Richard II. (2013 RSC production)
Jun. 12th, 2014 11:18 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakThe RSC Richard II. with David Tennant is out on dvd, and since I couldn't see it in the theatre last year, naturally I pounced.
Now, for someone like yours truly who only read the play once, many years ago, the obvious comparison is to the Hollow Crown version (review here). So the first thing that struck me was that by putting the scene with the Duchess of Gloucester back in - along with all those references to Richard being guilty of ordering Gloucester's death, no matter who did the actual deed - and in fact making her and the coffin of her husband the opening image, the RSC production not only gets a symmetry between opening and ending but also thematically. (Not to mention that everyone's motivations in the opening scene - Bolingbroke's, Richard's and Mowbray's - just make it that much more tense and interesting.) Also: like I said in the Hollow Crown review, one basic problem a modern day audience is likely to have is that a key problem of the play - whether or not the removal of a "bad" king is justified - isn't a problem at all if you don't believe in the divine right of kings. However, the RSC production gets across how much that matters to the characters anyway, and part of this is because they didn't cut all the Gloucester backstory. Everyone in the opening scene being convinced that Richard is morally guilty of that death but unable to say so outright because of who he is, including Mowbray when he gets banished because it's just that unthinkable, gets that point across. And it provides a mirror to the end where the new Henry IV. is morally guilty of Richard's death, and banishes the person who did it.
Also: everyone in this production is aware of the power of ceremony and public gesture, and none more than Richard himself. Bolingbroke challenging Mowbray re: Gloucester's death isn't "just" about Mowbray, it's very consciously directed at Richard (who can't be challenged directly, but can be shamed by attending a trial by combat which, if Bolingbroke wins, also passes as divine judgment). John of Gaunt's death curse isn't so much one last attempt to put the fear of God into Richard but again a public gesture. If Rory Kinnear's Bolingbroke in the Hollow Crown version gives the impression of not having thought about ursurpation until he's back in England, Nigel Lindsay's Bolingbroke comes across of not needing any encouragement to go after the crown because he had his eyes on the throne at the latest from when he got banished, if not before that. He also doesn't have ambiguous feelings about Richard. His "I wanted it done but I hate you for doing it" lines at the end don't come across as grief as much as horrified awareness of the type of trap he's landed himself in.
Because while Ben Wishaw's Richard is using the "here, Cousin, take the crown" scene to mess with Henry Bolingbroke and his supporters because he can and he has nothing to lose, David Tennant's Richard does it very deliberately to define Henry's image as a King forever after. (And also because he can and he has nothing to lose.) That moment when he whispers "Now watch" into Bolingbroke's ear? Comes across as a "you may have gotten me, but this is where I end you, no matter how long you reign" challenge. It starts in the previous scene, actually, the one where Richard comes down from the battlements and surrenders, because Ben Wishaw's Richard came across as not quite there and distraught and crushed, whereas David Tennant's Richard is at that point past being distraught and crushed and well into "we're going to do this in a way that drenches it of any enjoyment for you bastards", and he manages that precisely because he may not have been a responsible king, but as I said, he really understands the power of gesture and ceremony. He's smart about his defeat in a way I hadn't expected. Fascinating what a difference productions can make.
Now both Richards start narcissistic, callous (around John of Gaunt's dying) and gain sympathy (and humanity) as they lose power; in the RSC production you can pin point almost the moment where one starts to feel something positive for Richard, which is the dialogue with Aumerle after all the bad news have settled in and Richard's immediate freakout is over. Because this is the first time we see Richard kind towards another being and get the impression he's able to notice someone's emotions in ways that aren't about himself. The way the production plays this scene goes from Richard trying to cheer Aumerle up to the kiss to the comforting embrace and cuddling; it's that Richard doing the attending here as opposed to the other way around that sells the emotion as genuine.
