Introduction
King
Richard III is reported as being the most performed of all
of William Shakespeare’s plays. Its popularity has spread to films, cartoons,
and radio adaptations. The stage performances in recent years have been
numerous and in this section of the website we would like to capture reviews
and reminiscences of as many productions as possible. We are starting
modestly but we hope to include more productions in the future. At the
present time it is not our intention to analyse the play, and for more
in-depth views please visit out American Branch site www.r3.org/onstage/index.html
Shakespeare, however, does not have the monopoly
for representing Richard III on the stage, indeed not even in drama –
for example in the Stage Retrospective section there is a report on a
new opera based on Richard III’s life – and so we will bring you some
reviews of non-Shakespearian plays on King Richard, both professional
and amateur.
Stage Retrospective
The Society tracks references to Richard
III in the press and other media and these are published
regularly in the Society’s magazine the Ricardian Bulletin.
The
following is a selection of recent press cuttings relating
to world of the theatre, but our favourite remains the following from
The Stage, 12 October 2001.
‘Stage
impresario Thelma Holt is sitting for her portrait for the National Portrait
Gallery and confided to a friend that "I just want to be hung next
to Richard III".’
 The house |
|
The stage |
Autumn 2005
New York Times theatre
review Richard and Anne, Maxwell Anderson, 4 June 2005,
Arclight Theatre, Manhattan, by Neil Genzlinger: ‘That idiot Shakespeare
had it all wrong. There was no
treachery. No murder. No hump. That,
at least, appears to have been Maxwell Anderson’s take on ‘Richard III’
revealed now, 46 years after Anderson’s death, in a rollicking bit of
revisionism attributed to him called Richard and Anne.
Any time an unknown work by a dead playwright finds its way to
the stage, chances are it will be little more than an academic curiosity,
but not so here: the production, by Mirror Repertory’s Young
Mirror training company, is an energetic surprise. How much performance-enhancement
has been injected into Anderson’s script is impossible to tell (‘We have
made alterations to the original text for the purpose of clarifying and
strengthening the thrust of the story’ the program says) ... yet ... questions
of provenance [are] pushed aside by the intriguing story and the lively
way it is rendered by the youthful cast; several of the performances are worth filing in the I-saw-them-back-when
folder. The play opens with the
opening of a play: a theater company
is staging Richard III. But
as the hunchbacked title character begins his famous ‘winter of our discontent’
speech, odd things start to happen, and soon they are traced to Dag, a
jester who has materialized from the great beyond. For years he has listened in as his master,
Richard, was slandered, but, as he tells the astonished theater troupe,
‘that septic drip grew less bearable with the centuries’, and now he has
come back to life to set things straight.
Soon he persuades the real Richard to materialize as well, and
they tell a far different version of the story than Shakespeare did. At its heart is the romance between Richard and Lady Anne, which
is closer to Romeo and Juliet than to Shakespeare’s rendition.’
Opera, May
2005, John McCann – Belgium – Antwerp – ‘Giorgio Battistelli commissioned
by Vlaamse Opera, … a full scale dramma per musica ... closely
based on Shakespeare’s Richard III.
The work has been reduced
to about a third of its length and to 21 separate characters ... in place
of the original 45 ... A major
attraction of the play is of course the way Richard is able to laugh at
his own wickedness and share this aspect of his character with the audience,
an effect not easily achievable without the spoken word. ... the one time
the audience really laughed had little to do with either play or opera.
Richard, having hood-winked the citizens into acclaiming him as
king, called down the first act curtain, lit a cigarette, ‘noticed’ the
audience and winked. ... The playing area was covered in bloodstained sand, which was whisked
in the air by hand or shovel to reflect yet another killing. But it was difficult to distinguish one character
from another, dressed as they all were in black. The lighting ... deserves mention, not least
for the sudden blaze of fairground illumination along the rows of seats
as Richard was crowned. ... Scott Hendricks gave a particularly remarkable
performance in the title role ... and he took in his stride [the producer’s]
interesting idea that Richard’s deformity was assumed for public consumption
and was not his natural condition.’
Spring 2005
Nine to Five &
Midweek, 8
November, Adam Scott on John Caird’s
production of Anouilh’s Becket: ‘[Jasper] Britton ... his priggish,
spoilt King Henry becoming almost as deliciously likeable as Shakespeare’s
Richard III. … Anouilh plays as fast and loose with history as Shakespeare
did in the aforementioned Richard III’.
Contributed by Elizabeth Nokes
February 9 Antwerp.
