Shakespeare's Globe Online!

This is the sort of thing that gets me excited!

Shakespeare's Globe is putting their videos online for rent or purchase. Right now it doesn't work here in the states, and it looks like they haven't included the Richard II I want to see, but there's hope that day will come. There are also free videos of interviews with Shakespearean actors in the "Muse of Fire" section.

Here's the link:

http://globeplayer.tv/tragedy

Another Richard II: The Royal Shakespeare Company - With David Tennant!

I'm taking a little break from A Midsummer Night's Dream because the DVD of the RSC production of David Tennant in Richard II arrived a while back, and I'm not going to wait any longer to watch it. And it's Richard II! My favorite Shakespearean history! And it has David Tennant! I might get my wife to watch this!

I think it's hard for David Tennant to shake his Doctor Who character, and Richard probably isn't the role to use to break out of that stereotype. I think it would be great to see him as Richard III, or Edmund from King Lear. In this production, though, David Tennant sort of finds one note and sticks with it. It's a good note, but he is capable of so much more.

This Richard II is a filmed theater production. The actors are on a thrust stage in front of a proscenium. There are also ramps for actors to enter and exit in the front corners, and musicians are high above the audience on the sides. Lighting effects and an occasional chair fill in for scenery. The audience surrounds the stage on three sides, and appears to have been coached to keep still and keep quiet. The setup is actually not too far off from the Blackfriars stage that the Lord Chamberlain’s Men would have used, although I believe they were mostly working at The Globe when Richard was probably written. I’ll let that go, though. Richard II was a politically very dangerous play to put on at all. It’s reasonable to think that it was too hot to be shown a The Globe, but may have been performed more often indoors, by request, at Blackfriars.

So how did it turn out? Well, not bad. Richard II will never be a comedy, but Shakespeare wrote in a few good jokes here and there, and even the heavier dramatic scenes have at least a few laughs thrown in to cut the tension. This production is so serious that the audience is ready to jump on any opportunity for a little giggle. The appearance is that everyone knows who the star is, and nobody’s going to get in his way. Nigel Lindsay is appropriately bland and masculine as Bolingbroke. Michael Pennington is no John Gielgud or Patrick Stewart, but he still makes a solidly good John of Gaunt. Emma Hamilton does what she can as the Queen. Oliver Rix is given a bit more meat to chew on as Aumerle. You might recognize Oliver Ford Davies from his role as Naboo politician Sio Bibble in the Star Wars prequels. It’s pretty much the same role, just with better writing.

This is not my favorite Richard II. I enjoyed it. David Tennant is always worth watching (even when he’s letting his hair extensions do most of the work). But I was left with the feeling that I really wanted to re-watch the Hollow Crown version, and I’d still like to see all of the Mark Rylance Globe version. If you need a version to watch for a class, this will do nicely (but stick through to the end, or you’ll get an F on your paper!). If you are a teacher and need a Richard II to show your class, try to get your hands on the Mark Rylance version.

Here's the RSC Website, where you can find all sorts of cool stuff: http://www.rsc.org.uk/whats-on/richard-ii/

Here's a clip from the deposition scene:

The Richard II that Got Away

While I was writing my post about The Hollow Crown: Richard II, I stumbled on a YouTube video that turned out to be the best version of Richard II I've ever seen. The sets aren't lush, the costumes might be a bit over-the-top, and the acting might not always be perfect, but everything about the production is right. 

One catch, though: I can't watch the whole thing. It's not available in the US. Or anywhere, as far as I can tell.

The production I'm talking about is a stage production by Shakespeare's Globe that was apparently broadcast on the BBC in 2003 (Richard II / Shakespeare's Globe). Their website does offer DVDs of some of their shows, but not this one, which is tragic! I have a "Don't Spend Money" policy when it comes to this project (the only exceptions being my Netflix.com and Amazon Prime subscriptions), but this production is so far above all the others that I would totally pay to see it.

Here's the first YouTube clip, it's John McEnery (who you'll remember as Mercutio in Zefirelli's 1968 Romeo and Juliet) playing John of Gaunt:

In Shakespeare's time, the actor playing Gaunt wouldn't have had to worry about being heard over passing airplanes.

