Shakespeare in Cambridge

From 7-11 March, at the Cambridge Arts Theatre, the Marlowe Dramatic Society put on a production of Shakespeare’s “Richard III”, the Wednesday performance being preceded by a public discussion on the subject of King Richard and the play. The members of the discussion panel were Dr Rosemary Horrox, a historian and friend of the Society, Dr Janet Bottoms, a specialist in English literature, Tom Cornford, the play’s director, and myself, representing the Society. The meeting was chaired by Dr Jean Chothia. After Tom had spoken about his interpretation of the play, we took it in turn to comment and to give their own thoughts about the play, its relevance at the time it was written and its relevance today. That it was written as propaganda was dismissed, since at the time that Shakespeare was writing, this was the story that was popularly believed to be true. Today, of course, we know otherwise. All agreed that the play was more a study of society and one man’s alienation from that society - the Richard of the play had set himself apart - “I am myself alone”. While this would not seem unusual to us today, when we all need our “own space”, such a concept would have been unknown in medieval and Tudor times. Given only half an hour for the whole meeting, there was little time to discuss anything in depth and things were just getting going when it was time to stop. However, the panel were able to come to a unified conclusion that shakespeare’s play is a great piece of drama but it isn’t history.

There had been some questions from the audience, but these were mostly about previous performances, rather than the content and meaning of the actual play.

After the discussion, the rest of the audience came in and a nearly full house sat down to watch the performance.

The young cast certainly gave it their all, and it was, for the most part, an enjoyable production. The text had been heavily cut, the play lasting just about two hours, which was disconcerting as one waited for well-loved lines which didn’t appear. The set was made of scaffolding poles and corrugated iron, relying on lighting for special effects, though it was difficult to work out the significance of the constant stream of smoke that drifted across the stage continually, whether the action was indoors or out. Costume was basically modern dress, with most people wearing dark colours. Elizabeth Woodville’s pale blue coat and the Duchess of York’s long white dress were exceptions. Also, there were few, if any, distinguishing props to help differentiate between the characters and with some people taking four or even five parts and with two young women playing the sons of Edward IV, there was great potential for much confusion at times. How people who were seeing the play for the first time coped with this, it is hard to imagine.

Will Featherstone, who played Richard, made a fine fist of one of Shakespeare’s longest roles - and fist is probably apt. Throughout the entire performance, his left arm was bound up against his body, inside his shirt, leaving a dangling empty sleeve, tied in a knot.

The producer, Tom Cornford, formerly an assistant at The Globe and now freelance, had chosen to interpolate a number of flashbacks from “Henry VI, Part III”, and this may have been a mistake as it broke up the flow of the action. Even the best known “winter of discontent” soliloquy was interrupted - twice. Throughout the play, these flashbacks, and others, were used to hammer home the message. Whenever one of Richard’s ‘crimes’ took place, the victim would recall the lines from Margaret of Anjou’s ‘wrangling pirates’ prophecy and then the queen herself would reappear to repeat them, too. Looking around the audience at half time, there was no-one who gave the impression of being unable to recall what had happened less than an hour before. 

It was a very energetic production - even the dead of Bosworth weren’t allowed to lie still. Having been shot, they lay down and rolled to the back of the stage in order to rise and come forward to be killed again, and this was to bring us to the ultimate anticlimax  - the death of Richard. Having offered to exchange his kingdom for a horse - it will be a very brave director who cuts that line - Richard disappeared, and a few moments later, the lights came up on the stage, and a bundle was thrown down from a platform above the action - the battle was over and Richard had become a roll of carpet! Having kicked it, Richmond gave his “uniting the white rose with the red” speech and the play was done.

The play is a good bit of theatre, and it’s fun to compare different producers ‘takes’ on certain aspects. I was pleased to have seen it. This production had had some nice touches, as well as being well played. Certainly, the members of the cast deserved to take more than the single combined curtain call that they got.

My thanks go to the organisers for asking the Society to take part in the discussion panel and for letting us watch the play afterwards. It made for an interesting and enjoyable evening, and as someone who had been in the audience for the discussion was to ask me afterwards, it was most definitely not one of the worst productions I have seen.

Phil Stone