George Loomis reviewed the opera by Giorgio Battistelli … which had its
world premiere the week before at the Flemish Opera with a mainly American
and British cast.
‘We know from history
that the real Richard III was nothing like Shakespeare’s power-craving
psychopath. But for Battistelli the play’s the thing, and it is the protagonist’s
status as a prototype for the 20th-century monster that especially attracted
him.’
It was inferred that
the opera will be performed in Britain and the US.
Contributed by Ann
Wroe
Shakespeare: Kaos 2004
Now
I really have seen Richard III done with two men and two women. This was somewhat disguised on the cast list
by billing the voices of the two princes – although I only remember hearing
one boy’s voice. It was ‘realistic’
doubling – that is to say, they changed their appearance as much as possible
(the women had a wide range of wigs).
No changing character on stage, but the most elaborate doubling
of this kind I have seen since the RSC’s Theatregoround.
The costumes were modern, and the text was gutted both for length
and to facilitate doubling. Sometimes
a film of the characters stood in for them, and some of the film sequences
were technically astonishing.
Clarence
lost his dream almost as completely as in the Kenneth More Theatre’s version
last year. The other production
which this reminded me of was Oddsocks’ open air version in 1996, with
seven people. Some of the doubling
was the same, not surprisingly – but that was a much jokier approach. As the review in Time Out said, this
was certainly Richard III, although they billed and listed it with
the company name first. Some of
the doubling was remarkably good – to distinguish Margaret and the Duchess
is a feat, for instance. Of course
you know any company by the end of a performance, but to begin with I
was not sure that there was not a third woman.
This extra performer was, however, Sarah Thorn with her natural
hair.
A
certain amount was done on the telephone, such as welcoming the princes,
and briefing the murderers. These
turned out to be a couple of rather nervous cleaning ladies. ‘Are you
drawn for among a world of men / To slay the innocent?’ Clarence aptly
demanded of them. And Tyrrel was a scary agency-type hospital
nurse. Some of the more major
characters becoming women, with pronouns changed accordingly, worked less
well. Indeed as an adaptation
it varied from amusing to annoying.
At
the end each king had one of the women on his side, of course. Richard had Catesby. Now we have seen Morton fighting on both sides,
and all kinds of accommodation to short casts – but this time Richmond
had Elizabeth (senior) with him on the battlefield. She may have favoured his cause by now, but this is coming off the
fence with a bump. The same girl
was playing the other fence-percher, a late-appearing Stanley. Richard ransacked her handbag to find her weak
spot, triumphantly seizing upon a snapshot of young George. I think I would rather Stanley had crossed
openly into Richmond’s camp than have met the queen there.
There
was some wilfulness. Richmond
really made a meal of his last speech, considering how much elsewhere
was gutted.
Ralf
Higgins was a very watchable Richard, emphasing the spoiled child/deprived
child/runt of the litter idea of his character – a weakling desperate
for affirmation through worldly success.
This worked best at the beginning:
he descended into petulance too soon when his fortunes started
to decline. One believed his nightmare
only too well, but not that he was himself again in the morning. We did not get the ghosts as such, but a very
good equivalent of them when the characters at Bosworth spoke in the voices
of the parts they had played earlier – turning the tight doubling to effective
use.
Contributed
by Roger Sansom
The
Globe 2003: Women Rule? The all female production of Richard III at the
Globe
Well, the cast may
be female but the director, Barry Kyle, or to use Globe parlance, Master
of the Play, is a man and he has given the audience a traditional rendition
of Shakespeare's play. Lacking the gadgetry and sophisticated scenery
associated with so many theatrical productions these days, this latest
version of the play Ricardians love to hate had to rely on the words of
the Bard and skill of the actresses but was ably supported by the wonderful
atmosphere of the venue, stunning costumes and live music played on period
instruments.
The diminutive Kathryn
Hunter was a remarkable Richard and she stood apart from the rest of cast
for all the right reasons. Her Richard was deformed, she seemed to have
no neck, the hump was pronounced, one arm hideously withered and occasionally
supporting her right leg. Standing on the ball of the right foot throughout,
she was able to accentuate the deformities by allowing her upper body
to be thrown backwards or sideways and as her black-clad figure moved,
the impression of a grotesque, scurrying spider became the hallmark of
the performance. Despite her tiny physique, Hunter's voice projection
ensured every word was heard. She milked every ounce of humour
from her lines
and established and maintained the conspiratorial relationship between
her villainous Richard and the audience culminating at the Battle of Bosworth.
When she declared :
'The
sun will not be seen today!