Here's Act  3, scene 2. Richard has returned from Ireland, and it's been slowly revealed to him that he's lost his kingdom. It was here that I realized what was missing from the other productions: The audience. English teachers often tell their students that Shakespeare plays were written not to be read in silence, but read aloud by actors. They're almost right. They were written to be acted in front of an interested and active audience. A loud audience, that's interacting and commenting on the action. This scene is usually presented as tragic and heartbreaking (and it is), but notice how many laughs Mark Rylance gets as Richard realizes there's nothing he can do:


Here's Act 3, Scene 3, the confrontation at Flint Castle:


Act 3, Scene 5. John McEnery reappears as the Gardnener. The queen and her lady-in-waiting are played by men. This is completely appropriate for Shakespeare's day, except that it's usually said that women were played by boys. At the time it was considered indecent in England for women to appear in stage, although standards were different in some parts of Europe:


Act 5, Scene 3. This scene has baffled me for some time. Presented in front of a live audience, with the Duchess of York played by a man, this scene makes sense - and it's hilarious:


Act 5, Scene 5. Richard is in prison, musing on his situation.


And here's the grand finale. This has to be my favorite part. Bolingbroke is already dealing with the difficulties of being king, putting down rebellions and buying loyalty where he can. But how do you end a tragedy? The hero, failed person that he was, is dead. The kingdom is probably in better hands, but there will be a price for Bolingbroke's treason, which will play out in the wars of Henry IV parts 1 & 2, Henry VI parts 1, 2, and 3, and finally be resolved in Richard III. But that's for another day. For now, let's have a silly curtain call and send the audience home happy:

Take a look on YouTube for more clips from this production. And keep checking Shakespeare's Globe. Someday they have to sell it on DVD. If I ever get to go to London, I don't care what's playing - I'm going to Shakespeare's Globe.

The Hollow Crown: Richard II

I've been trying to decide what I think about The Hollow Crown: Richard II. Compared to the other two Richard IIs, the production quality is way better. It's still made for TV, but it's made for 2012 HDTVs, not 1978 "Oh, you have color?" TVs. Much better. The casting is at least as good as the best  of the other two (Patrick Stewart as John of Gaunt - how can you go wrong?). The sets are more full and vivid. The costumes are entirely believable - they look like clothes people have actually worn. If you are a student of 1300s fashion or theatrical costuming, I suspect you will love this film (tell me in the comments if I'm wrong). The sound is impressive, too. Try to watch this on a TV with good bass response - you won't regret it.

Here's a clip from YouTube (the entire film might still be on PBS.com. I know you can find it in a boxed set on Amazon.com). This is the controversial Deposition Scene, which was banned for many years by the English government. Bolingbroke (played by Rory Kinnear, and usually shot so that he's tilted back and to his right - it reminds me of how the "villains lairs" on Batman were always filmed at an angle - and wearing a baffled expression) has outmaneuvered his cousin, King Richard II (played by Ben Whishaw), and while Bolingbroke is essentially king at this point, he needs Richard to go through the formality of turning over the crown.


So the production values are by far the best of the Richard IIs I've seen. Most of the shots appear to be filmed with the widest-angle lens possible, and the director, Rupert Goold, and director of photography Danny Cohen seem deeply enamored of extreme close-ups, so if you don't like the looks of Ben Whishaw's nostrils, you might find many segments difficult to watch. Also, perhaps due to their fascination with extremely small depths of field, it appears the actors have been told "OK, we have your ear in focus, now stand RIGHT THERE! DON'T MOVE FROM THAT SPOT!" Now, I get that the movie has no major battles, dance scenes, etc., but it's not just a story about people standing around talking. Or reaction shots of people staring blankly into space.

That said, the wide angles do emphasize the distance between the characters. The blank expressions could be an attempt at showing us that these characters are very serious, or perhaps that the characters are terrified of Richard's power. The long meditations on the sun dappling through leaves picks up on Shakespeare's metaphor of Richard as the sun setting as Bolingbroke's fortunes rise.

