Sooo... What can I say about this latest Globe production of Dick 3? I went in dreading a dull, watered down, paint-by-numbers heritage production - the type that the presumptuously titled Shakespeare's Globe are wont to put on - what I got was... well... a dull, watered down, paint-by-numbers heritage production.
Was this a self-fulfilling prophecy? Are Globe heritage productions simply antithetical to my personality?
Mark Rylance's portrayal of Richard as a wild-eyed and slightly zany old man seemed to strike a strong chord with the audience who I can only assume mistook him for Doc Brown from Back to the Future. He injected comedy into almost every line of every scene which (to my complete bafflement and mild irritation) provoked endless roars of laughter from the enthusiastic crowd.
The accent and mannerisms Rylance chose for the part reminded me of Foggy from Last of the Summer Wine mixed with Monty Python's Gumby. I half expected Richard, Buckingham and Catesby to roll on stage in a motorized bathtub, wearing flat caps and followed by an irate Nora Batty... oh wait... that would have actually made this baboon's bottom of a play GOOD.
What bugged me most about Rylance's Richard, apart from the fact that Rylance had stripped the character of every interesting feature, was the fact that Richard - a man who is supposed to be a scheming, Machiavellian warrior king - appeared to me about as scheming, threatening and warlike as Father Christmas at a peace rally. At no point did I find him scary, at no point did he thrill me with his evil ways... he just tottered around the stage bobbling his head and adapting line after line for primary school comic effect.
Director Tim Carroll tried to invest some high concept into the final battle scene by bringing on the ghosts of Richard's victims and having them aid Richmond in combat... but this was about as invigorating as squirting chocolate sauce on two week old ravioli. Normally I choke up and have to fight back the tears at Richard's demise but this time I was just happy to see him gone. I was tempted to risk a one man stage invasion just so as I could jig on his grave as a final good-riddance... but any plans I might have had were thwarted when the entire ensemble piled on stage for a nauseating and presumably Elizabethan-style adaptation of Riverdance.
I wonder just how far the Globe is willing to go in its attempt to be an Elizabethan experience. I suspect that before long, the people in the box office will be wearing tunics and ruffs and interlacing their sentences with words such as prithee and forsooth. The Globe is feeling less like a playhouse and more like The Black Country Museum and my beloved Shakespeare plays are, one by one, being stripped of their essential spark, packaged in period attire for the sake of American tourists, students with notepads and Daily Mail readers who think we should get back to good old Elizabethan family values.
On a final note, I was happy to recognize Roger Lloyd Pack (Trigger from Only Fools and Horses) who played Buckingham. In keeping with the rest of the production, his performance was dull, lifeless and about as stimulating as a microwaved potato sandwich with a side dish of overcooked spinach. I wanted to shout out "lovely jubly!" when he died (not a moment too soon) but missed my moment and can now only muse about how awesome that would have been.
Was this a self-fulfilling prophecy? Are Globe heritage productions simply antithetical to my personality?
 |
| Richard III Doc Brown |
 | |
| This would have been cool... |
What bugged me most about Rylance's Richard, apart from the fact that Rylance had stripped the character of every interesting feature, was the fact that Richard - a man who is supposed to be a scheming, Machiavellian warrior king - appeared to me about as scheming, threatening and warlike as Father Christmas at a peace rally. At no point did I find him scary, at no point did he thrill me with his evil ways... he just tottered around the stage bobbling his head and adapting line after line for primary school comic effect.
I wonder just how far the Globe is willing to go in its attempt to be an Elizabethan experience. I suspect that before long, the people in the box office will be wearing tunics and ruffs and interlacing their sentences with words such as prithee and forsooth. The Globe is feeling less like a playhouse and more like The Black Country Museum and my beloved Shakespeare plays are, one by one, being stripped of their essential spark, packaged in period attire for the sake of American tourists, students with notepads and Daily Mail readers who think we should get back to good old Elizabethan family values.
On a final note, I was happy to recognize Roger Lloyd Pack (Trigger from Only Fools and Horses) who played Buckingham. In keeping with the rest of the production, his performance was dull, lifeless and about as stimulating as a microwaved potato sandwich with a side dish of overcooked spinach. I wanted to shout out "lovely jubly!" when he died (not a moment too soon) but missed my moment and can now only muse about how awesome that would have been.
James's Quick Facts
Best thing about the play?
The cafe latte that I drank during the first half.
Worst thing about the play?
Trying to pick a single worst aspect of this play is like sorting through a barrel of oranges and trying to decide which is the most orange. I think the low point, for me, was the ghost/dream scene. This is a hard scene to get right during the best of times so during the worst of times (and watching this play was one of the worst times of my life) this scene can stink like an old-time lime kiln.
Richard sat sleeping on an Elizabethan chair with his head tipped back as the actors whom he had murdered shouted down at him from the balcony it was visually, dull, audibly bland and excruciatingly long. After the haunting/dream Richard fell to the floor in a manner so bathetic and overacted that it made me wince.
Other things worthy of note.
Johnny Flynn (Lady Anne) was for me noteworthy because I couldn't tell if he was reading his lines from a children's storybook or if this was some kind of heritage acting method.
Johnny Flynn (Lady Anne) was for me noteworthy because I couldn't tell if he was reading his lines from a children's storybook or if this was some kind of heritage acting method.
Richard's little tiny hand was interesting for about 30 seconds while I was trying to decide whether it was some kind of hyper-realistic and gruesome representation of Richard's deformity or just a bad taste visual gag. In the end, I decided that it was simply a naff prop in a naff show.
No comments:
Post a Comment