Kevin's Watch

Okay this will sound weird. After all Richard III is already a play, right? A pretty damn famous one by that Bill Shakespeare fellow...! But let me explain.

First of all Richard III is a very early play of Shakespeare's and it shows. The thing is four hours long! With 36 speaking parts! Most of whom only appear in one scene, many of whom are never identified! Plus over three of those hours have the same character on stage! Add to that fact the events involved were as familiar to Elizabethans as the Kennedy family is to us, but most Americans barely have a clue (no particular reason they should).

More than that, many of the very best Shakespeare adaptations such as Tempest Redux (zahirblue.blogspot.com/2016/02/tempest- ... eview.html) here in LA eschew a traditional edit/performance in such a way as to make it even more purely itself (yeah I know that sounds odd too). For example last summer I saw a version of Romeo and Juliet with all the genders reversed. It opened one's eyes about the play's content, because suddenly we saw Julian's birthday party as what it was--a meat market for a pubescent Capulet, who was on display for those eager to deflower him. Likewise the violence of teens going at each other with knives seemed more shocked--and real--because these were teenage girls. And when the Nurse talks about "these women" from an actual position of subservience, rather than just bitching about those darn females, it felt much more fresh, vivid, even disturbing.

I've edited Richard III down to about 90 minutes, with a cast of 14 (maybe 12 with doubling). Along the way I tried to throw what happens in the play into sharp relief. This frankly meant shifting scenes around, moving lines from one character to another, cutting a bunch of characters while melding others together. I very much expanded the role of Lady Anne, Richard's wife and queen. Along the way I borrowed lines (and sometimes scenes) from other of Shakespeare's plays--Henry VI Part 3, Henry V, Titus Andronicus and even Romeo and Juliet.

In less that two weeks' time, a (truly amazing) cast is meeting to read through the thing and give their feedback. Am very excited! Among other things, this also does something quite vital in live theatre--build buzz amid the local audience, laying the groundwork for fund-raising and later for ticket sales. Heh heh...we'll even sell t-shirts and coffee mugs! Not yet, though.

Sounds very interesting Zahir. Never been much up on the Richards. Io, (where is Io?) is a bit of an expert though.

I know the prologue to Henry V by heart though...

--A

My memory of reading some of Richard III is that in context of history he is made more malevolent/warped so that Shakespere could ingratiate himself with his monarch Elizabeth Tudor, as it was Elizabeth's grandfather who had Richard killed and took his throne. I never finished the play, though. But Avatar is right, Iolanthe should know about this thread!

(Your reworking of the play sounds intriguing, Zahir!)

The Elizabethan theatre was officially censored, so portraying the last Yorkist King as anything other than a villain simply was not in the cards. Shakespeare actually did something quite interesting and clever, portraying a crown as a great burden even for the best of men. This shows up time and again.

That is one reason we still do Shakespeare's history plays while nearly always ignoring other history plays of the period. Because he humanized all his characters, even the best (and worst) of historical characters. Richard, for example, seems to me captured in a single line: "Love foreswore me in my mother's womb."

The line that I always remember (not sure why) is "Behold mine arm. Is like a blasted sapling withered up,"



--A

Thanks Cord for letting me know about this thread. Yes, I'm very interested in RIII, the real man, that is. I am very ashamed to say that I've never read or seen Shakespeare's version although I've heard a lot about it and seen snippets of Laurence Olivier limping about the stage. In fact the only Shakespeare play that I really know is Merchant of Venice which I "did" for O level in 1968, a long time ago now but I remember bits of it "The quality of mercy is not strained......." etc.. Other plays I have seen, but not particularly remembered.

I have read Thomas Moore's account of Richard and bits of Polydore Vergil's, which, with Hollinshead is where Shakespeare would have drawn his sources. These are all of course very anti-Richard which is understandable as they were writing for his successors.

I will be very interested to hear more of Zahir's adaptation and the reception of it.

I'll keep you informed.

For what it is worth, Sir Ian McKellan starred in a very good film version of Shakespeare's play that transposed the setting to a Fascist 1930s Britain. Kevin Spacey did a tour of a startling production, and a documentary called Waiting In the Wings of the World Stage captures the feeling of that production.

But yes, one has to keep distinct the historical figure from the fictional character in Shakespeare's play. The man was a poet and playwright, not an historian. I myself think the play is primarily a character portrait, and the central character speaks to the bullied child in us all, the part of us that feels unloved and bitter and longs to strike out. Yet for all his gleeful ruthlessness, his crowing that "no pity" can be found in his eyes, during the play he never murders anyone personally. And the night before the battle, he realizes "There is no creature loves me;
And if I die no soul will pity me:
And wherefore should they, since that I myself
Find in myself no pity to myself?"

Here's a lovely documentary about research into the real Richard though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDHDvnnK4nI

I love the banner btw Zahir.

Io, do yourself a favour and watch Kenneth Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing. One of my favourite screen adaptations of Shakespeare ever. Absolutely hilarious.

--A

If that's the one where he plays Benedict I've seen it and enjoyed it. I also saw taming of the shrew on telly with John cleese as petruchio which was also very good.

That's the one.

I must admit to a fondness for Luhrmann's Romeo & Juliet as well. The way the managed to modernise the setting without touching the dialogue really impressed me.

--A

I also saw King Lear on the telly many years ago now but couldn't watch the bit where someone had his eyes put out!

Zahir wrote:I'll keep you informed.

Here's a lovely documentary about research into the real Richard though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDHDvnnK4nI

Unfortunately I can't get that link, Zahir, it probably thinks I am in America. However I suspect it is the Channel 4 documentary that I saw when it was first aired over here. As I belong to the Richard III Society and get all the Bulletins (newsletter/magazine, call it what you will) etc. I get all the news as it happens, plus all the anti-RIII stuff. However, thanks for the thought.

Huh. I'm in America and can see it. Odd. This one is about the young man who has a virtually identical case of scoliosis as Richard. They put him through all kinds of paces to see if he could (with a bit of training) do the sorts of actions Richard is reputed to have done. Their conclusion--Richard must have been an expert horseman, to compensate for his relative lack of breath due to his scoliosis. Not a big difference in the long run.

Yes, I saw that, and there was an earlier one all about finding Richard's skeleton and the tests that were done.

The young man is Dominic Smee and he is currently trying to raise the money to have a full suit of armour made. He has some, but needs the rest so that he can fully take part in re-enactments. He seems a remarkable young man who has overcome, as Richard must have done, his disability. Hopefully the withered arm thing is now redundant.

I was searching through YouTube and found footage of some French productions of the play. It was very interesting! In one the whole opening monologue (almost) is done to the court, with Richard laughing about his deformity and efforts to find love along with everyone else!

Until he was alone.

This Richard also had was looked like quills coming from his back! So startling!

Avatar wrote:I love the banner btw Zahir.

I agree, it's nice.

Avatar wrote:Io, do yourself a favour and watch Kenneth Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing. One of my favourite screen adaptations of Shakespeare ever. Absolutely hilarious.

Indeed, a very entertaining movie.

Zahir wrote:That is one reason we still do Shakespeare's history plays while nearly always ignoring other history plays of the period. Because he humanized all his characters, even the best (and worst) of historical characters.

That is probably it. If I recall correctly, Shakespeare had many playwright contemporaries, but I don't remember learning any of their efforts.

Zahir wrote:Huh. I'm in America and can see it. Odd.

Yes, but she's not.

--A

I like some of the poetic lines in the play, such as this part by Richard after having seen the ghosts:

The lights burn blue. It is now dead midnight.
Cold fearful drops stand on my trembling flesh.
What do I fear? Myself? There's none else by.
Richard loves Richard; that is, I am I.
Is there a murderer here? No. Yes, I am.
Then fly! What, from myself? Great reason. Why:
Lest I revenge. Myself upon myself?
Alack, I love myself. Wherefore? For any good
That I myself have done unto myself?
O no, alas, I rather hate myself
For hateful deeds committed by myself.
I am a villain.

Still, as I said earlier, I recognize that this portrait of Richard is probably very unfair and meant to justify the accession of the Tudors to England's throne. But, it's definitely entertaining drama!

Did those lines survive the adaptation, Zahir?

Yeah, it is not history, but Richard in the play is an extraordinary portrait of a man who quite literally chose power over love--and got nothing out of the deal (Ring Cycle anyone?)

Most of those lines do survive, yes--but in my version some of them are spoken by the ghost of Lady Anne.