Jedi Council Forums - The Shakespeare Discussion Thread

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Amphitheatre »

Post Reply | Active Topic Notification | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

« 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 » - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: The Shakespeare Discussion Thread
Zaz Title: Manager, The Ampitheatre Registered: Oct '98	Date Posted: 2/1/07 12:50pm Subject: RE: The Shakespeare Thread: Now Disc. "Macbeth"
	Laurence Olivier did his stage Macbeth, in which he got raves, and Vivien Leigh got brickbats. You figure he knew that would happen, she's miscast. I wonder what Katharine Hepburn would have done in the part--
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
JediNemesis Registered: Mar '03	Date Posted: 2/9/07 7:05am Subject: RE: The Shakespeare Thread: Now Disc. "Macbeth"
	Samantha Bond could make a very good Lady Macbeth. It'd take a while to adjust if you only knew her as Brosnan's Moneypenny, though . . . If it's okay by everyone, I'd like to open up discussion on another of Shakespeare's best, Richard III (and the Henry VI trilogy if you really feel like it). Mainly because on the 16th, I'm heading up to Stratford-on-Avon for something that promises to be utterly amazing - the RSC performing the Wars of the Roses quartet. 1 Henry VI on Friday night, 2 Henry VI Saturday morning, 3 Henry VI Saturday afternoon, and Richard III Saturday evening. Long haul, but sure to be more than worth it. I've already seen the Henry VI trio individually, but not this Richard III. I'm looking forward to it like nothing on Earth, because it's a superb play, a killer of a protagonist (literally ) and the RSC production has had phenomenally good reviews. The film version with Ian McKellen (IMDb ) is nothing short of superb and McKellen gives another astoundingly villainous performance. This started off as a stage production (which my dad saw) but IMO surely works better on film just because of the locations they pull in - Battersea Power Station, Senate House, Tate Modern before they did it up. I'm a Londoner, and spent quite a lot of the film saying "Hey, I've been there." On the play itself, it's always been an audience favourite (check out The Eyre Affair for a demonstration of the ultimate thereof) and deservedly. Henry VI is real blood-and-thunder theatre; Richard III is much more politicised, more about intrigue, and offers a central figure who's both vile and sympathetic. I love it immensely. Thoughts? -----signature----- BeTS Best Author '08 Spindrift - http://boards.theforce.net/a/b1/28478326 NEW Lightning and Diamonds - http://boards.theforce.net/a/b1/29251762 NEW Into The Shining Day - http://boards.theforce.net/a/b1/29224914
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Zaz Title: Manager, The Ampitheatre Registered: Oct '98	Date Posted: 2/9/07 12:27pm Subject: RE: The Shakespeare Thread: Now Disc. "Richard III" - Date Edited: 2/9/07 12:29pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Zaz
	Deep Sigh Lucky you Deeper sigh The "History Plays" are: Richard II; Henry IV part 1; Henry IV part 2; Henry V; Henry VI trilogy; Richard III; Henry VIII; and King John Though the tragedies get more attention, some of the plays in this group are quite possibly Shakespeare's best. I can't say which, because my choice changes a lot. Some background, for those who imagine "Braveheart" is accurate: Edward III died in 1377. He had the following sons in order of birth: Edward, the Black Prince, Lionel of Clarence, John of Gaunt, Edmund of York and Thomas of Gloucester. Edward predeceased him, leaving a son, Richard II. Richard reigned until 1399, but had no children at the time he died. He was dethroned by John's son, Henry IV. Did Henry had reason? Yes. Did Henry have uncontested right to the throne he stole? No, because Lionel was older than John, and he had a daughter, who had children. England did not restrict succession by women, for the excellent reason that the Plantegenets inherited the throne of England through one. So the throne should have gone to Lionel's descendants, but didn't. Meanwhile, Lionel's last descendant marries Edmund's descendant. So that Richard of York has a double descent from Edward III, and he is technically the heir general (as opposed to heir male). He marries a descendant of John of Gaunt, so that their son, Edward IV, is descended from Edward III through three different sons. Richard III is Edward IV's younger brother. Meanwhile, Henry IV rules until 1413, when he dies and is succeeded by his son, Henry V. Said son wants to conquer France, and nearly does it, mainly because France is in disarray because its king is mad. Henry V marries said mad king's daughter, Katherine de Valois. Henry dies young, in 1422, leaving one son, Henry VI, who is 9 months old. And guess what? The mad French king's madness is hereditary. Henry VI is a complete weakling, and the Yorkish line (the heirs general, remember) dethrone him. Edward IV (of York) becomes king. He dies young (at about 40), leaving a 11 or 12 year old son, Edward V. Richard III is appointed regent by his will, but in fact Richard is aware that relatives of Edward's queen are conspiring to kill him. So when he discovers that his brother committed a form of bigamy, and his children are possibly illegitimate, he uses it as a pretext to dethrone his nephew and become king himself.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
JediNemesis Registered: Mar '03	Date Posted: 2/9/07 1:08pm Subject: RE: The Shakespeare Thread: Now Disc. "Richard III"