Which brings me to Aumerle. Both The Hollow Crown and the RSC production dump Exton as Richard's killer and substitute him through Aumerle, which gives Aumerle a tragic arc through the play. With one caveat - I'll get to this in a second - I think the RSC version does it better because of the way Oliver Rix playes Aumerle; both deeply in love with Richard and increasingly desperate about what to do in an ever worsening situation. My caveat is that the RSC production plays the scene with the York family in front of Henry basically as comedy. Now with them outkneeling each other, I can see the temptation, but I still thought that was where The Hollow Crown won, not just playing it straight but because it had Lindsay Duncan as the Duchess of York, whose mixture of being both desperate for and furious with her son and will power were far too awesome not to take her seriously, and thus her final words to him make for a better push for Aumerle into becoming Richard's assassin than Marty Cruickshank's do. (Btw, since Aumerle isn't involved in Richard's murder in the actual play at all and doesn't show up anymore after this scene, I can only guess the reason Shakespeare wrote that scene was to show the new Henry IV. displaying some kingly qualities, in this case, mercy.)
The other case where I thought The Hollow Crown won was the rendition of the "That island in the silver sea" speech by John of Gaunt. Both productions managed to make it flow naturally as part of what John of Gaunt was going on about before instead of a set piece, but, well, Patrick Stewart is Patrick Stewart. Michael Pennington is generally good, but Stewart was simply better.
On the other hand: The Queen is a pretty thankless role (well, her historical counterpart, Richard's second wife, was a child), but I thought Emma Hamilton in the RSC production made more of it than the former Fleur Delacourt in The Hollow Crown. (I do suspect that in Elizabethan days the boy actor who was best went for one of the two Duchesses, though.)
On Bolingbrokes, I think Rory Kinnear was more sympathetic (and had a repressed crush on Richard) but less believable in terms of being someone getting himself a kingdom, whereas Nigel Lindsay was a power player who made the decision to replace a cousin he saw as incompetent (and definitely didn't crush on Richard; all the homoeroticism in the RSC production is between Richard and Aumerle) without breaking a sweat but then realised he'd taken on maybe more than he could chew, not to mention that the scene where he asks where his son is and hears Hal is out partying already gives a foreshadowing to the later Henry IV. wondering what the point of it all may have been.
The Richards, like I said, have roughly the same arc in terms of "From bad king to tragic victim", but Ben Wishaw's is someone who never could have been a good king and should have been an artist or filmstar somewhere, which would have made him happy, whereas David Tennant's actually does have the necessary smarts and the necessary brand of manipulative ruthlessness buried, but employs them too late, so his "I wasted time; now time is wasting me" comes out in a whole different brand of regret.
In conclusion: very compelling Shakespeare, that. Will definitely rewatch.
Now, for someone like yours truly who only read the play once, many years ago, the obvious comparison is to the Hollow Crown version (review here). So the first thing that struck me was that by putting the scene with the Duchess of Gloucester back in - along with all those references to Richard being guilty of ordering Gloucester's death, no matter who did the actual deed - and in fact making her and the coffin of her husband the opening image, the RSC production not only gets a symmetry between opening and ending but also thematically. (Not to mention that everyone's motivations in the opening scene - Bolingbroke's, Richard's and Mowbray's - just make it that much more tense and interesting.) Also: like I said in the Hollow Crown review, one basic problem a modern day audience is likely to have is that a key problem of the play - whether or not the removal of a "bad" king is justified - isn't a problem at all if you don't believe in the divine right of kings. However, the RSC production gets across how much that matters to the characters anyway, and part of this is because they didn't cut all the Gloucester backstory. Everyone in the opening scene being convinced that Richard is morally guilty of that death but unable to say so outright because of who he is, including Mowbray when he gets banished because it's just that unthinkable, gets that point across. And it provides a mirror to the end where the new Henry IV. is morally guilty of Richard's death, and banishes the person who did it.
Also: everyone in this production is aware of the power of ceremony and public gesture, and none more than Richard himself. Bolingbroke challenging Mowbray re: Gloucester's death isn't "just" about Mowbray, it's very consciously directed at Richard (who can't be challenged directly, but can be shamed by attending a trial by combat which, if Bolingbroke wins, also passes as divine judgment). John of Gaunt's death curse isn't so much one last attempt to put the fear of God into Richard but again a public gesture. If Rory Kinnear's Bolingbroke in the Hollow Crown version gives the impression of not having thought about ursurpation until he's back in England, Nigel Lindsay's Bolingbroke comes across of not needing any encouragement to go after the crown because he had his eyes on the throne at the latest from when he got banished, if not before that. He also doesn't have ambiguous feelings about Richard. His "I wanted it done but I hate you for doing it" lines at the end don't come across as grief as much as horrified awareness of the type of trap he's landed himself in.
