(no subject)
it's funny to be having issues with Shakespeare, and nevertheless, I do!
I've just seen Richard the III, with Kevin Spacey as the wretched king, Gemma Jones as queen Margaret, and a slew of other wonderful actors and actresses in supporting roles.
The staging -- the clever use of video, both for character introductions and for gags, the stage itself -- walls made of only doors and the wonderful use of these doors -- from propping them open in rhyme to marking out the dead by black crosses, the live drumming -- both on stage and off -- the lighting & costumes --- were exactly why i love American theater: at its best, there is so much meaning and so much subtext with minimal fuss.
I found only one fault with the direction: it was all a bit too loud. Spacey doesn't say his lines, he yells almost all of them, and so does almost every other character. I am also sure his face was extremely expressive, when he was blown up on screen during the calling-out scene, it was quite a treat. However, without binoculars I could not see much during the rest of the play. Otherwise, his physical play was superb -- he made a wonderful giant spider of a man with his prosthetic hump, bound leg and misshapen hand, crawling through stage, lounging and, finally, hanging upside down.
Now about the plot. I just couldn't suspend my disbelief. Having read Josephine Tey + knowing some history of England of the period, you can't take the play as anything else by a propaganda vehicle for propping up the Tudors. Come on! The misshapen cripple was all of 32 years when he died, and 29 when he ascended the British throne. He married Anna when he was 21, I believe, as a child he spent quite a bit of time in her father's household (the father who rebelled against his brother). He was also a dotting brother, doing Edvard's bidding from a very young age. The Woodvilles, however, were meddlesome, and believed that the English treasure and offices were there for their taking. Moreover, if Elizabeth's children would have been moved out of the way, there were plenty of other children who could have stood n Richard's path to ascension -- he didn't kill any of them, and some he adopted! The claim that Richard killed the princes is at best disputed -- but you can read Ms Tey for your self.
In addition, Richard's crippled state could not be but grossly exaggerated. This is a man who led armies from a very young age. Imagine this spider in full armor and on a horse, riding in battle for hours, and winning, winning, winning, until that fateful battle with Henry Tudor, the future father of Henry the VIII, grandfather of Elizabeth the first, Shakespeare's patron.
Sigh. Richard is over the top with his murderous thoughts, with his murderous obsessions, with his incessant evil plotting. In short, it's -- yes -- a fascinating propaganda piece.
Highly recommend it!
I've just seen Richard the III, with Kevin Spacey as the wretched king, Gemma Jones as queen Margaret, and a slew of other wonderful actors and actresses in supporting roles.
The staging -- the clever use of video, both for character introductions and for gags, the stage itself -- walls made of only doors and the wonderful use of these doors -- from propping them open in rhyme to marking out the dead by black crosses, the live drumming -- both on stage and off -- the lighting & costumes --- were exactly why i love American theater: at its best, there is so much meaning and so much subtext with minimal fuss.
I found only one fault with the direction: it was all a bit too loud. Spacey doesn't say his lines, he yells almost all of them, and so does almost every other character. I am also sure his face was extremely expressive, when he was blown up on screen during the calling-out scene, it was quite a treat. However, without binoculars I could not see much during the rest of the play. Otherwise, his physical play was superb -- he made a wonderful giant spider of a man with his prosthetic hump, bound leg and misshapen hand, crawling through stage, lounging and, finally, hanging upside down.
Now about the plot. I just couldn't suspend my disbelief. Having read Josephine Tey + knowing some history of England of the period, you can't take the play as anything else by a propaganda vehicle for propping up the Tudors. Come on! The misshapen cripple was all of 32 years when he died, and 29 when he ascended the British throne. He married Anna when he was 21, I believe, as a child he spent quite a bit of time in her father's household (the father who rebelled against his brother). He was also a dotting brother, doing Edvard's bidding from a very young age. The Woodvilles, however, were meddlesome, and believed that the English treasure and offices were there for their taking. Moreover, if Elizabeth's children would have been moved out of the way, there were plenty of other children who could have stood n Richard's path to ascension -- he didn't kill any of them, and some he adopted! The claim that Richard killed the princes is at best disputed -- but you can read Ms Tey for your self.
In addition, Richard's crippled state could not be but grossly exaggerated. This is a man who led armies from a very young age. Imagine this spider in full armor and on a horse, riding in battle for hours, and winning, winning, winning, until that fateful battle with Henry Tudor, the future father of Henry the VIII, grandfather of Elizabeth the first, Shakespeare's patron.
Sigh. Richard is over the top with his murderous thoughts, with his murderous obsessions, with his incessant evil plotting. In short, it's -- yes -- a fascinating propaganda piece.
Highly recommend it!