marked, abortive, rooting hog! Thou that was
sealed in thy nativity the slave of nature and the son of hell! Thou
slander of thy heavy mother's womb! Thou loathed issue of thy
father's loins! Thou detested...
Richard:
Margaret.
Queen
Margaret: Richard!!
-
In the play, Clarence
dies after Richard is named Protector (how ironic!): in reality,
Clarence died five years beforehand. Here and elsewhere William
Shakespeare the playwright took historical liberties to dramatically
construct his play.
Famous critics have
said:
“Crimes are Richard's
delights but Macbeth is always in agony when he thinks of them”
(Thomas Whately)
“The hump... the
conscience, the fear of ghosts, all impart a spice of outragousness
which leaves nothing lacking to the fun of the entertainment, except
the solemnity of those spectators that feel bound to take the affair
as a profound and subtle historic play.” (George |Bernard Shaw)
“There is another
peculiarity of the present drama which ought to be mentioned – the
frequent use of the curse, it is a terrific weapon and is employed
here with terrific violence. (Denton J Snider).
My recommendations in
books and films:
Year of the King by Anthony Sher: I
read this back in the 1980s and it is a very accessible record of
Anthony Sher's acceptance of the role of King Richard for the RSC and
Barbican and his journey as an actor to discover another way of
portraying the crippled king with the ghost of Laurence Oliver's well
known depiction of Richard III on his heels. This terrific book is also
illustrated with Sher's wonderful sketches and drawings. Highly
recommended.
Richard III: The 1996 film
with Sir Ian McKellan playing the title role is set in Britain in the
1930s and offers yet another slant on duplicitous evil. In this
version civil war has erupted with the House of Lancaster on one
side, claiming the right to the British throne and hoping to bring
freedom to the country. Opposing is the House of York, commanded by
the infamous Richard who rules over a fascist government and hopes to
install himself as a dictator monarch. The film is severely edited
for text but gives a very clear depiction to Richard's rise to power
and his downfall through violent means. I would encourage anyone to
watch this as a lesson in film acting and as an encouragement to
delve further into the play itself.
Looking for Richard starring Al Pacino: A documentary style film about Al Pacino's quest to find the inspiration to play the role of King Richard III.
Lace Market Theatre production photographs by Mark James. Copyright.