Here are a few more nitpicks:

• This play has five female characters. They cut two. Then they cut lines from Isabella and her maid. Now, in my head, I always imagine one of the maids to be Philippa Chaucer (you know, Geoffrey's wife. She was a lady-in-waiting to Queen Philippa of Hainault, Edward III's wife. Philippa Chaucer's sister was John of Gaunt's third wife, by the way, and Geoffrey held various posts under Edward III and Richard II, and his pension was continued by Henry IV, but may not have been paid. I always picture Geoffrey Chaucer in the background of John of Gaunt and Richard's scenes). Philippa probably died many years before the action of the play, but she would have been the older of the two ladies-in-waiting. They cut the part. (Here's a quick bio of Geoffrey Chaucer: http://www.poemhunter.com/geoffrey-chaucer/biography/)
• They also cut the entire scene between John of Gaunt and the Duchess of Gloucester (one of the five female characters), which explains the basic conflict of the play - that everyone thinks Richard had Thomas of Gloucester killed off by Mowbray. It may not be Shakespeare's best-written scene, but it does explain what's going on.

Enough of that.

Throughout the play, Richard compares himself to Jesus (no lack of ego there), but in this production, they've decided to draw a line from Richard to Saint Sebastian. I think it works really well, at least as far as visuals go. Richard is cut down by many faults, and Saint Sebastian was shot with so many Roman arrows that he looked like a sea urchin. The connection makes sense. Of course, Sebastian recovered and was finally martyred by being beaten to death and thrown in a privy, but you can't have everything.

I liked that they made Bushy an artist. Bagot, Bushy, and Green tend to be treated as interchangeable, and this made Bushy stand out. Bagot and Green are also surprisingly well-defined. That's the sort of thing that makes a film for me - it shows that there was thought and care put in to even the characters who barely appear. If only they'd come up with a way to do that with the Duchess of Gloucester and the second lady-in-waiting.

I ended up watching this three times, and my opinion improved each time. I think it would be my favorite version of Richard II, if it weren't for the one I'm going to write about in my next posting.

Sorry no posts lately - the Olympics are on

Hi,

I spent a week or so reading about The Tragedy of Richard II, and I'm working on a post based on that, but I'm also working on a post about the BBC/Time-Life version starring Derek Jacobi, but the Olympics are on, and I only get to watch luge, bobsled, and curling every four years. The timing's not good. I'll be back in a few weeks with more Shakespeare stuff.

The Shakespeare Series: King Richard II

Richard II is my favorite of Shakespeare’s history plays. I’ll get in to why that is so in a later posting, but for now, I just want to point out that I might not be 100% objective about this one.

Amazon prime includes only one version of Richard II, and unfortunately, it is The Shakespeare Series: King Richard II directed by William Woodman for Bard Productions and The Shakespeare Video Society, the same outfit that brought us the dismal Romeo & Juliet directed by Larry Sullivan. At first, I thought this was going to be a reprise of that performance, as the boom microphone that improved so many of Juliet's scenes makes a brief appearance in Act I, scene 1 of Richard II.

Luckily, Woodman and stars David Birney (as Richard) and Paul Shenar (as Bolingbroke) managed to keep me entertained enough that if the boom appeared again, I didn't notice it. I love these two characters, and Birney and Shenar pulled them off beautifully. Richard is a vain, imperious, and ineffective king. Bolingbroke is laconic, calculating, and pragmatic. Richard is clearly unsuited to the responsibilities of power, and Bolingbroke is the perfect candidate to depose him.

As with all the Shakespeare Series productions I've seen, the production qualities are not the best. The actors - especially minor characters - could be better rehearsed. The costumes look like they were designed for stage, not the small screen. The sets are basic black spaces with steps and very little dressing, much like something you would see in a low-budget stage production. Some might find the video quality to be disappointing. It looks like Amazon copied this from a much-used VHS tape, and that may well be the case. If you watch it on your tablet or laptop, it's not too distracting, but the poor quality is obvious on our big-screen tv.

If you're of my generation you'll spend much of the film recognizing actors from Knight Rider, The Love Boat, and Spider-Man. 

I would watch this again (and nearly did before writing this!), and while it isn't the definitive Richard II, I would recommend it as worth watching.