Richard II (2013RSC)

Richard II was the second son of Edward, the famous black prince before the Hundred Years War (Guerre de Cent Ans) between England and France. His father and brother both died during the reign of his grandfather Edward III, naturally he became first in line to inherit the throne at the age of 10, reigned for 22 years, and was forced to abdicate at 32.

Mowbray

Henry Bolingbroke

CHARACTERS

In this play, three uncles of Richard II are mentioned, that is, his predecessor who is also the son of Edward III, and the younger brothers of his father

-Duke of Gloucester (the youngest of the five sons of Edward III who lived to adulthood, the one in the coffin in the opening scene of the RSC version, the fuse of the whole show)

-John of Gaunt / 1st Duke of Lancaster (the third of Edward III's five sons, and the oldest of the living uncles in the play, 1st Lancaster, father of Henry Bolingbroke, dead in Act 2 )

-Edmund of Langley / 1st Duke of York (the fourth of Edward III's five sons, and the only living uncle in the play when Bolingbroke led his troops back to England, who acted as regent when Richard II left England for Ireland, first generation York, father of Duke of Aumale)

In addition, there are two cousins ​​of Richard II:

-Henry Bolingbroke / Duke of Hereford, 2nd Lancaster, later Henry IV

-Duke of Aumale / Edward of Norwich / 1st Earl of Rutland, the second generation of York, is very close to Richard II in the play, and company him on his expedition to Ireland, later confront Bolingbroke on the city wall. He also participated in the conspiracy to assassinate Henry IV, after Richard was abdicated, and was finally pardoned because of his mother pleading.

//

Richard II

Although Richard II in Shakespeare was mostly seen as a coward, he may not be so in history. For the first three or four years of his reign, his brain trust raised taxes, and as a result, peasant riots occurred. Richard, who was only 14 at the time, was involved in negotiations with the rebels. He also expedition to Scotland although not starting war at last. Richard was not simply overjoyed and fantasized about leading his army to go to war. During his reign, he insisted on coexisting peacefully with France, making a temporary truce in the Hundred Years War between Britain and France.

At the same time, Richard's early life was not all smooth sailing, even the opposite. He was very young when he ascended the throne, and was basically ruled by the nobles (including uncles). His distrust of the Regent's Congress and his reliance on a personal coterie of staff led him to a major crisis ten years before he was forced to abdicate. Congress had united to accuse a circle of his close favorites and knights of treason, and to force Richard to agree to put them to death. Henry Bolingbroke was among the combined forces at that time, but after Richard II liquidated the matter, he did not liquidate Bolingbroke. The two of them grew up together, and it is speculated that the relationship between the two individuals is not bad.

In general, Richard can be said to have been not very friendly with the great nobles at that time, and his first wife died very early, leading to him not having heirs to inherit. It can be said that he is quite isolated and not very stable status.

The plot of Richard II's play takes place around a year into the last year of his reign. The Duke of Gloucester (the youngest uncle) dies in the opening scene, we can assume he previously has been somewhat of an ambitious regent. Historically, the whole incident was triggered by Richard's arrest of three great nobles, including the uncle, for treason. Richard was 30 years old at this time, and the general guess is that he may feel that his regime has stabilized at this time, wanting to eliminate opposition forces and liquidate old accounts. One of the three nobles was publicly tried and executed, and his uncle was murdered just before his trial. Common historical speculation is that Richard ordered the murder to avoid a public trial and execution of a royal blood relative. After this incident, the richest and most powerful nobles in the UK are John of Gaunt of the Lancaster family and his son Henry Bolingbroke. While Richard has no children, and the Lancaster family is in the line of succession, at the time, they are the biggest threat to Richard's throne.

In the light of history, Richard II's show opens with Henry Bolingbroke explicitly accusing Mowbray of murdering his uncle Gloucester un-trial, and secretly involving Richard II himself. Richard tried unsuccessfully to quell the accusation, and finally, out of anger, decided to take the opportunity to exile Bolingbroke, whom he had long disliked. In fact, Richard's attitude towards the two dukes was handled carefully in the script. For example, from the lines after Bolingbroke's exile, he knows that Richard doesn't like him, but on the surface Richard has done enough at the beginning. It was a blessing and a personal farewell to Bolingbroke, and to a certain extent, Mowbary was deliberately ignored, and Mowbary was sentenced to life-long exile without mercy. And what Mobary said to Richard before he left seemed to mean something else.