The sky doth frown and lour upon our army'
she paused meaningfully
and looked at the standlings who were suffering the vicissitudes of a
spring shower. The entire audience responded with spontaneous laughter.
Several
members of the company were outstanding. Arguably those playing female
parts had the easier task, but Linda Bassett's Queen Margaret was as forceful
as I have ever seen and Penelope Dimond left the audience in no doubt
that she was the grand and matriarchal head of the house of York, the
duchess Cecily. But how did the other actresses playing men fair? The
most credible was Liz Kettle as Edward IV/Bishop of Ely, the latter character
gorgeously, but prematurely clothed in cardinal red and Anna Healey's
Hastings bore a remarkable resemblance to the Knave of Spades. Sadly the
pageboy haircut of Amanda Harris made her gender obvious but this only
slightly detracted from her outstanding performance as Buckingham. Rachel
Sanders' four characters included a masterfully striding Clarence and
a very politically aware Lord Mayor who shook hands with the standlings
as she processed through the pit.
Overall,
it really didn't matter that the cast was female because this production
is well worth seeing and delivers what a play is all about - entertainment.
From the opening and closing stylised dance sequences your attention is
held and where else will a Ricardian have the opportunity of shouting
for Richard to accept the throne? But if the play really rattles your
sensibilities, stay clear.
Contributed by Wendy Moorhen
The RSC 2003: Richard
III starring Henry Goodman
Murderous monster
or misrepresented monarch, Richard III continues to fascinate as one of
the Shakespeare's most renowned characters. His bloody ascent to England's
throne provides us with some of Shakespeare's most memorable verse and
remains one of the most physically demanding and thrilling challenges
for any leading actor. Director
Sean Holmes
Henry
Goodman starred as Richard in the latest RSC production of Richard
III at Stratford in 2003. Goodman's Richard was hideously deformed,
sporting a built-up shoe, kinky straps around his back and legs, a wonky
arm and a strawberry birthmark and bad teeth!
"A lot of actors when they play Richard want to be sexy and
handsome," said Goodman. "This is clearly someone who is unpleasant
to look at but it's very difficult for actors to go on stage and look
like that. That's why I use the birthmark so the people who are acting
with me an look at it, it's not pleasant for them to look at my face."
The
production was not simplified but was very direct in style and presentation,
designed for those with little knowledge of the play or much experience
of Shakespeare. Goodman said of Richard: "...he talks to the audience
and seems to be in control. But as things go by he's at the mercy of events,
rather than controlling them, especially in the second half. As soon as
he gets there, as soon as he becomes king, he falls to bits because he's
much better at fighting against the world, which is true of a lot of people...."
Reviews
of the play were not positive. The female cast came off best with Maureen
Beattie's Queen Elizabeth getting praise but the production itself came
in for criticism as being too soft, superficial and uninteresting and
Goodman's Richard missed for the critics as he was neither funny nor frightening.
Sheffield 2002: Beyond our Ken
He appears
Christ like, strapped into a metal box, arms out, legs straight down,
head clamped into a vice-like metal crown of thorns. He wears nothing
but a pair of dirty blue underpants.
When he first speaks he rushes through the words as if he thinks the listeners will know them so well they won't need to hear them spoken clearly or even properly. And thus does Kenneth Branagh mark his long-awaited return to the stage with Michael Grandage's production in Sheffield of Shakespeare's Richard III.
Halfway
through the opening speech servants arrive to release him from his cage,
and he slides down onto the floor, left arm hanging useless, right leg
straightened by a splint, back twisted and hunched. This is a man in constant
pain, and this appears his main excuse for the excesses he has already,
and is about to, perform. In fact the use of this weapon is Mr Branagh's
most impressive contribution to the production. On more than one occasion
his deformities inform and comment on a scene. The young Duke of York
kicks away his useless leg to bring his uncle crashing to the ground,
stripping off his tunic to expose the back, before launching himself onto
it; while attempting to seduce Elizabeth Woodville into giving him her
daughter, his leg gives way, and he again is laid out on the floor beneath
the lady, begging, in pain. But the end of this latter scene also displays
one of this production's faults. When this time his 'acting' doesn't work,
as it did with Anne Neville, he laughs at the audience, as if he has triumphed,
when it is this moment that is the turning point of the play for Richard.
Suddenly what worked to get him to the crown no longer does work, and
despair begins to gnaw away at him
There
is a lot of laughter in this play, fortunately, and in the first half
it mostly works in the character's favour. He smashes his murderers to
the ground and while towering above their suddenly pathetic figures on
the ground, laughs and announces 'I like you lads'. The Mayor of London
being talked into offering him the crown by Buckingham is also full of
humour.