Because while Ben Wishaw's Richard is using the "here, Cousin, take the crown" scene to mess with Henry Bolingbroke and his supporters because he can and he has nothing to lose, David Tennant's Richard does it very deliberately to define Henry's image as a King forever after. (And also because he can and he has nothing to lose.) That moment when he whispers "Now watch" into Bolingbroke's ear? Comes across as a "you may have gotten me, but this is where I end you, no matter how long you reign" challenge. It starts in the previous scene, actually, the one where Richard comes down from the battlements and surrenders, because Ben Wishaw's Richard came across as not quite there and distraught and crushed, whereas David Tennant's Richard is at that point past being distraught and crushed and well into "we're going to do this in a way that drenches it of any enjoyment for you bastards", and he manages that precisely because he may not have been a responsible king, but as I said, he really understands the power of gesture and ceremony. He's smart about his defeat in a way I hadn't expected. Fascinating what a difference productions can make.
Now both Richards start narcissistic, callous (around John of Gaunt's dying) and gain sympathy (and humanity) as they lose power; in the RSC production you can pin point almost the moment where one starts to feel something positive for Richard, which is the dialogue with Aumerle after all the bad news have settled in and Richard's immediate freakout is over. Because this is the first time we see Richard kind towards another being and get the impression he's able to notice someone's emotions in ways that aren't about himself. The way the production plays this scene goes from Richard trying to cheer Aumerle up to the kiss to the comforting embrace and cuddling; it's that Richard doing the attending here as opposed to the other way around that sells the emotion as genuine.
Which brings me to Aumerle. Both The Hollow Crown and the RSC production dump Exton as Richard's killer and substitute him through Aumerle, which gives Aumerle a tragic arc through the play. With one caveat - I'll get to this in a second - I think the RSC version does it better because of the way Oliver Rix playes Aumerle; both deeply in love with Richard and increasingly desperate about what to do in an ever worsening situation. My caveat is that the RSC production plays the scene with the York family in front of Henry basically as comedy. Now with them outkneeling each other, I can see the temptation, but I still thought that was where The Hollow Crown won, not just playing it straight but because it had Lindsay Duncan as the Duchess of York, whose mixture of being both desperate for and furious with her son and will power were far too awesome not to take her seriously, and thus her final words to him make for a better push for Aumerle into becoming Richard's assassin than Marty Cruickshank's do. (Btw, since Aumerle isn't involved in Richard's murder in the actual play at all and doesn't show up anymore after this scene, I can only guess the reason Shakespeare wrote that scene was to show the new Henry IV. displaying some kingly qualities, in this case, mercy.)
The other case where I thought The Hollow Crown won was the rendition of the "That island in the silver sea" speech by John of Gaunt. Both productions managed to make it flow naturally as part of what John of Gaunt was going on about before instead of a set piece, but, well, Patrick Stewart is Patrick Stewart. Michael Pennington is generally good, but Stewart was simply better.
On the other hand: The Queen is a pretty thankless role (well, her historical counterpart, Richard's second wife, was a child), but I thought Emma Hamilton in the RSC production made more of it than the former Fleur Delacourt in The Hollow Crown. (I do suspect that in Elizabethan days the boy actor who was best went for one of the two Duchesses, though.)
On Bolingbrokes, I think Rory Kinnear was more sympathetic (and had a repressed crush on Richard) but less believable in terms of being someone getting himself a kingdom, whereas Nigel Lindsay was a power player who made the decision to replace a cousin he saw as incompetent (and definitely didn't crush on Richard; all the homoeroticism in the RSC production is between Richard and Aumerle) without breaking a sweat but then realised he'd taken on maybe more than he could chew, not to mention that the scene where he asks where his son is and hears Hal is out partying already gives a foreshadowing to the later Henry IV. wondering what the point of it all may have been.
The Richards, like I said, have roughly the same arc in terms of "From bad king to tragic victim", but Ben Wishaw's is someone who never could have been a good king and should have been an artist or filmstar somewhere, which would have made him happy, whereas David Tennant's actually does have the necessary smarts and the necessary brand of manipulative ruthlessness buried, but employs them too late, so his "I wasted time; now time is wasting me" comes out in a whole different brand of regret.
In conclusion: very compelling Shakespeare, that. Will definitely rewatch.