	It's tricky history, the Wars of the Roses. So much so that Shakespeare actually bothered to explain it in 2 Henry VI. This is Richard of York (he who gave battle in vain ), father of Richard of Gloucester / Richard III, setting forth his claim to the crown: YORK Edward the Third, my lords, had seven sons: The first, Edward the Black Prince, Prince of Wales; The second, William of Hatfield, and the third, Lionel Duke of Clarence: next to whom Was John of Gaunt, the Duke of Lancaster; The fifth was Edmund Langley, Duke of York; The sixth was Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester; William of Windsor was the seventh and last. Edward the Black Prince died before his father And left behind him Richard, his only son, Who after Edward the Third's death reign'd as king; Till Henry Bolingbroke, Duke of Lancaster, The eldest son and heir of John of Gaunt, Crown'd by the name of Henry the Fourth, Seized on the realm, deposed the rightful king, Sent his poor queen to France, from whence she came, And him to Pomfret; where, as all you know, Harmless Richard was murder'd traitorously. WARWICK Thus got the house of Lancaster the crown. YORK Which now they hold by force and not by right; For Richard, the first son's heir, being dead, The issue of the next son should have reign'd. SALISBURY But William of Hatfield died without an heir. YORK The third son, Duke of Clarence, from whose line I claimed the crown, had issue, Philippe, a daughter, Who married Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March: Edmund had issue, Roger Earl of March; Roger had issue, Edmund, Anne and Eleanor. SALISBURY This Edmund, in the reign of Bolingbroke, As I have read, laid claim unto the crown; And, but for Owen Glendower, had been king, Who kept him in captivity till he died. But to the rest. YORK His eldest sister, Anne, My mother, being heir unto the crown Married Richard Earl of Cambridge; who was son To Edmund Langley, Edward the Third's fifth son. By her I claim the kingdom: she was heir To Roger Earl of March, who was the son Of Edmund Mortimer, who married Philippe, Sole daughter unto Lionel Duke of Clarence: So, if the issue of the elder son Succeed before the younger, I am king. Oddly enough, that was one of the most riveting scenes in the play when I saw it; Richard of York didn't try to explain it all just like that, but brought out a sack of pebbles, knelt down and laid out one for each son of Edward. And his little "nope, me neither" shake of the head when he got to William of Windsor was a small touch of genius. Zaz posted: And guess what? The mad French king's madness is hereditary. Henry VI is a complete weakling, and the Yorkish line (the heirs general, remember) dethrone him. I prefer the assessment given by that immortal work 1066 and All That: "Henry VI was a Good Man but a Weak King, and consequently regarded as a Saint or (by the Barons) an Imbecile." One of the funniest books ever, but I digress. Zaz posted: So when [Richard] discovers that his brother committed a form of bigamy, and his children are possibly illegitimate, he uses it as a pretext to dethrone his nephew and become king himself. Shakespeare pretty much glosses over this bit; he has Richard bung his nephews in the Tower and usurp the throne basically because he wants to. I can't remember if their supposed illegitimacy is mentioned at all, even as a pretext. -----signature----- BeTS Best Author '08 Spindrift - http://boards.theforce.net/a/b1/28478326 NEW Lightning and Diamonds - http://boards.theforce.net/a/b1/29251762 NEW Into The Shining Day - http://boards.theforce.net/a/b1/29224914
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Zaz Title: Manager, The Ampitheatre Registered: Oct '98	Date Posted: 2/9/07 3:25pm Subject: RE: The Shakespeare Thread: Now Disc. "Richard III"
	The reason he glossed is that he didn't want to offend the Tudors, who suppressed the reasons for Richard's dethroning of Edward V. For obvious reasons. Neither of the Williams (sons of Edward III) lived longer than a year. The other five all lived to adulthood, a good record in those days.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
darkmole Registered: Jul '00	Date Posted: 2/9/07 3:48pm Subject: RE: The Shakespeare Thread: Now Disc. "Richard III"
	[quote]and the Henry VI trilogy if you really feel like it[/quote] This is right up my street as I've just had a book published on these plays in performance. I'll post more later, if the discussion hasn't moved on by then. Hung be the heavens with black, yeild day tonight etc etc
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Rogue1-and-a-half Title: Manager: Amphitheatre Registered: Nov '00	Date Posted: 2/9/07 7:14pm Subject: RE: The Shakespeare Thread: Now Disc. "Richard III"
	Richard III is a masterwork, of course. The title character is one of Shakespeare's greatest creations; he's not just a villain, he's a villain in love with his own villainy. As such, McKellen is the perfect casting choice; his version is an update and that rarely works, but it does here. It's a sort of revisionist history, set in Facist England, circa WWII. But the cast is tremendous. Olivier did this one too and his version is draggy as hell and utterly dull; he even flubs the "My kingdom for a horse" line, a line one would think would be impossible to blow. Pacino did a fantastic version, called Looking for Richard; it's a psuedo-documentary about Pacino trying to get a cast together and do a version of Richard III. The cast is Spacey (as Buckingham), Baldwin (as Clarence) and Ryder (as Anne). When they're behind the scenes the film is both funny and occasionally profound; it's an incredibly entertaining documentary that gets strangely little press. But McKellen's is the big one here; he delivers that climactic line with a vengeance and listen to the way he says, "I am not in the vein" to Buckingham; that's how you deliver a line now. Broadbent is a brilliant Buckingham; his scene with McKellen where they 'reluctantly' take up the crown is a masterwork. And Nigel Hawthorne is a brilliant Clarence. I've seen Gielgud (in Olivier's version) and Alec Baldwin (in Pacino's) play this part, but Hawthorne blows them both off the stage with that fantastic monologue on the tower in the rain. -----signature----- I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself. A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough Without having ever felt sorry for itself.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Zaz Title: Manager, The Ampitheatre Registered: Oct '98	Date Posted: 2/10/07 9:34am Subject: RE: The Shakespeare Thread: Now Disc. "Richard III" - Date Edited: 2/10/07 9:35am (1 edits total) Edited By: Zaz
	That does sound like ye great cast; I'll have to look for that one. It sounds like darkmole is going to be able post heavily on this subject, too. Which is good.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
JediNemesis Registered: Mar '03	Date Posted: 2/10/07 12:28pm Subject: RE: The Shakespeare Thread: Now Disc. "Richard III"
	Definitely. Well worth several watches. I'm also looking forward to what darkmole has to say; the Henry VI trilogy tend to be much less well known than the tailpiece of the tetralogy, so I'm most interested. mole, have you seen the current RSC production? If so, what did you think? I like having informed opinions -----signature----- BeTS Best Author '08 Spindrift - http://boards.theforce.net/a/b1/28478326 NEW Lightning and Diamonds - http://boards.theforce.net/a/b1/29251762 NEW Into The Shining Day - http://boards.theforce.net/a/b1/29224914
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
darkmole Registered: Jul '00	Date Posted: 2/11/07 2:08am Subject: RE: The Shakespeare Thread: Now Disc. "Richard III"
	I knew if I hung around here long enough there would be a thread on Henry VI one day ... I'll try and post something more substantial tomorrow. The Michael Boyd productions at the RSC are great - and rare. The plays have only been staged in their full text twice before ever (and one of those was by Boyd, back in 2000), so this is a rare opportunity. I have seen it and interviewed the director about it as well. My book is here. Even George Lucas might baulk at the price though.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Zaz Title: Manager, The Ampitheatre Registered: Oct '98	Date Posted: 2/11/07 8:51am Subject: RE: The Shakespeare Thread: Now Disc. "Richard III" - Date Edited: 2/11/07 9:00am (1 edits total) Edited By: Zaz
	Wow...that's about $100 CDN. But the book looks very impressive.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
JediNemesis Registered: Mar '03	Date Posted: 2/19/07 11:46am Subject: RE: The Shakespeare Thread: Now Disc. "Richard III" - Date Edited: 2/19/07 11:49am (1 edits total) Edited By: JediNemesis
	Well, well, well . . . It's over and I'm evidently still sane. It was definitely an experience unlike any other: superb, stupendous from start to finish, but intense to a ridiculous degree. It's also faintly depressing to be 17 and to be thinking that I may never see something this good again. There's several things I want to post about in depth (and have all written up, nice and neat) but, first, I transcribed my diary of the weekend onto computer. It's even more incoherent than I remember Please forgive me. Hopefully it'll give an idea of what it was like. Nemesis’ Wars of the Roses Diary Written over the space of 30 or so hours, from the evening of Friday Feb 16 to the morning (well, small hours) of Sunday Feb 18. Of those thirty hours, twelve and a half were spent watching the tetralogy - contrast this with the paltry seven I got of sleep! The text as I wrote it is pretty fragmented, and also makes still less sense if you don’t know what’s been going on; it’s mostly just random observations of things that stuck in my head long enough to get written down. For this reason, a lot of explanatory notes have been added; they are in square brackets thus [...] The various italics, underlinings and so on are original; yup, I will italicise or underline my handwriting if I feel it’s necessary. I blame an over-familiarity with markup codes. Fri 16, 7.20 pm Before 1 Henry VI Courtyard [Theatre] barely half full. Hopefully it’ll fill up. Shop all out of Henry VI postcards; might get some R3 ones instead. Copies of darkmole’s book on a special table - reduced to [a ‘special RSC price’ of] £30. Am tempted. [But broke.] Sound; ominous drumming noises start. 9.00 pm Interval of 1 Henry VI One thing’s just struck me - Edmund Mortimer’s death. He wears a paper crown and a dirty smock. When his nephew, Richard of York, is killed, the image is almost identical. Paper crown, stained shirt . . . in his case, with blood. What happens to the pictures in the foyer when the run’s over? I want one. Maternal unit comments it’s an episodic sort of play. Reasonable enough. [note to self] Look up Richard’s speech to Somerset - the bit about “condemned for treason, but no traitor!” [referring to York’s father, the Earl of Cambridge]. 12 midnight, Fri 16 / Sat 17 After 1 Henry VI The second half is packed with, well, stuff. Action throughout. Richard of York shows himself to be a soldier in this Part; in pts 2 and 3, which are as much The Blud-Soaked Tragedie of Richard Duke of York (With Extra Bloode!) as anything else, he’s presented as a decent man and a good father; but it’s him who beards the Dauphin with “Sign [the peace treaty] or be massacred”, and him who shoves a dagger up Joan of Arc. I’d forgotten that bit. The way the Bastard of Orléans [I’m allowed to say it; the bloke is genuinely the Duc d’Orléans’ illegitimate heir] keeps popping up through every conceivable stage orifice [doors, floor, damn near ceiling] is consistently hilarious. And the way the Dauphin, the third time this happens, just says through gritted teeth “Ah . . . Bastard.” is priceless. Line of the act: the general of Bordeaux, to Talbot - These eyes, that see thee now well colourèd Shall see thee withered; bloody; pale; and dead. We never do find out whether young John Talbot inherited his father’s skill in battle, but he definitely inherited the boneheaded courage. Chivalrous idiots, both of them. [The Talbots, father and son, are hemmed in by Frenchmen; they agree that one of them could survive by taking a fast horse and fleeing, but they both insist it should be the other one who gets to live. Consequently, they both stay, and both die.] Sat 17, 10.20 am Before 2 Henry VI Looking forward to York & his rocks. And the little “nope, me neither” shake of the head when he gets to William of Windsor . . . 12.09 pm Interval of 2 Henry VI Richard of York is consistently more frightening than I remembered; his speeches in this part recall Richard Jr’s long pre-interval spiel in Pt 3. Chills moment: “And what of Gloucester?” John Talbot’s conjured ghost, pale and bloody, screaming desperately “Gloucester shall be king . . .” 2pm After 2 Henry VI Suffolk [the Queen’s lover] denies at one point that he is a murderer; specifically he denies wearing “murder’s crimson badge”. He’s wearing a red Lancastrian rose. The connection jumps out . . . Suffolk’s parting from the Queen [the King banishes him] is a direct ancestor of the central scenes in R+J; the banishment, her injunctions to leave & live and not to - superb. I love the way the ghosts just join in the fun [as part of Jack Cade the rebel’s mob]; the Talbots, the Cardinal [Beaufort, who dies of a mysterious illness] - and Suffolk, wandering round without a head (Led by Gloucester [‘s ghost] too!) Jack Cade; what a maniac he. 2.57 pm Before 3 Henry VI Here’s to Richard of York’s end; he may not be the best of men, but he rises above his captors. And the paper crown he took from [Edmund] Mortimer, jammed on his head, all stained with Rutland’s [his youngest son’s] blood . . . Maternal unit comments that Humphrey of Gloucester reminds her of Preston the cyber-dog in Wallace and Gromit: A Close Shave. [Must be the eyebrows]. 4.52 pm Interval of 3 Henry VI Memorable lines: “him, his sons, his favourites, and his friends” [Henry VI, referring to the punishments to be visited on the Duke of York - and anyone who knows him] “A deadly groan, like life and death’s departing” [Richard Crookback, referring to the death-rattle that turns out to belong to Clifford, his father’s murderer] York’s death scene even better than I remembered. Margaret even worse [in the sense of character, not the quality of the acting] Richard Crookback obscenely great. Walk, speech, everything. The way the York boys butcher Clifford [who killed their father]; ick. [Edward gouges out one of Clifford’s eyes; Clarence cuts out his tongue; and Richard, feeling the need to go one better, spends a clear thirty seconds sawing away in Clifford’s breeches. It’s lucky for Clifford he’s dead while all this is going on] And the way the York boys actually act like brothers - friendly bickering [witness York’s weary line near the beginning of Pt 3, when he walks in on the trio arguing: “What is your quarrel, who began it first?” as if this has happened millions of times before]; George [Clarence] & Richard joshing Edward over his infatuation with Lady Grey. 6.30 pm After 3 Henry VI “Down - down to hell, and say I sent thee thither - I who have no pity, love, nor fear!” [Richard of Gloucester, who else, screaming at Henry VI’s corpse] Henry in a pool of blood . . . Richard of York’s ghost coming, silent, to stare Clarence [who has defected to the other side after a quarrel with his brother Edward] into submission . . . [Clarence promptly switches back] And then, at Barnet, [York’s ghost] walking all unobstructed, head high, through the fighting, until Edward and Warwick [duelling] cross his path. [And he says] “Go, Warwick, seek you out some other chase . . .” And Warwick turns to look [at the ghost of York, whom he betrayed], and Edward [York’s son] kills him while his back is turned . . . Richard of Gloucester: seriously insane. So far round the bend he couldn’t poke sanity with a looooong pole. He’ll make an awesome Richard III. Here’s to Crookback Richard, mad as hell; here’s to Henry Richmond, England’s hope. “Now . . .” [Henry VI pt 3 ends with Richard holding his infant nephew; he looks up and says quietly “Now . . .” and the stage goes black.] 7.09 pm Before Richard III I want to see the look on York’s ghost’s face as he sees what his son - his heir, his namesake - has become. From the shop: Complete Works t-shirt R3 postcards Pencil [special RSC pencil: 2B or not 2B. I kid you not] Memorable lines: [from pt 3] HENRY VI I am thy sovereign! RICHARD OF YORK I am thine. * RICHARD OF YORK [to Margaret, after she has killed his youngest son] Bidst thou me rage? Why then, here is thy wish; Wouldst have me weep? Why then, here is thy will! * Questions to ask [in the post-show] - To Richard Crookback: what’s it like playing a raving maniac? - To Richard of York: what’s the dominant side of York - the fair man and good father, or the ruthless soldier who deflowers Joan of Arc and guts the duellist who took his part [a commoner condemned to trial by combat for treason, for saying that York was the rightful King of England; he loses the fight but lives, and York cuts his throat] - To Clifford: is the blood very sticky? [Because he got covered in it] - To Henry: how old do you envision Henry as being? - To Margaret: who would win in a fight, Margaret or Joan? - To them all: Bravo. We’ll be back. Sun 18, 00.45 am After Richard III [I forgot to write anything in the interval] Got Warwick’s signature (he of two swords). [Also picked up a couple of the red feathers that got scattered during Bosworth] The silent, hellish, foggy battle of Bosworth. Bombs. Shots. Strobing yellow light. The way you feel sorry for mad, murdering Richard III, when he crawls up the steps at Bosworth, pleading desperately with his father’s ghost - and Richard of York, the one person Richard the Younger has been trying to do right by, following his lead, revenging his death, bringing to a ‘triumph’ that which he set in motion - takes his Duchess’ hand and turns and walks away, silent. And his son slumps down on the bloody field and waits for Richmond to kill him. It is that knowledge that he has lost everyone; even his father has come back from the grave to damn the son. My God. Richard III speaks of building a new world to “bustle in” - and that is very much what [Jonathan Slinger’s tremendous rendering of the character] does: he bustles, constantly on the move, always up to something. That’s the thing with Richard Crookback; he’s a man of extremes, either absolutely calm or foaming at the mouth. He has no middle ground. He also has a vile sense of humour; witness his mutilation of Clifford’s corpse. Apparently the blood is quite sugary and entirely edible. Next time round [the same ensemble will stage the other tetralogy - Richard II, 1 Henry IV, 2 Henry IV and Henry V - later this year; madmen] Talbot and Young Talbot will play Henry IV and Hal. Which will be great. Henry V and Richmond [whom Young Talbot doubled] are quite similar parts: England’s hope! [tm] in both cases. What could be verra interesting is if Chuk Iwuji (Henry VI) doubled Richard II - another boy king who was deposed, imprisoned, and “murder’d traitorously”. And so to bed. -----signature----- BeTS Best Author '08 Spindrift - http://boards.theforce.net/a/b1/28478326 NEW Lightning and Diamonds - http://boards.theforce.net/a/b1/29251762 NEW Into The Shining Day - http://boards.theforce.net/a/b1/29224914
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Zaz Title: Manager, The Ampitheatre Registered: Oct '98	Date Posted: 2/19/07 12:42pm Subject: RE: The Shakespeare Thread: Now Disc. "Richard III"
	It sounds wonderful...I would loved to have seen it.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
JediNemesis Registered: Mar '03	Date Posted: 2/20/07 5:31am Subject: RE: The Shakespeare Thread: Now Disc. "Richard III"
	It was brilliant. Zaz, if you're serious (although you'd have to be pretty damn serious considering you live in Canada ) then come over to England for mid-2008; there's a very good chance the 1H6-2H6-3H6-R3 tetralogy will be revived to go with the R2-1H4-2H4-H5 tetralogy the cast are moving on to. There were three or four things in particular that stuck in my mind more than others; mostly stage incidents, director's stuff, rather than actual pieces of text. I imagine darkmole might be more interested in such minutiae, but again, I hope I can give a sense of what the tetralogy was like The Prophecy The Duchess of Gloucester’s arranged a séance, to ask the spirits what bodes for her husband, Humphrey, Duke of same. They call the spirits; the one that comes is the ghost of teenaged John Talbot, not long dead, who died on the fields of France in his dying father’s arms. He comes out of the pit as he died, dishevelled, pale, the wound that killed him still fresh and bloody. He doesn’t, cannot speak; he chokes for breath, as if every moment in the mortal world is a moment reliving his death agonies. The conjurer demands of him: what shall become of the King? The screams die away, and it’s more of a moan as Talbot declares that “The Duke yet lives whom Henry shall depose . . .” And what of Suffolk? Now old Talbot is trying to climb out too, clawing at his son, trying to pull him back. And the hollow reply comes: “By water shall he die, and take his end . . .” And Somerset? “Let him fear castles; he shall be safer on the sandy plains than where castles mounted stand.” That’s the statutory three questions; the ghost of Talbot begins to sink back into the pit. But before he can get quite away, the Duchess leans over the balcony and calls out “And what of Gloucester?” This time, the reply seems to be no riddle; John Talbot, forced to answer by the conjuration and straining to return to a quiet grave, shrieks out a reply that bubbles in the back of his throat, spitting blood and making the metal walls echo it back to him. “Gloucester . . . shall be king!” And so of course he shall, although it’s not the present Duke of Gloucester the ghost means. The exchange - the stage wreathed in fog and lit corpse-green, Talbot hanging in mid-air, the Duchess leaning out over the balcony to call him - is superbly ominous; like having ice-cubes emptied down your back. Because Talbot’s prophecy is a stark warning: the seemingly justified machinations going on at the time will be the direct cause of Richard III. Three or four scenes later, Richard of York lays out his claim to the throne, and it is just; but it’s overshadowed by the still-sharp reminder that what he is setting in motion will end with the utter ruin from within of the House of York. Richard senior is an honourable man who genuinely believes the crown is his birthright; but, by declaring such, he opens the way for Richard junior to talk and kill his way to the throne. The ghost’s words make all that flash through the audience’s mind in a few seconds; it’s a superb piece of stagecraft. Which renders it all the weirder that the “What of Gloucester?” - “Gloucester shall be king” lines aren’t actually in the playtext. I’m usually very dubious about directors adding stuff in, but all I can say here is that Michael Boyd made a damn good call. To end the prophesying with the bizarre stuff about Somerset and castles is a bit flat; putting in the line about Gloucester not only reminds the audience why the ghost has been raised in the first place, but sets up a very scary moment of foreshadowing. Richard Plantagenet, women, and death In Part I, the English lords, headed by Richard Plantagenet, the Duke of York and Regent of France, have finally captured Joan la Pucelle. Shakespeare - as he was pretty much obliged to - shows her as a sorceress, who draws her power from a coterie of familiar fiends; in the scene preceding her capture, they - having the gift of foresight - desert her. Powerless and wounded, she can only struggle as the English tie her up. She tries pleading with them that she is a heavenly messenger; they laugh. Realising that she is truly in their power now, she goes to pieces, and resorts to claiming that she is with child (unwritten law barring the killing of a pregnant woman). The lines run like this: JOAN I am with child! Ye bloody homicides, Murder not the fruit within my womb, Although ye hale me to a violent death. YORK Now Heav’n forfend! The holy maid, with child? It’s obvious what York thinks of her: a liar, and a bad liar at that, on top of being a sorcerous foreign strumpet. She claims that Charles the Dauphin is the father; then, when York swears he would let no bastard heir of Charles’ live, that the child is Alençon’s; then, when York vows that no inheritor of Alençon’s trickery shall live, that the father was Reignier of Naples. York’s response? YORK Why, here’s a girl. I think she knows not well - There were so many - whom she may accuse! WARWICK It’s sign she hath been liberal and free. YORK And yet, forsooth, she is a virgin pure! In the text that is all that’s there. York’s sarcastic line about “a virgin pure” is simply that: mockery, a reminder to Joan that she has earlier claimed to be a chaste servant of God and that both her claims - to chastity and motherhood - can’t be true. But in this production, York’s been playing with his dagger; he gets it out pretty much as soon as they capture Joan, and keeps it free whilst she pleads for her life. After Warwick’s line, York steps forward, and (with his body blocking the audience’s view), puts his blade hand up underneath her skirt. She screams; he brings his dagger out, and delivers his line in a satisfied sort of manner - whilst showing the English lords that his fingers are bloody to the knuckle. In the split second before the scene goes on, there’s no time to really consider whether he’s deflowered her or whether she was carrying a child which he’s killed. (The second of those only occurred to me a lot later). Shakespeare goes on to present him as a fine soldier, astute general, articulate speaker, good father to his quartet of sons and a fundamentally decent man. But it nags at the mind; it’s a brutal reminder of the world these plays are set in, where bloody vindictiveness was nothing to be wondered at. Joan of Arc was just as bad; there’s one piece of earlier business where she severs Lord Bedford’s arm and then, later, waves to him from the battlements with it. I suspect it’s the sexual element, though, that makes York’s frankly vile action stick in the mind. It’s also testament to Shakespeare’s writing and Clive Wood’s exceptional performance that I didn’t loathe the character from thereon in. Absolutely the opposite; York is the hero of parts two and three, and no wonder that the first pirated copies of 3H6 were published under the title of The Tragedie of Richard Duke of York. He, with all his flaws, is a much more interesting character than the tiresomely pious Henry VI; he reminds me a little of Macbeth, but where Macbeth murders his way to the throne, York does the ‘honourable’ thing and declares his claim openly. Of course the result is a bloody war, but somehow it seems marginally less reprehensible. By Part III, it’s York’s turn to be humiliated at the death. He dies at the hands of Clifford, whose father he killed, and Queen Margaret - played by the same actress who played Joan. That particular piece of casting instils a subtle but definite sense that this is the full circle: Margaret d’Anjou, another bothersomely assertive Frenchwoman, is Joan come back to exact her revenge. Clifford’s murdered York’s youngest son, Rutland, too young to take the battlefield with his brothers. Margaret taunts York, puts a paper crown on his head, and snatches off Clifford the handkerchief he used to clean his sword. It’s covered in Rutland’s blood; Margaret offers it to York to dry his tears with. But where Joan crumbled, York holds fast; weeping but not weak, broken-hearted but not broken. He rails at Margaret, whom he cannot understand, and at Clifford, whom he can - because Rutland was to Clifford as Joan of Arc’s hypothetical child was to York himself: the child of a hated enemy. I think that part of what makes York’s grief for his dead son so harrowing is his knowledge that, vile though the murder was, he cannot entirely say he wouldn’t have done the same in similar circumstances. These are his last words to Margaret and Clifford; the only others he says before he dies are addressed to God. YORK See, ruthless queen, a hapless father’s tears; This cloth thou dippd’st in blood of my sweet boy, And I with tears do wash the blood away. Keep thou the napkin, and go boast of this; And if thou tell the heavy story right, Upon my soul, the hearers will shed tears; Yea, even my foes will shed fast-falling tears, And say “Alas! It was a piteous deed.” There; take the crown; and with the crown, my curse - And in thy need such comfort come to thee As now I reap at thy too cruel hand! Hard-hearted Clifford, take me from the world; My soul to heaven, my blood upon your heads! The Henry VI trilogy, and Richard III, are lousy with prophecies and curses; I already mentioned John Talbot’s riddling answers. Richard Plantagenet’s dying curse is clear-cut; and sure enough, before the play is out Queen Margaret is screaming imprecations at the murderers of her own son - the trio of York’s sons who survived him. The obvious like-for-like of the two incidents is offset by the pointed difference between the bereaved parents: York meets the news of Rutland’s death with bewildered, horrified, real grief; Margaret meets the news of Prince Edward’s death with flaming anger. She says MARGARET . . . O traitors! Murderers! They that stabb’d Caesar shed no blood at all, Did not offend, nor were not worthy blame, If this foul deed were by to equal it. He was a man; this, in respect, a child, And men ne’er spend their fury on a child! Apparently it’s slipped her mind that this is what she, if not committed, then condoned. The Troilus Question Okay, explanation needed: because once upon a time my dad was handed a pig of a question in his A-Level paper on Troilus and Cressida, ‘the Troilus question’ has become family shorthand for the dreaded “What is this play about?” What is/are Henry VI about? After two viewings six months apart and re-reading the text, the best answer