It sounds nice if a little delusional. Then Richard comes to this part:
And my large kingdom for a little grave,
A little, little grave, an obscure grave;
Or I'll be buried in the King's highway,
Some way of common trade where subjects' feet
May hourly trample on their sovereign's head...
But is this possible? To be a King and to also be obscure? He is imagining highly unlikely things for himself. But it is very engaging and by the end we are almost rooting for him.
Most memorable was Ian McKellen 1969 Edinburgh Festival. I had studied it at school and was unimpressed. But the Prospect Company production was outstanding.
The play is excellent in how is shows the shift in the balance of power. The yielding of the crown is almost always bitter sweet and must have been to Shakespeare's audience. It also has one of Shakespeare's classic series of lyrical micro scenes in the last act. And this comes at a time when we know we are nearing our end with Richard and strangely wanting to hear his voice more and more.
Richard II is up there as one of my favourite Shakespeare plays. First saw it with Ralph Fiennes, aeons ago and was blown away. Really like Ben Whishaw in the Hollow Crown. Current play at the Bridge Theatre in London, not so much. Parody of Succession which I don’t think works.
Saw The Hollow Crown (BBC, 2013) version, which was very good. I also like the Arkangel audio production, which I’ve listened to before. Some scattered
The text in this play is so great, it’s just a pleasure to read every line. The language is not “naturalistic”, in that every character expresses themselves as if they’re a great poet, but the sentiments are true to the characters. It’s almost like a musical: you accept that in a musical, the characters can all sing.
I was struck by the lack of asides. Most of the time the characters speak to other characters, but don’t express their interior thoughts to the audience. This is particularly interesting because of the differences between the two main characters: Richard almost has no interiority, he says every thing that comes to his mind, no matter how contradictory. With Henry, I honestly don’t know if he means what he says or not, much of the time. Is that a failure of mine, or is he supposed to be so ambiguous? I don’t know, but I enjoyed it thoroughly.
The other hallmark of Shakespeare that seems absent here is comedy: almost all of his tragedies have some very funny moments, and there really aren’t any in Richard II. I don’t think it’s poorer for it (I don’t know how the play could be any better, really), but I found that interesting.
I saw Sam West as Richard ll in the White Place at the RSC in a production that involved audience participation. I found his performance spellbinding and the play deeply thought provoking
What ever you think of Richard, Henry is a usurper, and there are so many warnings about what this means scattered through out the play, boding ill for the future. A shadow is cast over the monarchy that arguably lasts for centuries.
This makes sense. To me, Richard feels like a proto Hamlet in that he is very decisive at moments and his actions have huge consequences yet one is left feeling like he is often wishy-washy, overly philosophical, day dreaming his way through a momentous historical event. At the beginning of the play, he can't bare to watching a duel so he banishes two of his subjects and goes off to Ireland to fight. At the end, Henry feels suddenly insecure about Richard's downfall and goes on his own mission of war. Henry gets caught in the shadow.
I'll be in Stratford with the RSC for a month as of next week. not yet sure what benefits theatre access comes with, but any general must-see/do Stratford or RSC reccs you may have would most comprehensively be enjoyed
I know very little of English history, and found the play a bit of a slog, especially because I read the full introduction and all of the notes, including the long notes in the Arden Shakespeare to try to educate myself. I also read some of Dickens's A Child's History of England to find out who Richard II was, and where he fit into the scheme of things. I think we have a new Richard II in the White House.
I got more emotionally involved with this one than with Richard III. Questions:
Are Henry IV and Aumerle/Rutland the same characters who are already dead in Richard III? Is York in this play the father of Richard III?
Scene 1.3: "Wherefore com'st thou hither before King Richard in his Royal Lists?" What are Royal Lists?
Scene 2.1: "York: Be York the next that must be bankrupt so! Though death be poor, it ends a mortal woe." Is he saying he wants to die?
Why is meter SO important? Why are there so many footnotes on every page rationalizing how various lines do or don't fit the meter? What is an Alexandrine and why does a reader care about them?
3.3
I'll give my jewels for a set of beads,
My gorgeous palace for a hermitage,
My gay apparel for an almsman's gown,
My figured goblets for a dish of wood,
...
It sounds nice if a little delusional. Then Richard comes to this part:
And my large kingdom for a little grave,
A little, little grave, an obscure grave;
Or I'll be buried in the King's highway,
Some way of common trade where subjects' feet
May hourly trample on their sovereign's head...
But is this possible? To be a King and to also be obscure? He is imagining highly unlikely things for himself. But it is very engaging and by the end we are almost rooting for him.
It's too bad it wasn't Richard III who had these lines, since he was the one found buried under a parking lot.
haha!!
Most memorable was Ian McKellen 1969 Edinburgh Festival. I had studied it at school and was unimpressed. But the Prospect Company production was outstanding.
Jealous!!
The play is excellent in how is shows the shift in the balance of power. The yielding of the crown is almost always bitter sweet and must have been to Shakespeare's audience. It also has one of Shakespeare's classic series of lyrical micro scenes in the last act. And this comes at a time when we know we are nearing our end with Richard and strangely wanting to hear his voice more and more.
The crown has a sort-of magical quality, an object that we desire but which creates an inner problem that undoes us.
Richard II is up there as one of my favourite Shakespeare plays. First saw it with Ralph Fiennes, aeons ago and was blown away. Really like Ben Whishaw in the Hollow Crown. Current play at the Bridge Theatre in London, not so much. Parody of Succession which I don’t think works.
I didn't make it to the Bridge production... not sure I will
Saw The Hollow Crown (BBC, 2013) version, which was very good. I also like the Arkangel audio production, which I’ve listened to before. Some scattered
The text in this play is so great, it’s just a pleasure to read every line. The language is not “naturalistic”, in that every character expresses themselves as if they’re a great poet, but the sentiments are true to the characters. It’s almost like a musical: you accept that in a musical, the characters can all sing.
I was struck by the lack of asides. Most of the time the characters speak to other characters, but don’t express their interior thoughts to the audience. This is particularly interesting because of the differences between the two main characters: Richard almost has no interiority, he says every thing that comes to his mind, no matter how contradictory. With Henry, I honestly don’t know if he means what he says or not, much of the time. Is that a failure of mine, or is he supposed to be so ambiguous? I don’t know, but I enjoyed it thoroughly.
The other hallmark of Shakespeare that seems absent here is comedy: almost all of his tragedies have some very funny moments, and there really aren’t any in Richard II. I don’t think it’s poorer for it (I don’t know how the play could be any better, really), but I found that interesting.
Yes that's a good point, it is not a very mingled play
I saw Sam West as Richard ll in the White Place at the RSC in a production that involved audience participation. I found his performance spellbinding and the play deeply thought provoking
Are 3.2-3.4 in the running for best 3-scene sequence in all of Shakespeare?
Yeah some great stuff
What ever you think of Richard, Henry is a usurper, and there are so many warnings about what this means scattered through out the play, boding ill for the future. A shadow is cast over the monarchy that arguably lasts for centuries.
This makes sense. To me, Richard feels like a proto Hamlet in that he is very decisive at moments and his actions have huge consequences yet one is left feeling like he is often wishy-washy, overly philosophical, day dreaming his way through a momentous historical event. At the beginning of the play, he can't bare to watching a duel so he banishes two of his subjects and goes off to Ireland to fight. At the end, Henry feels suddenly insecure about Richard's downfall and goes on his own mission of war. Henry gets caught in the shadow.
I'll be in Stratford with the RSC for a month as of next week. not yet sure what benefits theatre access comes with, but any general must-see/do Stratford or RSC reccs you may have would most comprehensively be enjoyed
Henry, Is your session on the Henry IVs from last year still an available recording?
I want to clarify that the language and the poetry is marvelous, and will be much more pleasurable on a second reading, sans notes.
I know very little of English history, and found the play a bit of a slog, especially because I read the full introduction and all of the notes, including the long notes in the Arden Shakespeare to try to educate myself. I also read some of Dickens's A Child's History of England to find out who Richard II was, and where he fit into the scheme of things. I think we have a new Richard II in the White House.
I got more emotionally involved with this one than with Richard III. Questions:
Are Henry IV and Aumerle/Rutland the same characters who are already dead in Richard III? Is York in this play the father of Richard III?
Scene 1.3: "Wherefore com'st thou hither before King Richard in his Royal Lists?" What are Royal Lists?
Scene 2.1: "York: Be York the next that must be bankrupt so! Though death be poor, it ends a mortal woe." Is he saying he wants to die?
Why is meter SO important? Why are there so many footnotes on every page rationalizing how various lines do or don't fit the meter? What is an Alexandrine and why does a reader care about them?