![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Richard II
Nov. 2nd, 2013 06:59 pmOkay, before anyone says anything, I know that is Ben Whishaw, not David Tennant, but it is Richard II.
I went to Stratford-on-Avon yesterday to see Richard II with a group of friends. The sell out version with David Tennant as the eponymous king. (I've always wanted to use eponymous).
I have to admit to have been slightly dubious, because while I like DT as an actor, he seems to have certain mannerisms when on stage and I wondered whether they would be present. They weren't. Some of the things he said early on might have been humourous, a few in the audience laughed, but weren't really. And he had hair extensions. No, he didn't detract from the play, but neither did he make it. And I felt he failed to show the change in the character as his situation changes. To me there should be a pathos in Richard at the end of the play which I don't think he conveyed.
I first saw Richard II in Bristol at the Tobacco Factory, with John Heffernan in the lead role. He was excellent. I cared about his character at the end; with DT's I didn't. I haven't as yet read any reviews, so no doubt will find that I'm at odds with everyone else, but that's my opinion.
The actor I did like was Nigel Lindsay, who played Henry Bolingbroke; he was entirely convincing, both as the banished subject and then as the man who had the ability to lead the country. The music was excellent, both the singing and the instrumental parts. The staging was minimal, but the opening set, which looked like the interior of a cathedral was impressive.
We went to the Unwrapped this morning, in which three of the actors, plus the assistant director took us through how a scene is put together. They acted the same scene with different emphasis and really brought it to life. And brought back some of the excitement of live theatre.
The next part of the history cycle, Henry IV parts 1 and 2, are on at the RSC next summer and my friend and I are planning to go.
I went to Stratford-on-Avon yesterday to see Richard II with a group of friends. The sell out version with David Tennant as the eponymous king. (I've always wanted to use eponymous).
I have to admit to have been slightly dubious, because while I like DT as an actor, he seems to have certain mannerisms when on stage and I wondered whether they would be present. They weren't. Some of the things he said early on might have been humourous, a few in the audience laughed, but weren't really. And he had hair extensions. No, he didn't detract from the play, but neither did he make it. And I felt he failed to show the change in the character as his situation changes. To me there should be a pathos in Richard at the end of the play which I don't think he conveyed.
I first saw Richard II in Bristol at the Tobacco Factory, with John Heffernan in the lead role. He was excellent. I cared about his character at the end; with DT's I didn't. I haven't as yet read any reviews, so no doubt will find that I'm at odds with everyone else, but that's my opinion.
The actor I did like was Nigel Lindsay, who played Henry Bolingbroke; he was entirely convincing, both as the banished subject and then as the man who had the ability to lead the country. The music was excellent, both the singing and the instrumental parts. The staging was minimal, but the opening set, which looked like the interior of a cathedral was impressive.
We went to the Unwrapped this morning, in which three of the actors, plus the assistant director took us through how a scene is put together. They acted the same scene with different emphasis and really brought it to life. And brought back some of the excitement of live theatre.
The next part of the history cycle, Henry IV parts 1 and 2, are on at the RSC next summer and my friend and I are planning to go.