Catesby hands Buckingham Hastings’ head in a bag, which he tosses to the mayor, so easily impressed by the henchmen dressed as priests on either side of Richard, that it is a foregone conclusion that the crown will be won. The first part ends with Richard alone on stage, turning to the audience and smiling broadly a 'told you I'd get it didn't I ?' look. Whereas the second half of the play should follow Richard's slide down from his triumph to his death, it does not impress, and certainly doesn't move one, as in the night before Bosworth, for example, when Antony Sher moved me to tears, and most watching wanted him to win next day. The ghosts scenes find Richard back in the dirty knickers, strapped in his cage to have his crooked limbs stretched again. In turn each 'ghost' climbs onto the structure and curses him from a close proximity, then dances across to wish Henry Tudor well. Henry has in fact stayed on stage from his arrival in the play, while Richard wanders on and off, not a good idea, and one I found more than annoying. Both pre-battle speeches are, like so much of the text, thrown away in delivery, and cause little stir, and the battle itself is rather pathetic, with Branagh at one point trying to find somebody to strike at. The most impressive touch of all does come here though, a brilliant red doublet, tailored as a boar, white spine giving the king the appearance of the creature. Afterwards the young actor playing Henry, milks the final speech far too much. The play is over once Richard is dead, and this is the only time one actually wants the words hurried, which Gideon Turner does not do. In fact most of the supporting cast disappoints, and even Danny Webb as Buckingham only has a couple of moments in which he shines, while Phyllis Logan has a good stab at Queen Elizabeth, but it doesn't quite come off,
None of last year's RSC Henry VI and Richard III excitement is here, no moments as then, when the hairs stand up on the back of the neck, while the Clarence and his killers scene once again bores, which at the Young Vic, for the first time ever for me, last year did not. There are a few good things in this production. Barbara Jefford brings real class to the stage as Queen Margaret, a high spot. And when Branagh plays Richard playing 'Richard for public consumption' he is very good. But there is a lack of danger, a lack of thrills, and a definite lack of sex appeal, blue knickers or not!
While it is good to see him back on stage, I do think Kenneth Branagh should have chosen a different play. Richard isn't really his part. All in all a major disappointment.
Contributed by Paul Trevor Bale
Richard
III by Bobby Fishkin
The
Richard III Society are pleased to be co-sponsors of the production of
a new play about Richard III written by Bobby Fishkin. The play had its
premiere on Thursday 12 February at the UCL Bloomsbury Theatre where the
Society's exhibition was on display.
Bobby Fishkin's Richard
III is the antithesis of the Shakespearean character although the plays
have similarities. The telescoping of events is, if anything, greater
than the Bard's version. This is very much a 21st-century production with
more technology than you can shake a stick at. There is a giant screen
to the left side of the stage to ensure that the less well informed members
of the audience are kept up to speed about events in the life and times
of Richard III.
The
play begins with an overture, described as a movement piece, which is
intended to show the disjunctions in the succession to the crowns of England
and France and to set the scene for the events leading to Richard's coronation.
Act One begins with the news of Edward IV's death and Richard "having
no time to grieve" quickly re-assesses his position as Protector
once Edward V is crowned and realises that "as she (Elizabeth Woodville)
ascends... we descend". Richard's immediate concern is for his family
"I have a son... Will he have time to grow into a man?" and
his soliloquy closes with his fears for the future in a Woodville-dominated
world. Buckingham confirms his fears but Stillington's revelation about
Edward's pre-contract allows Richard to take the initative and he becomes
king. In Act Two Buckingham is seduced by Morton's words. The prelate
works on the duke's vanity "You are a kingmaker... he was a chunk
of clay" and Buckingham is entranced by a vision of his future glory.
The ensuing rebellion is encapsulated in one dramatic scene that includes
the brief appearance - and disappearance - of Henry Tudor. His time is
not yet come. Meanwhile Richard has the opportunity to rule and the achievements
of his Parliament are proudly proclaimed but his personal losses bring
the king to despair, compounded by the threat of invasion, "I have
no say in my own destiny". Richard's Bosworth peroration is long
but the climax echoes Shakespeare's Henry V:
Some
time from now, men may say of us who fought this field today ...
But tell them friends, that you were here and you cared not what was to
come ...
We will fight this day, this field, on our terms.
