| Author |
Topic:
The Shakespeare Discussion Thread
|
Zaz
Title: Manager, The Ampitheatre
Registered:
Oct '98
|
Date Posted:
2/20/07 10:37pm
Subject:
RE: The Shakespeare Thread: Now Disc. "Richard III"
|
I really enjoyed the comments of both Nemesis and darkmole, as I suspect Rogue will, too, when he's freed from his training period at work.
I really envy you, being able to see such a vibrant, intelligent production of the plays. And whoever thinks them apprentice works is an idiot, full of sound and fury. 
What are they about? In the words of another famous poet: "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold." Shakespeare had good reason to fear civil war, especially as France had exploded in religious strife in the late 1500's and Germany would, too, somewhat later. (The Protestants lost in both countries). The Wars of the Roses represented a time when the body politic of England became so coarsened by greed and ambition that literally anything could (and did) happen. This allowed Richmond, a man who was the grandson of a Welsh groom (and in the days when birth really mattered) to become King of England.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
JediNemesis
Registered:
Mar '03
|
Date Posted:
2/22/07 5:15am
Subject:
RE: The Shakespeare Thread: Now Disc. "Richard III"
|
darkmole posted:
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.
On that last point, yes; I'd forgotten how often one or another of the bigshots refer to having (or lacking) the support of "the commons". York seems to have them on his side a lot of the time . . . I guess it just goes to show that the mob is sentimental. Everyone loves a wrongfully deprived heir. Jack Cade and his rabble, hilarious though they are, go to show the opposite: for all the power the aristocrats wielded, when the peasants put their minds to it disaster could strike. Cade burns quite a bit of London, kills both the Lords Stafford, and Lord Say.
darkmole posted:
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 ...)
I came across a line in a movie somewhere where someone puts the idea of making a musical of Richard III (sample lines: "I've got a hunch I'm gonna be king / My name's Dirty Dick and killing's my thing") but I've never heard about that episode.
What was it like? 
darkmole posted:
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, multi-part plays.
I think Michael Boyd said he preferred to regard them as the last hurrah of the medieval tradition - the tradition the mystery plays belong to - rather than the first flourish of what we think of as a classically Shakespearean or Renaissance style. It's a sound enough view. They owe a hell of a lot to the mystery plays; doesn't Richard III compare himself to "the formal Vice" - ie, the personification of Vice as encountered in the Mysteries - at one point?
Also - and I admit, I take the "if Shakespeare did it, it's okay" view far too often - once again Shakespeare provides an example of what people insist on regarding as a modern disease with the epic nature of his trilogy. Parts 2 and 3 were smash hits, so Shakespeare promptly turned out Part 1 to cash in on said success. I'm not saying Part 1 is the TPM of Henry VI (it's better, for one thing ) but it is marginally less connected to Part 2 than Part 2 is to Part 3. You could probably stage the latter two parts without Part 1, but not the other way around.
darkmole posted:
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.'
You can't catch me with a deliberate mistake that obvious.
darkmole posted:
. . . 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 chivalry 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.
One of the contributing factors to the huge intensity of the cycle, I think, is that you only realise it's taking 30 years if you stop to join the dots. Part 1 begins with Henry V's funeral; Henry VI makes repeated reference to being crowned at "nine months old", so when he shows up a few scenes into Part 1 as a grown, albeit young, man, there's twenty or so years mysteriously vanished. It took me ages to spot that, and only because I was thinking about it in depth. Seeing them all - particularly seeing them in one day, where there's only really time for a visit to the restroom and a bite to eat between shows - doesn't give you time to pick up on the niggles; it makes the events out to be one huge juggernaut going downhill. The necessities of theatrical time make the awful downward slope from order to anarchy seem terrifyingly quick. The other instance where Shakespeare puts this to good use is Othello; the play seems to happen only over a few days, rendering the horror of what happens still greater.
Zaz posted:
In the words of another famous poet: "Things fall
apart; the centre cannot hold."
I thought that line was by Shakespeare for years . . . 
Zaz posted:
The Wars of the Roses represented a time when the body politic of England became so coarsened by greed and ambition that literally anything could (and did) happen. This allowed Richmond, a man who was the grandson of a Welsh groom (and in the days when birth really mattered) to become King of England.
Hey, wait a minute. Henry VII was also the great-great-great-grandson of Edward III, the source of the entire brouhaha (why the hell did he have seven sons? If he'd stopped at Lionel of Clarence none of it would have happened Well, maybe.) and also the step-grandson of Henry V. His claim to the throne was pretty tenuous, but after Richard III had finished murdering his way to the crown there weren't many solid claimants left. And besides, after Richard, England was prepared to have anyone on the throne as long as it wasn't him.
News from the RSC: the first advert for the second tetralogy is out (it doesn't open till July). Turns out I was wrong; Chuk Iwuji (Henry VI) will not be doubling Richard II. Instead, we've got Jonathan Slinger taking the part: the same man who played Richard III and did it very well indeed. I'll be very interested to see what he does with Richard II; Michael Boyd said at the post-show that they were aiming to show "through-lines" in casting, which implies that they've seen some kind of connection or analogy between the two Richards who bookend the Histories Cycle.
The similarity that springs to my mind is that both men are on the neurotic side and place immense personal significance on the crown (unlike the Henrys in between, who pretty much just assume it's their birthright and get the hell on with it). Richard III claims to be unable to live happy without the crown ("what other pleasure can the world afford?"); Richard II appears to have no life at all outside of the kingship - his self is so bound up with his office that once he is "unking'd by Bolingbroke" he is "nothing".
The picture shows him with an Elizabethan-style ruff, a red wig and a whited-up face; in fact, aside from the incipient moustache (or possibly even with it?) he's the spit and image of Elizabeth I. There's a connection right there, of course; Liz was terrified of being deposed, and the abdication scenes in Richard II were notoriously never staged in front of her.
My main curiosity now is to see who they pick to play John of Gaunt. 
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Zaz
Title: Manager, The Ampitheatre
Registered:
Oct '98
|
Date Posted:
2/22/07 12:19pm
Subject:
RE: The Shakespeare Thread: Now Disc. "Richard III"
- Date Edited:
2/22/07 12:30pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Zaz
|
after Richard III had finished murdering his way to the crown there weren't many solid claimants left.
Not true. There were George of Clarence's son and daughter, and the Poles, the large family of Richard III's sister, plus Edward IV's five daughters, if you reverse the Attainer, which Richmond did, so he could marry the eldest. And descent from Edward III was pretty common in the nobility (All of Henry VIII's six wives, which included 4 commoners, were descended from either Edward I or Edward III.) Richmond & his son, Henry VIII, judically murdered a great number of the claimants, including Edward of Clarence. His sister Margaret was beheaded by Henry VIII at the age of 67, for no greater motive than spite against her son, Reginald Pole. There were also great families with noble descent: Buckingham was descended from Thomas of Gloucester (youngest son of Edward III).
Richmond held the crown for the simple reason that everyone was sick of civil war, and he was perceived as a strong ruler, which he was. But not much loved, either by his people nor by historians, though he was, IMO, one of the most remarkable kings of England. Towards the end, he had fits of mania (remember, he was, like Henry VI, descended from the mad king of France--in fact he had more French royal blood than English.) His descent was also through an illegitimate son, which was not true of just about all the other claimants.
And yes, I'd be fascinated to see who they cast as John of Gaunt.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
JediNemesis
Registered:
Mar '03
|
Date Posted:
2/23/07 1:08am
Subject:
RE: The Shakespeare Thread: Now Disc. "Richard III"
|
Mea culpa. I was working from memory, and the genealogical charts in the playtexts tend to leave off extraneous daughters. I should have looked it up, I admit. (I wouldn't last two minutes in the Senate, would I?  ) Thanks, Z. 
Zaz posted:
Richmond held the crown for the simple reason that everyone was sick of civil war, and he was perceived as a strong ruler, which he was.
Yes. Leaving all questions of how many people there were with a better claim aside Richmond had a claim to the throne of sorts, was male, and the right kind of age; that was enough to get him the crown in the situation at the time. Putting a child or a woman on the throne would have been pretty disastrous in that kind of political climate . . .
Zaz posted:
His sister Margaret was beheaded by Henry VIII at the age of 67, for no greater motive than spite against her son, Reginald Pole.
I remember that from one of our history books. It was accompanied by a truly cringe-making cartoon about heads on (off) poles.  If it was out of spite, though, that rather argues it wasn't out of concern for the throne. I think it just shows that Henry VIII was, well, Henry VIII.
Zaz posted:
And yes, I'd be fascinated to see who they cast as John of Gaunt.
If they're serious about the through-lines thing, then I'd say the most likely pick is Richard Cordery, who played Humphrey of Gloucester in Henry VI. Gaunt plays a somewhat similar (father-figure-esque) role in R2 as old Gloucester does in H6, but with markedly contrasting results. *shrug*
My sister's opinion on the R2 picture? He looks like Ronald McDonald.  I'm not going to be able to shake that image now.