I can come up with is that the unified tetralogy is about the workings of politics, intrigue and revenge across a generation gap. It’s about fathers and sons, the blood feud carrying on down the generations, and about the dynastic nature of power at the time. Take a look at an (inexhaustive) list of the father-son pairs that people the tetralogy: - the two Talbots; - the Father who kills his son / Son who kills his father; - the Cliffords pater et filiis, who get into a particularly horrible blood feud with the Plantagenets in Pt 3: York Sr kills Clifford Sr, so Clifford Jr kills York Jr and York Sr, so the remaining York Jrs butcher Clifford Jr; - Henry VI and his son, Prince Edward, are frequently counterposed; - equally, Henry VI is compared often (unfavourably) with his heroic father, Henry V (although the ghost of Henry V never actually shows up, his memory - in particular his conquests in France which his son has lost - haunts the entire trilogy); - and at least twice, York is twitted about his own father, Richard of Cambridge, who was executed for treason by Henry V and stripped of his dukedom. The strongest instance of this, though, is that of the two Richard Plantagenets. Richard of York has four sons, but of the three who survive him, Edward’s a womanising lout and Clarence is generally pretty useless; only Richard the younger inherits his father’s restless intelligence. Seeing Richard III directly after Henry VI makes crystal clear what is otherwise hard to see: Richard of Gloucester (Richard III) is not an isolated case of egomania, but a son who was very much prefigured in his father. Consider: You put sharp weapons in a madman’s hands; . . . I will stir up in England some black storm Shall blow ten thousand souls to heaven or hell; And this fell tempest shall not cease to rage Until the golden circlet on my head Like to the glorious sun’s transparent beams Do calm the fury of this mad-bred flaw. The idea that this power struggle will send a lot of innocent people to “heaven or hell” is very reminiscent of the pre-battle speech in R3 - “if not to heaven, then hand in hand to hell”. Twice the speaker refers to his own ‘madness’ in pursuit of the crown. But the speaker in question isn’t Richard Crookback, mad, bad and dangerous to know; it’s his father, Richard of York, vowing to have the crown from off Henry VI’s head. It’s Richard of York who first declares that he will put his mind, busy as “the labouring spider” to the question of having the throne. (Note that the image recurs: Richard the younger is compared to a spider at least twice in R3). What separates York and his crippled son is that the elder Richard genuinely believes the crown is his by right (and his claim is valid). Hence, when Henry VI makes the compromise offer that he should finish his reign and York’s heirs have the throne on his death, York takes the offer even though it renders it unlikely that he himself will ever be king; rather, he is content to have the kingship in trust for his sons. Richard of Gloucester, by contrast, is not heir to the throne however you wangle it; he’s not York’s eldest son, and both his older brothers have children. He wants the crown not because it’s his birthright, but because it is his “soul’s desire”; he demands, bitterly, of the audience, that if “there is no kingdom then for Richard / What other pleasure can the world afford?” He’ll never be adored for his looks, or for his skill in battle - the withered arm precludes it - so he sees it as the crown or nothing. You actually feel more sorry for him at this point (3H6, 3.ii) than anything else. And so I come to the third Awesome Thing That Isn’t In The Text (the incident of Joan of Arc’s nethers and “Gloucester shall be king” being the other two). In Richard III, at Bosworth, Richard is visited the night before the battle by a succession of the ghosts for whose deaths he was responsible: his brothers Edward and Clarence, his nephews the Princes in the Tower, his wife, Henry VI’s son Edward, and Henry VI himself. One by one they curse him to “despair and die”, and wish Richmond good luck. Richard wakes, and realises that there is nobody left to him; his only ally now is himself. At Bosworth itself, in this staging, the battle is hellishly lit and the sound booming and echoing like it’s all suddenly very far away. Into this nightmare vision comes the ghost of Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York, watching the carnage from the stage balcony. York’s ghost’s presence is not in the text; Bosworth, like most of the battles, is only sketched out in terms of who gets killed. The play reads simply RICHARD A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse! Enter RICHMOND. They fight; RICHARD is killed. But the way they did it, King Richard takes a wound to his good leg; he is crawling, dragging himself desperately, as he struggles up the steps to the balcony. He delivers the “A horse! My kingdom for a horse!” line as a desperate final plea to his father’s ghost. And York’s ghost turns his back and walks away. Richard III slumps down and doesn’t even try to defend himself when Richmond closes in for the kill. He’s lost everything. It’s a harrowing image; the idea that even his father - the one person he has ever respected - has come back from the dead to disown and condemn his son. And so the saga ends, with Richard Plantagenet come face to face with his monstrous son. Richmond’s prayers are a negligible afterword; the image that sticks in the head is of the two Richards staring at one another, and then the ghost of York walking away, confronted with the reality that his honourable claim to the crown has ended in the fall of the House of York and the ruin of England. When the RSC performed a version of the Henry VI trilogy cut together into two plays, they titled it The Plantagenets; and that, I think, was a good choice given the nature of the saga. Henry VI is largely a spectator; the action is the long and awful fall of the Plantagenet House of York. Richard of York dies; Richard of Gloucester lives. Who’s to say which was more to be regretted? -----signature----- BeTS Best Author '08 Spindrift - http://boards.theforce.net/a/b1/28478326 NEW Lightning and Diamonds - http://boards.theforce.net/a/b1/29251762 NEW Into The Shining Day - http://boards.theforce.net/a/b1/29224914