Richard's
death is both poignant and stylised. Surrounded by soldiers with spears,
his body is arched in its death agony and the scene, silhouetted in red,
is a vast tableau against the back wall of the stage. But this is not
the end of the play. We have just witnessed history but now we are going
to witness what passes for history. A large portrait of a handome young
man is brought on stage but when it is reversed, a travesty of the picture
is displayed as Morton and Shakespeare's Richard presents their version
of events.
This
play is an ambitious production. My applause goes to a twenty-two-year-old
Texan who has spent three years writing a play about a king that Ricardians
will recognise and to a young actor called Zoltan, who brings that king
to life.
Contributed by Wendy Moorhen
Elizabeth
Woodville’s Revenge by John Ashdown-Hill
South
Essex Group Production – July 2002
Following
a presentation of Sue Taylor’s one woman play on Margaret Paston at one
of the South Essex Group meetings, the possibility of the Group putting
on a Ricardian play was discussed in general terms - although no obvious
play was available that would be both suitable and within the expertise
of our Group.
After
further discussions, John Ashdown-Hill was prevailed upon to try to write
such a play. Soon after, much to our delight, he presented us with his
five-act play Elizabeth Woodville's Revenge.
Most members of the Group were a little apprehensive at the prospect of treading the boards as they had little or no acting experience. However, Sue Taylor agreed to direct the play, convincing us that it was within our capabilities and the cast list was soon put together in the euphoria of the moment (although none of us was really aware of the trials and tribulations associated with such an undertaking).
So,
we had a play and we had the actors (well - one or two actors and a lot
of willing participants). Next the minor items such as learning the lines,
scenery, costumes, staging, rehearsal locations and, of course, a theatre
where the play could be performed for the eager masses then had to be
considered.
Participants started learning their lines and we managed to get the use of a school classroom on a number of Saturday mornings. We initially met there for a couple of 'run throughs' with John to work out the basic staging and to make sure that the script 'hung together'. This was followed by a number of rehearsals.
One
of the major issues that arose was finding times and dates that all 11
cast members could attend. With the commitments of jobs as diverse as
lorry driver, airline pilot, teachers and shift-worker, living in an area
stretching from Sudbury in Suffolk to Chigwell in Essex, we rarely had
a full cast at rehearsals but managed by doubling up roles. These rehearsals
tended to concentrate on scenes where there was a lot of interaction between
the actors so people could get more comfortable with their relative positioning
on stage and to get their timing right.
We
felt that we had struck gold when a small theatre in Docklands became
available for Sunday morning rehearsals and also appeared to be a suitable
venue for presenting the play. A great deal of effort went into getting
the costumes and scenery in place and a series of very intense rehearsals
was held, culminating in a dress rehearsal prior to issuing the invites
to the prospective audience. Then, much to our disappointment, the theatre
ran into financial difficulties and we lost our venue.
This really
was a major setback as not only had we lost our theatre but also the window
of opportunity for presenting the play prior to the Spring and Summer
when, due to holidays and other commitments, it would not be feasible
to find a new location and get the full cast together for a performance.
The following Autumn, Lynda Whitbread kindly offered the use of her house as a venue. Work commenced again, brushing up on the lines and restaging the play to suit Lynda's through lounge (which fortunately had adjoining rooms with doors in the correct locations to enable suitable cast entrances and exits).
Following
all the above trials and tribulations two successful performances were
finally held, each with an audience of around 20 people. A couple of photographs
of the cast in costume are attached. Mary Talbot attended one of these
performances and kindly provided the following review of the play:-
"On Saturday March 21st, I was invited to see a play called Elizabeth Woodville's Revenge written by John Ashdown-Hill. It was held at the home of Lynda Whitbread at Pitsea. We were greeted by four courtiers dressed in tabards of blue and murrey, emblazoned with a white rose or sun in splendour.
Medieval
music heralded the start of the play and indicated the end of each scene
as the play progressed. The costumes and acting were excellent, there
being no defining who was best as the cast members were all superb. The
stage manager worked the scenes smoothly: what was a chair in one scene
was immediately transformed into a throne by throwing a piece of cloth
over it. The story revolved around Elizabeth Woodville's dislike of the
Earl of Desmond because of his comments on her lowly birth. The idea pursued
in the play was that in the end she engineered both his death and that
of Lady Eleanor Butler, on discovering her pre-contract of marriage to
Edward IV.
The
South Essex Group must have worked extremely hard to achieve their high
standard. I can only say, please invite me again should it ever be staged
elsewhere."
Contributed by Dave Collins of the South Essex Group