Richard III
Jul. 13th, 2014 09:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
smallhobbitYesterday I went to see Richard III at the Trafalgar Studios. Martin Freeman was really good as Richard. Seeing a famous name for the first time on the stage is always slightly risky - will they maintain their mannerisms from elsewhere, or will they disappear inside the part. There were the occasional glimpses of what might be termed Freeman, but on the whole he was Richard, Duke of Gloucester and then King Richard. I liked the way he portrayed the king's twisted body and useless arm, very effective without being overdone.
For once I had some idea of the setting - having failed to avoid seeing anything about it. I don't think the understanding of a specific time period was essential, other than it was modern times. And having modern clothing helped to differentiate between characters - always helpful in one of the history plays. One thing that struck me as odd, was seeing the Union Flag in the corner, which would not have existed in Richard's time - a problem with updating a play which relies heavily on historical events for its plot.
Apart from Martin Freeman, the actor that stood out most was Gina McKee as Queen Elizabeth, who gave an excellently nuanced performance of a queen striving hard to protect her own. Strangely, Catesby looked all wrong to me - I wasn't aware that I had such a definite idea of what he should look like, but he didn't. And it would have helped if Rivers' northern accent hadn't wandered all over the north. Keeping Queen Margaret on stage for most of the play and thus emphasising the fulfilment of her curses/prophecies was a great idea.
Some plays I come away from thinking "wow", but not this one. I'd give it four stars though, because it was good. For me Kevin Spacey was a better Richard; he conveyed more of the duplicitous nature as Richard was making his way to the throne and then his paranoia in keeping the throne.
I liked the way Richmond's troops were brought on through a door that opened into the street - extremely effective. The set was interesting and often worked well, but at times there seemed to be too much on the stage, so that it was restrictive. And the ending didn't work for me. Richmond gives his last speech as part of a television broadcast, supposedly to herald in a new era - and I believed him as much as I do any politician's rhetoric - and however much this play is propaganda, Henry VII did bring the Wars of the Roses to an end and there wasn't any sense of this. And Martin Freeman sounded aware of being faintly ridiculous uttering Richard's last lines "a horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse".
Overall it was good. It had everything I like my Shakespeare to have: pace, tension, humour, relevance, although perhaps not as much interraction with the audience. It just wasn't great.
For once I had some idea of the setting - having failed to avoid seeing anything about it. I don't think the understanding of a specific time period was essential, other than it was modern times. And having modern clothing helped to differentiate between characters - always helpful in one of the history plays. One thing that struck me as odd, was seeing the Union Flag in the corner, which would not have existed in Richard's time - a problem with updating a play which relies heavily on historical events for its plot.
Apart from Martin Freeman, the actor that stood out most was Gina McKee as Queen Elizabeth, who gave an excellently nuanced performance of a queen striving hard to protect her own. Strangely, Catesby looked all wrong to me - I wasn't aware that I had such a definite idea of what he should look like, but he didn't. And it would have helped if Rivers' northern accent hadn't wandered all over the north. Keeping Queen Margaret on stage for most of the play and thus emphasising the fulfilment of her curses/prophecies was a great idea.
Some plays I come away from thinking "wow", but not this one. I'd give it four stars though, because it was good. For me Kevin Spacey was a better Richard; he conveyed more of the duplicitous nature as Richard was making his way to the throne and then his paranoia in keeping the throne.
I liked the way Richmond's troops were brought on through a door that opened into the street - extremely effective. The set was interesting and often worked well, but at times there seemed to be too much on the stage, so that it was restrictive. And the ending didn't work for me. Richmond gives his last speech as part of a television broadcast, supposedly to herald in a new era - and I believed him as much as I do any politician's rhetoric - and however much this play is propaganda, Henry VII did bring the Wars of the Roses to an end and there wasn't any sense of this. And Martin Freeman sounded aware of being faintly ridiculous uttering Richard's last lines "a horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse".
Overall it was good. It had everything I like my Shakespeare to have: pace, tension, humour, relevance, although perhaps not as much interraction with the audience. It just wasn't great.