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
darkmole Registered: Jul '00	Date Posted: 2/20/07 9:07am Subject: RE: The Shakespeare Thread: Now Disc. "Richard III"
	Those are some great observations, I really enjoyed reading them. What are the Henry VI plays about? I think you've pretty much answered your own question. To me, they are about Shakespeare discovering what theatre can do and reinventing it almost with every scene. They are about disorder and the problems of staging disorder. They are about a nation's past (Richmond in Richard III is Elizabeth I's grandfather) and they are about its present as well. (Shakespeare and his contemporaries feared that a civil war was looming. In Part 3, the King watches as one soldier drags an enemy soldier off the battlefield and discovers that he has killed his father. He explains to the audience that he had moved awat from his family home in Warwickshire to seek his fortune in London - much like Shakespeare himself. The Son's father was pressed into service with Warwick, so they found themselves on opposite sides of the civil war. In 1592, Elizabeth I was an old woman and childless, and the country was split religiously and politically. A civil war following her death was very likely - in the end, the fear of civil war ensured a smooth succession for the next King, but Shakespeare was right to be worried, as the country did fall into civil war thirty years after Shakespeare's death). They are about families and blood feuds and histories which stretch back generations. They are about sacrifice, loss, love, betrayal and redemption. They are about the rise and fall of the mighty, they are about the relationship between the aristocracy and the people. They are The Godfather crossed with Star Wars with a dash of the West Wing (a series which once featured the President watching a performance of Henry VI, bizarrely rewritten as a musical ...). They are just about the most absurdly audacious debuts of any playwright ever, precociously taking on central tenets of Elizabethan propeganda, inviting comparisons with the Orestia and the Mystery plays, as well as topping any previous attempts to epic, mutli-part plays. No wonder that Robert Greene, a University-educated playwright whose own star was dimmed by Shakespeare's, should mock him as an 'upstart crow' with (adapting a line from Part 3) 'a player's heart wrapped in a tyger's hide.' In the Restoration, they were a celebration of protestant heroes such as Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester and some versions even edited the Catholic Henry out of the play altogether. In the 19th Century, they were plays about the establihsment of the British empire, Talbot's heroics were part of the 'charge of the light brigade' spirit of the British army. In the 1950s and 60s, they were penetrating analysis of the destructive waste of any power politics. The supernatural was played down. Joan was not a witch, but a strong, determined woman. Jourdain was not a witch, but a fraud who got lucky. Towards the end of the 20th century, the play's supernatural dimension is rediscovered and, in the wake of Bosnia, devolution and even Iraq, the plays' ability to address the poverty of war and the horror of civil war gives it a new life. For me, they are about history breaking apart, from the initial mourning ceremony for Henry V, when attempts to memorialise him are repeatedly interrupted by messengers with news -- bad news -- from France, through the violent and sometimes riotous collapse of national borders, with France and then Kent falling into anarchy, until the cycle's real climax, which for me is not Henry's death, but Richard's snarling insistence that 'I have no brother, am like no brother, I am myself alone.' From a nation rooted in chivallry and empire to one man who denies any affiliation to anybody but himself -- that amazing sweep, over thirty years of blood-soaked history in which every value is betrayed, every ideal is polluted, is for me the essence of the cycle's terrifying impact. Shakespeare would return again and again to these plays, reworking them for later plays. Good point about Romeo and Juliet. Edward's cack-handed attempt to seduce Lady Grey foreshadows Measure for Measure. The equivocal propechies in Part 2 are echoed in Macbeth - indeed, Macbeth is an almagamation of the Dukes of York and Gloucester. The people riot in Coriolanus. And civil war is a theme that Shakespeare returned to again and again and again: his other histories, Romeo and Juliet, Antony and Cleopatra, Julius Caesar, and of course King Lear. Michael Boyd's productions are probably the best that there have been. He is one of the few directors I know to have started from the premise that the plays are masterpieces - most think them apprentice works in need to editing and even rewriting. His changes to the text - all productions of Shakespeare's plays change the text slightly - are minimal. Seeing them altogether on one day is a rare experience - this is literally only the 3rd production I know of to have staged the full text ever. Boyd's changes by-and-large are there to tighten the relationship between the three plays. Whether Shakespeare conceived the plays as a trilogy is not known, but they would not have been played together in one day. It's likely that Part 1 was written last. Adding a line about Gloucester is a nice touch, but would be odd if one were only watching Part 2.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

« 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 » - Previous | Next | Reload

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Amphitheatre »