he even says "hysterical" unironically

[angevin2]

So who is going to see this? (I know lareinenoire is, but there are lots of DC people on my flist.)

You should totally tell me all about it if you do. In particular whether it is as faily as the review makes it sound.

Also I am perhaps unreasonably angered by this:
At the top of the show, director Kahn has inserted material from "Thomas of Woodstock," an

Comments

[txanne]

Oh how silly of me. Of *course* having migraines is the same as being weak. Oh wait, no it isn't.

[angevin2]

MIGRAINES ARE FOR NEUROTIC GIRLY-KINGS.

(srsly I don't even have them and that pissed me off.)

[txanne]

inorite? My friends with migraines are the toughest people I know. (Also, MEN GET THEM TOO.)

[lareinenoire]

HELL YEAH THEY DO.

(My fiancé gets them once a month or so.)

[sadcypress]

I have seen it! Saw Richard last week, Henry tomorrow. I'm actually not going to read the review for a bit- I want to be able to write my own review for cisic's and my theatre blog without influence. I will try and say more in the morning when I am less braindead. :)

ps there is a reason Kahn is my nemesis...

[angevin2]

I look forward to hearing it. I actually am intensely curious as to how the Woodstock bits worked -- I adore that play and I think that using it only to "clarify" Shakespeare's Richard (which does not need the help, thank you) does an immense disservice to both plays.

[cisic]

Yep we saw it together and Henry is tonight. I didn't think the production of R2 was that great - it was serviceable, but I thought they lost a lot of the elements. Adding the Thomas of Woodstock stuff I thought actually diffused tension rather than helped with confusion. I was thinking about you when I was talking to another lj friend about it --

http://mmebahorel.livejournal.com/540416.html

Also here are two other reviews of Richard,
positive: http://dctheatrescene.com/2010/02/19/richard-ii-2/
negative: http://www.welovedc.com/2010/02/19/we-love-arts-richard-ii/

I'll let you know when I post my review as well.

[angevin2]

Adding the Thomas of Woodstock stuff I thought actually diffused tension rather than helped with confusion.

See, yes! It is in fact important to the damn play that we don't know exactly what went down with Woodstock (other than that Richard had him killed). Because the whole affair is consistently USED AS A POLITICAL FOOTBALL. Nobody (other than his widow and I suppose Gaunt, but then, he clearly knows all about it anyway) gives a damn who actually killed Woodstock.

[angevin2]

MOTHERFUCKING WORD.

[wordweaverlynn]

You're demonstrating the point Dorothy L. Sayers made in Gaudy Night about knowing what your own job is by the overmastering concern you have for it.

[angevin2]

I will have to store that in my mental arsenal, for it is an excellent point.

[kindkit]

The Shakespeare Theatre sent me an incredibly annoying flyer about that production (yes, I'm still on their mailing list for some reason, almost two years after leaving DC). It was all about "leadership" and included an essay from some management-consultant type about, basically, "what Shakespeare can teach us about running corporations."

I think a lot of the failiness of the review (and the production, from the sounds of it) is heavily gendered, too. Which I'm sure won't surprise you. There's very much this tone of "conventional masculinity (i.e., being a "regular guy") is the only way to be a good leader, and anyone who doesn't perform masculinity in the prescribed way is hysterical! And crazy!" Some of that's in the text, of course, but it strikes me as the kind of thing that modern productions ought to be a little bit thoughtful about. Possibly even, you know, subversive and challenging.

[angevin2]

I haaaaaaaaaaate those stupid stupid "what Shakespeare has to teach us about corporate management" things SO DAMN MUCH.

Some of that's in the text, of course, but it strikes me as the kind of thing that modern productions ought to be a little bit thoughtful about.

Yeah. I didn't talk about it as much because I've done the RII-and-gender rant in this lj on frequent occasions and feel like by now Everyone Knows What I Think. I mean, I think the text of the play does make it a more complicated issue than a lot of productions/criticism allow for (although I grant my reading of it is a minority interpretation). But that is one of the major issues of my dissertation right there, that monarchy in some ways precludes normative masculinity. This is one reason the first five pages or so are devoted to complaining that the reception of Fiona Shaw's RII tended to fall into two camps

[kindkit]

Someone ought to let me direct this damn play.

Sounds good to me. And now I'm picturing a modern dress production with Richard wearing, at some point, a t-shirt that reads: GREAT BIG PANSY DEVIANT HOMO.

Or maybe that's the version directed by Derek Jarman.

Your dissertation, as always, sounds awesome.

[angevin2]

Thank you! If you like I can send you a copy once it's finalized assuming my director ever finishes it

Also, I would have watched a Derek Jarman RII SO HARD.