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Zaz
Title: Manager, The Ampitheatre
Registered:
Oct '98
|
Date Posted:
2/23/07 7:05am
Subject:
RE: The Shakespeare Thread: Now Disc. "Richard III"
|
|
John of Gaunt = Anthony Hopkins?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
darkmole
Registered:
Jul '00
|
Date Posted:
2/23/07 7:32am
Subject:
RE: The Shakespeare Thread: Now Disc. "Richard III"
|
|
It's a nice idea but the part is probably too small for Hopkins, John of Gaunt dies in Act 2 ... I saw Hopkins' Lear and his Antony - he was a good Antony but a rubbish Lear.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
JediNemesis
Registered:
Mar '03
|
Date Posted:
2/23/07 7:53am
Subject:
RE: The Shakespeare Thread: Now Disc. "Richard III"
|
I think my dad saw Hopkins play Lear . . . Google throws up a production in 1986; that'd be about right.
If we're doing the dream-casting thing, then I can't think of anyone who would be the 'perfect' Gaunt (Sean Connery? Too Scottish. Alan Rickman? Too acid. Oliver Reed / Richard Harris / Desmond Llywelyn? Too dead.) It is annoying.
Cillian Murphy would make a good Richard II, though.
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Zaz
Title: Manager, The Ampitheatre
Registered:
Oct '98
|
Date Posted:
2/23/07 12:46pm
Subject:
RE: The Shakespeare Thread: Now Disc. "Richard III"
|
Liam Neeson?
Peter O'Toole, back in the day, for Richard II...
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
JediNemesis
Registered:
Mar '03
|
Date Posted:
2/23/07 12:55pm
Subject:
RE: The Shakespeare Thread: Now Disc. "Richard III"
|
Liam Neeson? Maybe. (cue mental test-drive against "This England") Maybe. He actually seems, if anything, a little on the young side to me; I always think of Gaunt as an old, ill man. He does, after all, snuff it naturally rather than being murdered.
Ian McKellen could do it, if he were willing to take the Obi-Wan dies-a-third-of-the-way-in role. Or Bernard Hill could do it - he'd be good.
Denholm Elliott would be the perfect York if he weren't dead. And James McAvoy would be a superb Aumerle . . .
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Zaz
Title: Manager, The Ampitheatre
Registered:
Oct '98
|
Date Posted:
2/23/07 1:09pm
Subject:
RE: The Shakespeare Thread: Now Disc. "Richard III"
|
|
Ioan Gruffud for Richard II?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
JediNemesis
Registered:
Mar '03
|
Date Posted:
2/23/07 1:24pm
Subject:
RE: The Shakespeare Thread: Now Disc. "Richard III"
|
I think the only thing I've seen of his is King Arthur, so it's a little hard to judge . . . McAvoy could probably do a good job of the King, come to think of it.
David Tennant could be an interesting Bolingbroke.
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Zaz
Title: Manager, The Ampitheatre
Registered:
Oct '98
|
Date Posted:
2/23/07 4:49pm
Subject:
RE: The Shakespeare Thread: Now Disc. "Richard III"
|
From Henry IV's tomb effigy...
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Zaz
Title: Manager, The Ampitheatre
Registered:
Oct '98
|
Date Posted:
3/7/07 9:21pm
Subject:
RE: The Shakespeare Thread: Now Disc. "Richard III"
|
|
If you were going to buy a version of the plays, what's the best one. I have a one-book version, but I want to upgrade.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
JediNemesis
Registered:
Mar '03
|
Date Posted:
3/8/07 2:01am
Subject:
RE: The Shakespeare Thread: Now Disc. "Richard III"
|
If you mean moving from a one-volume to individual copies, then easy. The Arden Shakespeare books are the best on the market. They're about halfway through producing their third editions of the entire canon; the second eds are probably cheaper, especially if you can get them second-hand off eBay, abebooks or similar.
They're about the most exhaustively annotated editions I've ever come across. It's practically routine for the Introduction to take up more of the book than the play
(And I will get to the Poetry thread . . . later . . . when I have a free hour and a half )
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
darkmole
Registered:
Jul '00
|
Date Posted:
3/8/07 3:39am
Subject:
RE: The Shakespeare Thread: Now Disc. "Richard III"
|
Arden is good. The third series is a mixed bag. If you can pick up the Arden 2 of Hamlet, get it while you can because it is much much better than Arden 3.
Arden is good for students because it has so much commentary, but they're not easy to read. I prefer the New Cambridge series myself, it's nicely laid out and the editing is at least as good as Arden.
You won't go far wrong with Penguin and Oxford. Penguin, Oxford, Arden and Cambridge are all done by the same crowd, they're pretty much interchangable when you get down to it.
For Complete Works, the standard text now is the Norton Shakespeare, which is basically an annotated version of the controversial Oxford text, now in its second edition. Arden do their own complete works, the RSC are just about to bring their own out (next month I think). A lot of Americans still swear by the Riverside Shakespeare.
If you want to get something really special, look out for the Norton Facsimile of the 'First Folio', the first edition of Shakespeare's complete works and probably still the best. Applause do a cheaper edition but it's not as nice.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
