The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0421  Tuesday, 9 May 2006

From: 		Jim Blackie <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 8 May 2006 12:46:17 -0400
Subject: 17.0412 A really powerful Richard II
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0412 A really powerful Richard II

Ellen Moody

>If you live anywhere near DC or Virginia, allow me to recommend seeing
>_Richard II_ performed by the Washington Shakespeare Theatre Group
>located at Clark Street Playhouse in Arlington, Va. Memorable
>performances by Christopher Henley as RII and Brian Hemmingsen as
>Bolingbroke. I believe it's playing through May 14th:

Well, degustibus non est disputandem.

This play probably should be seen, not because it captures the essence of 
the play perfectly, but the reverse. Rather like Richard, gazing into the 
mirror in some hope of recognition, only to fling it away and fracturing 
the glass, left only with a crazed reflection of what is real, so are we 
are similarly left with this production.

Scene 2 opens the production, with the revelation of Richard's possible 
implication in the murder of his uncle, Gloucester by a very gaunt Gaunt 
and the grieved Duchess/widow - Gloucester's body seems wrapped in plastic 
behind them. Like Law and Order, it sets the scene with the body and gives 
the rationale for the action that follows. But it starts the play NOT 
focusing on R2. That's the problem.

This problem is compounded when the accusation scene (I i) and the duel 
scene (I iii) are no longer separated by I ii. So the future duel is now 
immediate. The revelation that not only the exile remedy, but the length 
of Bolingbroke's exile was suggested by his father, Gaunt is baffling, 
now. Just WHEN was Gaunt supposed to have done this? There is no longer 
any opportunity for the consultation, as there was in the original order 
of scenes.

The inference that Bushy, Bagot and Green were (to paraphrase) 'a little 
less than kin but more than kind' regarding the king, is supported by 
Bolingbroke's accusation of Bushy and Green in Act III that:

"You have in manner with your sinful hours
Made a divorce betwixt his queen and him,
Broke the possession of a royal bed
And stain'd the beauty of a fair queen's cheeks
With tears drawn from her eyes by your foul wrongs."

We infer they'd been messing about with one another. In the current 
production we have one of the three (I think it was Bushy, but I'm not 
sure) have a quick moment alone with the Queen for a hug and a buttock 
squeeze, just to keep the thing hetero-. But this invention puts the 
spotlight on the Queen, makes her the one dallying, when Richard is the 
true (I believe) focus of this examination. Leasing away the kingdom to 
allow his to live "the good life" and for purchasing gifts for his 

The gravest of "errors" in this production is, in my opinion, the Richard 
never declines in greatness or his opinion of himself. Surrounded by 
"leather boys" straight out of Kubrick's Clockwork Orange, this thin, 
vain, haughty, sarcastic, screechy Richard never veers for long from 
himself. The rare moment in III ii when R's will to continue flags, it 
takes but a word to encourage him and he's back. There is no real moment 
when he really seeks for the man behind the King he plays. Even in the 
mirror scene he does not discover or question himself, only to test his 
powers and to taunt Bolingbroke. To the end he is shrill and demanding, 
not accepting at all of his small cell, but astonished that this has 
happened to HIM. He never grows, never becomes anything but a cardboard 
cutout of a bad ruler.

Second gravest mis-step for me is the obliteration of the chivalry, the 
courtly honor and process that kept Richard where he was. Only tradition 
and acceptance of a stable society allowed kings. What we are given in its 
stead is a post-apocalyptic nightmare land with pasty faced, lipsticked 
"nobles" in wardrobe remaindered from "A Clockwork Orange." Pool cues for 
lances, daggers/knives for swords, ladders for stairs and steps for 
thrones. Richard is a malnourished weakling motorcycle leader without the 
motorcycles, but with the gang and the Queen/Biker-Chick to accompany him. 
None of these taunting, posing toughs have a bit of honor or thought 
behind the edifice, no compassion even from the Queen who, bra-clad 
throughout the play, hops on the back of Gaunt's wheelchair as he moans 
and scoots him out of sight to die. Her sudden compassion in the garden 
scene looks all the more bizarre, for it's the only scene in which she is 
not mocking, laughing, teasing or flirting her way across the stage. This 
sudden change doesn't show growth, but it shows a depth not seen 
elsewhere, therefore baffling.

Leaving the play, one would view Richard as a preening, ego-centric little 
weasel more like the Dauphin in H5 than himself; Bolingbroke a loud 
bullying gang lord finally satisfied upon resting power from R2; York 
seemed wise and thoughtful, fair and lawful, though upon my reading he was 
nothing if not an ill-considered, vacillating stand-in for authority with 
no familial obligations greater than his role as patriot.

I came away thinking it was awful. Perhaps not. It perhaps is an 
interpretation of R2 seen through the kaleidoscope glasses of the 21st 
Century. It made me angry and it made me think through my objections. 
There were some very good actors and some not. It's worth your time only 
if you bother to know the play first. Otherwise you may never care to.

Jim Blackie

S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the opinions 
expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the editor 
assumes no responsibility for them.

Subscribe to Our Feeds


Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.