Shakespeare's Histories
Apr. 16th, 2001 05:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lillibetOn Saturday we finished the Royal Shakespeare Company's cycle of
Shakespeare's eight major histories. It was an amazing experience and I
thought I would write a few notes about the plays for my journal and your
enjoyment.
The eight plays were presented in historical order, rather than in the order
they were written. It is believed that the order of writing was: Henry
VI-ii, Henry VI-iii, Henry VI-i, Richard III, Richard II, Henry IV-i, Henry
IV-ii, Henry V (but there is much debate about the details of this).
The plays were directed by four different directors and staged in three
different theaters. Many of the characters were played by the same actors
in the different plays, which provided some continuity and allowed the
audience to appreciate that these people were the same through different
periods. The most striking example of this is that William Houston played
Prince Hal in both parts of Henry IV and then became king in Henry V. It
was a herculean achievement for the company and for the individual actors.
They gave us several different diagrams detailing the descendants of Edward
III, who are the major players in all of these plays. In summary, Edward
III had seven sons. The first (the Black Prince) died before ascending and
the crown went to his son (Richard II). The other sons (in order) were
William of Hatfield; Lionel, Duke of Clarence; John, Duke of Lancaster;
Edmund, Duke of York; Thomas, Duke of Gloucester; and William of Windsor.
Shakespeare's adherence to actual history is somewhat sketchy, most notably
with regard to Richard III. I'm not going to get into this at all, but
wanted to point out that the story being told here is Shakespeare's, not
England's.
Richard II - directed by Steven Pimlott. This is the story of how Henry
Bolingbroke--son of John, Duke of Lancaster--led a rebellion against Richard
II, forced him to abdicate, and then had him killed in prison. It was
staged in The Pit, the RSC's small studio space in the Barbican Centre. It
was done on a very bare stage, with very few props. Besides various doors
(through one of which we could see the set shop when opened), the only real
set piece was a pile of dirt, about the size of a grave, which served as a
prop to the several monologues which talk about "the land." The costumes
were a stylized version of modern dress--Richard wore a grey sweater with
cabling that managed to suggest armour very subtly. This production was
entirely about the acting, which made it my favorite of the cycle. Samuel
West, as Richard II, was astonishingly regal. He gave a real sense that he
*was* king and there was nothing he, or anyone else, could do about it,
regardless of the political machinations. The only scene with which I had a
problem was the deposition scene, in which Richard was wrapped in the flag
of St. George, carrying roses and wearing a thorny crown. They had kept
everything so simple up until that point that the retreat to blatant
symbolism was jarring. I was pleased with how they handled Richard's
sexuality, making it clear that his relationship with at least one of his
younger lords was physical, while also maintaining a very close relationship
with his queen, played by Catherine Walker, whose performance I very much
enjoyed. Sam West is also playing Hamlet up in Stratford this summer and we
are hoping to make it up there to see him.
Henry IV, i-ii - directed by Michael Attenborough. For these two, we moved
over to the main theater at the Barbican Centre, which is also one of my
favorite theaters in the world. The set had a dirt floor that raked steeply
up at the back of the stage and an overhead panel scored with lines that
could be set at different angles and lighted to resemble stone or clouds or
tree branches. During the scenes at the palace, they lit up a network of
lines from under the stage, to give an impression of a tiled floor. The
furniture and props were quite simple. The main costume element were long
leather coats on most of the men, which they used with great flair. Part i
is essentially the story of the rebellion led by Harry "Hotspur" Percy, with
the aim of putting Edmund Mortimer (grandson of Lionel, Duke of Clarence)
on the throne. Hotspur (played by Adam Levy in this, as well as in Richard
II) was his usual firebrand self. Prince Hal, son of Bolingbroke (now Henry
IV), spends the first half of the play clowning around with Falstaff and his
band of inept thieves and the second half fighting Hotspur. Falstaff was
played by the mountainous Desmond Barrit with a vulnerability I had not seen
in the character in other productions. William Houston, as Prince Hal, was
good enough, but more passionate and emotive than I've seen before; he used
what seemed to be his "choked-up" voice for most of his three plays]. Part
ii deals with the mop-up of the rebellion, Henry IV's death and Henry V's
coronation and personal acceptance of the crown. It was not as strong as
Part i, but I think it's just not as good a play. Oddly, Houston's
portrayal was less annoying to me in Part ii. While I enjoyed Falstaff more
than I expected to in Part i, by Part ii I'd had enough of him--he has at
least five soliloquys.