“My native English, now I must foreign:

And now my tongue's use is to me no more

Than an unstringed viol or a harp,

Or like a cunning instrument cased up,

Or, being open, put into his hands

That knows no touch to tune the harmony

...

What is thy sentence then but speechless death,

Which robs my tongue from breathing native breath?”

This passage can be interpreted as Mobary feels unfair for his judgment, but at the same time promises that he will not reveal Richard's involvement in the incident.

Of course, this explanation is ambiguous in many versions (the star DT in this version of RSC once said in an interview that he used to watch Richard II in the opening scene and couldn’t figure out who died and who wish to duel with whom for what purpose.)

This version of RSC was praised for its clarity of narrative. In addition to the clarity of the stage setting and performance, it also preserved the dialogue between John of Gaunt and Gloucester's widow in Act One, as well as the other words that the nobles accused Richard of after Richard was forced to abdicate. A cousin, Aumale, was involved in the two scenes of the murder at the beginning of the show, which also makes for a clearer suggestion of Richard's possible connection to the events (both scenes were cut straight from the BBC Hollow Crown’s version, The '78 edition also cut out a section of the cousin).

Shakespeare, a great historical fan himself. Historically, Henry Bolingbroke sided with Richard when he killed his uncle, and he got more fiefs and titles as a result. The reason he dueled Mowbray was that he accused Mowbray of claiming to be the highest royal heir in the line of succession (if true, treason at the time).

If considered in conjunction with history, the murder charges and exile at the beginning should not be regarded as the beginning of Richard II's death, but more of an account of the characters, showing their relationship and briefing the historical background. It is generally believed that Richard II's grand death began when he arbitrarily confiscated John of Gaunt's property and lands.

However, in the play, the beginning of this event may still have an impact on Richard's entire psychology. When DT described his own understanding, he said that he felt that Richard II felt uneasy since he failed to mediate two people to give up the duel, and the sentence "We were not born to sue, but to command" was the anger that this uneasy transformed into. Of course, the interpretation of this sentence is obviously different for each actor. The clips I have seen include those who read this line very sacred and calm, some are arrogant, and some are children's temper tantrums.

In history, Congress actually decided to let the two dukes resolve their disputes through a duel, that is to say, in fact, the whole opening event was a big drama of a power struggle in secret, which became Richard's willful and sinister character in Shakespeare's writings. The evidence of the uncertainty is clear.

As mentioned earlier, Richard II's grand death began when he arbitrarily deprived Henry Bolingbroke of his inheritance rights, and this scene was also the most important turning point in Richard's fate. In history, Richard did even better. After his uncle John of Gaunt of Lancaster died, in addition to confiscation of property and fief, he immediately changed Bolingbroke's punishment to permanent exile. Just as another uncle of Richard II in the play, Duke of York (that is, Aumale's father) at that time said, his behavior logic is actually a direct threat to the rationality of the social structure and even the succession of the throne. The legitimacy of kingship in the Middle Ages was divinely conferred by the monarch, and the concept behind it was not just the throne, but the whole social structure, that everyone had their own "due" class status, and the legitimacy of these class positions came from God. and its agent (king) on ​​earth. In fact, Richard did not find any names to directly undermine the rules of the game, and one of the results must be that the nobles were all in danger.

Although it is said that Richard did not think clearly about what he did, but at the time he actually had a certain reason to dare to act so boldly. Historically, Bolingbroke was living in France at the time, and the French king at this time had no opinion on Richard's peace policy and was not keen to help Bolingbroke attack Richard. In fact, Bolingbroke brought dozens of people back to the UK. If it weren't for Richard's absence in the UK at the time and almost took all his soldiers away and was disconnected for a month, in addition not having the support of the nobles. Unpopular, basically there will be no Bolingbroke. That's why Richard thought he had peace of mind, that he was no longer threatened in the territory, and went to Ireland with great peace of mind.

The scene where Richard came back from Ireland was a turning point in the whole show. