i did not know Garrick helped make his own name on Cibber's script - for shame! and for shame too on Olivier's gutting of the female parts.
thoroughly enjoyed the Almeida Ralph Fiennes version from a few years ago, with Redgrave, i thought, on terrific form. the video of it is floating about somewhere if you've not seen. also enjoyed in that production the criminally underrated James Garnon, as Hastings. another of our finest living Shakespearean actors i think, often at The Globe.
There is another theme I have been following in R3 that I would like to share. I would love to hear your thoughts:
It's about the Elizabethan view that each must act within the bands of the role in society that they have been born to and if they don't, then they will be damned. This makes the role of the actor an interesting one where the role being played is abused in so far as the parameters of the acted role were concerned at the time . This would be significant to a period audience?
Richard disembles both as a man and king in order to attain and keep his kingship. Through this dishonourable behaviour he forfeits his soul because as king, appointed by God, he has a particular role to play. Where is the line between kingship in the sight of God and the politics of being a man who wants to govern? This is a very current play in that respect - the role of Statesman vs the man appointed to that role - stating the obvious here, sorry!
Allowing his, Richard's, character/personality as a mortal man to govern his decisions to become king and maintain that role will result in damnation. An Elizabethan audience would know, early on, how this play was to end - succumbing to temptation references The Fall. Applying these ideas to the present day I thought about Trump. During his term we will see what happens as the role of man and the role of 'king' conflict as they must inevitably do. His character flaws will shape his destiny and most likely, his downfall. The self deception has already begun. Trump said, following his assignation attempt "I was saved by God!" .....
"Where is the line between kingship in the sight of God and the politics of being a man who wants to govern?" This is one of the central questions of the history plays. We'll see it again in RII, and HV is a good one for this too. Your question is being asked, I think, from the Puritan perspective. There was a certain amount of leniency in other quarters. Although actors would have to be careful about wearing costumes out in public, thus breaking sumptuary law. (From memory, these laws were not always very strictly enforced, but I would need to check that.) Personally, I think some of the parallels to modern times are quite over done. Greenblatt's "Tyrant" book was a stretch, for example. Whether R is damned for his personal ambition I am not sure, not least because of his murders. Clarence worries about that too, is his dream speech. I will see if I can think of anything else relevant...
i did not know Garrick helped make his own name on Cibber's script - for shame! and for shame too on Olivier's gutting of the female parts.
thoroughly enjoyed the Almeida Ralph Fiennes version from a few years ago, with Redgrave, i thought, on terrific form. the video of it is floating about somewhere if you've not seen. also enjoyed in that production the criminally underrated James Garnon, as Hastings. another of our finest living Shakespearean actors i think, often at The Globe.
Thanks for that, Henry. Really interesting.
There is another theme I have been following in R3 that I would like to share. I would love to hear your thoughts:
It's about the Elizabethan view that each must act within the bands of the role in society that they have been born to and if they don't, then they will be damned. This makes the role of the actor an interesting one where the role being played is abused in so far as the parameters of the acted role were concerned at the time . This would be significant to a period audience?
Richard disembles both as a man and king in order to attain and keep his kingship. Through this dishonourable behaviour he forfeits his soul because as king, appointed by God, he has a particular role to play. Where is the line between kingship in the sight of God and the politics of being a man who wants to govern? This is a very current play in that respect - the role of Statesman vs the man appointed to that role - stating the obvious here, sorry!
Allowing his, Richard's, character/personality as a mortal man to govern his decisions to become king and maintain that role will result in damnation. An Elizabethan audience would know, early on, how this play was to end - succumbing to temptation references The Fall. Applying these ideas to the present day I thought about Trump. During his term we will see what happens as the role of man and the role of 'king' conflict as they must inevitably do. His character flaws will shape his destiny and most likely, his downfall. The self deception has already begun. Trump said, following his assignation attempt "I was saved by God!" .....
"Where is the line between kingship in the sight of God and the politics of being a man who wants to govern?" This is one of the central questions of the history plays. We'll see it again in RII, and HV is a good one for this too. Your question is being asked, I think, from the Puritan perspective. There was a certain amount of leniency in other quarters. Although actors would have to be careful about wearing costumes out in public, thus breaking sumptuary law. (From memory, these laws were not always very strictly enforced, but I would need to check that.) Personally, I think some of the parallels to modern times are quite over done. Greenblatt's "Tyrant" book was a stretch, for example. Whether R is damned for his personal ambition I am not sure, not least because of his murders. Clarence worries about that too, is his dream speech. I will see if I can think of anything else relevant...