Henry V - directed by Edward Hall. The play is essentially focused on Henry
V's war in France to claim the French crown, climaxing at Agincourt. The
set for this was very industrial and elaborate, with lots of moving parts.
They got Billy Bragg to write a couple of songs for the show, which I didn't
think add anything to the production. Generally I felt that the director
went for set-tricks and jokes over substance. And it seems very strange to
me to dress everyone in World War II garb and yet have them carry swords. I
missed the long coats. The strangest thing was that the battle at Harfleur
was a much more dramatic set-piece than the battle at Agincourt, making the
latter into something of an anti-climax. Henry's prayer before the battle
was much stronger acting than the usual shining moment, the St. Crispin's
Day speech. He did well wooing the French princess, using a more
conversational voice than the higher pitched, affected one he used for most
of his performance, but at that point he seemed to be borrowing strongly
from Brannagh, so it was hard to credit it.
Henry VI i-iii, Richard III - directed by Michael Boyd. These were over at
the Young Vic in Southwark, which was set up for the occasion with a thrust
stage proceeding from a structure that served as the Tower of London and the
several castle walls. We saw i on Friday night and then ii, iii, and
Richard III in a marathon of theatre-going on Saturday from 10:30am until
11pm. All four plays were done with an ensemble of about thirty actors,
taking different roles as they came up. This tetralogy essentially covers
the loss of the French half of the kingdom and the Wars of the Roses, ending
with the victory of Henry Tudor (later Henry VII) at Bosworth Field. Part i
covers the re-taking of France by the French, led by Joan of Arc (Why is she
called "of Arc"?) and Henry's ill-fated betrothal to Margaret of Anjou. In
Part ii, court intrigue takes up the greater part of the play and the York
and Lancaster factions established in Part i become polarized into the War
of the Roses, with the York rebellion culminating in victory in battle at
St. Albans. Humor is provided by Jack Cade's peasant rebellion. The war
continues in Part iii, mainly between Queen Margaret and the York faction,
with people switching sides continuously and capturing King Henry in turns.
He and his son are killed by Richard, youngest surviving son of the Duke of
York, and Edward IV (Richard's elder brother) takes the throne. In Richard
III, Richard kills everyone standing between him and throne, following the
death of Edward IV. He takes the throne, but is defeated, heralding the
establishment of the Tudor dynasty. The performances by all of the actors
were strong, although Fiona Bell (Joan/Margaret) has a noticeable underbite
that's distracting at first. Henry VI was played by Daniel Oyelowo, who did
a good job with the pious and politically helpless king. Richard was played
by Aidan McArdle (whose last role with the RSC was Puck) as quite a comic
role. It was fun, but lacked the power that I think a more serious approach
gives to the part. There were many interesting stage effects, but they were
integrated into the story in a way that those of Henry V were not. The
music was very simple, and used very effectively. The director used the
ensemble effect well, so that the Dauphin and his friends of Part i became
Richard III and his brothers in the latter three plays, Joan of Arc became
Margaret of Anjou, and the Talbot father & son--who die in Part i-- were
recyled as the father and son who kill each other in battle in Part iii and
as the spirits summoned in a seance. Throughout the entire cycle, the fight
choreography was intricate and inventive.
Overall, we were incredibly pleased to have the opportunity to see all eight
plays, in order, over a short period of time. It gives the plays and the
history they portray much greater context for us. While there were
definitely high points and low points, the cycle was a masterful achievement.
But now I'm ready for some light romantic comedy. Maybe it's time to rent
Much Ado About Nothing again.
Shakespeare's eight major histories. It was an amazing experience and I
thought I would write a few notes about the plays for my journal and your
enjoyment.
The eight plays were presented in historical order, rather than in the order
they were written. It is believed that the order of writing was: Henry
VI-ii, Henry VI-iii, Henry VI-i, Richard III, Richard II, Henry IV-i, Henry
IV-ii, Henry V (but there is much debate about the details of this).
The plays were directed by four different directors and staged in three
different theaters. Many of the characters were played by the same actors
in the different plays, which provided some continuity and allowed the
audience to appreciate that these people were the same through different
periods. The most striking example of this is that William Houston played
Prince Hal in both parts of Henry IV and then became king in Henry V. It
was a herculean achievement for the company and for the individual actors.
They gave us several different diagrams detailing the descendants of Edward
III, who are the major players in all of these plays. In summary, Edward
III had seven sons. The first (the Black Prince) died before ascending and
the crown went to his son (Richard II). The other sons (in order) were
William of Hatfield; Lionel, Duke of Clarence; John, Duke of Lancaster;
Edmund, Duke of York; Thomas, Duke of Gloucester; and William of Windsor.
Shakespeare's adherence to actual history is somewhat sketchy, most notably
with regard to Richard III. I'm not going to get into this at all, but
wanted to point out that the story being told here is Shakespeare's, not
England's.
Richard II - directed by Steven Pimlott. This is the story of how Henry
Bolingbroke--son of John, Duke of Lancaster--led a rebellion against Richard
II, forced him to abdicate, and then had him killed in prison. It was
staged in The Pit, the RSC's small studio space in the Barbican Centre. It
was done on a very bare stage, with very few props. Besides various doors
(through one of which we could see the set shop when opened), the only real
set piece was a pile of dirt, about the size of a grave, which served as a
prop to the several monologues which talk about "the land." The costumes
were a stylized version of modern dress--Richard wore a grey sweater with
cabling that managed to suggest armour very subtly. This production was
entirely about the acting, which made it my favorite of the cycle. Samuel
West, as Richard II, was astonishingly regal. He gave a real sense that he
*was* king and there was nothing he, or anyone else, could do about it,
regardless of the political machinations. The only scene with which I had a
problem was the deposition scene, in which Richard was wrapped in the flag
of St. George, carrying roses and wearing a thorny crown. They had kept
everything so simple up until that point that the retreat to blatant
symbolism was jarring. I was pleased with how they handled Richard's
sexuality, making it clear that his relationship with at least one of his
younger lords was physical, while also maintaining a very close relationship
with his queen, played by Catherine Walker, whose performance I very much
enjoyed. Sam West is also playing Hamlet up in Stratford this summer and we
are hoping to make it up there to see him.
Henry IV, i-ii - directed by Michael Attenborough. For these two, we moved
over to the main theater at the Barbican Centre, which is also one of my
favorite theaters in the world. The set had a dirt floor that raked steeply
up at the back of the stage and an overhead panel scored with lines that
could be set at different angles and lighted to resemble stone or clouds or
tree branches. During the scenes at the palace, they lit up a network of
lines from under the stage, to give an impression of a tiled floor. The
furniture and props were quite simple. The main costume element were long
leather coats on most of the men, which they used with great flair. Part i
is essentially the story of the rebellion led by Harry "Hotspur" Percy, with
the aim of putting Edmund Mortimer (grandson of Lionel, Duke of Clarence)
on the throne. Hotspur (played by Adam Levy in this, as well as in Richard
II) was his usual firebrand self. Prince Hal, son of Bolingbroke (now Henry
IV), spends the first half of the play clowning around with Falstaff and his
band of inept thieves and the second half fighting Hotspur. Falstaff was
played by the mountainous Desmond Barrit with a vulnerability I had not seen
in the character in other productions. William Houston, as Prince Hal, was
good enough, but more passionate and emotive than I've seen before; he used
what seemed to be his "choked-up" voice for most of his three plays]. Part
ii deals with the mop-up of the rebellion, Henry IV's death and Henry V's
coronation and personal acceptance of the crown. It was not as strong as
Part i, but I think it's just not as good a play. Oddly, Houston's
portrayal was less annoying to me in Part ii. While I enjoyed Falstaff more
than I expected to in Part i, by Part ii I'd had enough of him--he has at
least five soliloquys.
Henry V - directed by Edward Hall. The play is essentially focused on Henry
V's war in France to claim the French crown, climaxing at Agincourt. The
set for this was very industrial and elaborate, with lots of moving parts.
They got Billy Bragg to write a couple of songs for the show, which I didn't
think add anything to the production. Generally I felt that the director
went for set-tricks and jokes over substance. And it seems very strange to
me to dress everyone in World War II garb and yet have them carry swords. I
missed the long coats. The strangest thing was that the battle at Harfleur
was a much more dramatic set-piece than the battle at Agincourt, making the
latter into something of an anti-climax. Henry's prayer before the battle
was much stronger acting than the usual shining moment, the St. Crispin's
Day speech. He did well wooing the French princess, using a more
conversational voice than the higher pitched, affected one he used for most
of his performance, but at that point he seemed to be borrowing strongly
from Brannagh, so it was hard to credit it.
Henry VI i-iii, Richard III - directed by Michael Boyd. These were over at
the Young Vic in Southwark, which was set up for the occasion with a thrust
stage proceeding from a structure that served as the Tower of London and the
several castle walls. We saw i on Friday night and then ii, iii, and
Richard III in a marathon of theatre-going on Saturday from 10:30am until
11pm. All four plays were done with an ensemble of about thirty actors,
taking different roles as they came up. This tetralogy essentially covers
the loss of the French half of the kingdom and the Wars of the Roses, ending
with the victory of Henry Tudor (later Henry VII) at Bosworth Field. Part i
covers the re-taking of France by the French, led by Joan of Arc (Why is she
called "of Arc"?) and Henry's ill-fated betrothal to Margaret of Anjou. In
Part ii, court intrigue takes up the greater part of the play and the York
and Lancaster factions established in Part i become polarized into the War
of the Roses, with the York rebellion culminating in victory in battle at
St. Albans. Humor is provided by Jack Cade's peasant rebellion. The war
continues in Part iii, mainly between Queen Margaret and the York faction,
with people switching sides continuously and capturing King Henry in turns.
He and his son are killed by Richard, youngest surviving son of the Duke of
York, and Edward IV (Richard's elder brother) takes the throne. In Richard
III, Richard kills everyone standing between him and throne, following the
death of Edward IV. He takes the throne, but is defeated, heralding the
establishment of the Tudor dynasty. The performances by all of the actors
were strong, although Fiona Bell (Joan/Margaret) has a noticeable underbite
that's distracting at first. Henry VI was played by Daniel Oyelowo, who did
a good job with the pious and politically helpless king. Richard was played
by Aidan McArdle (whose last role with the RSC was Puck) as quite a comic
role. It was fun, but lacked the power that I think a more serious approach
gives to the part. There were many interesting stage effects, but they were
integrated into the story in a way that those of Henry V were not. The
music was very simple, and used very effectively. The director used the
ensemble effect well, so that the Dauphin and his friends of Part i became
Richard III and his brothers in the latter three plays, Joan of Arc became
Margaret of Anjou, and the Talbot father & son--who die in Part i-- were
recyled as the father and son who kill each other in battle in Part iii and
as the spirits summoned in a seance. Throughout the entire cycle, the fight
choreography was intricate and inventive.
Overall, we were incredibly pleased to have the opportunity to see all eight
plays, in order, over a short period of time. It gives the plays and the
history they portray much greater context for us. While there were
definitely high points and low points, the cycle was a masterful achievement.
But now I'm ready for some light romantic comedy. Maybe it's time to rent
Much Ado About Nothing again.
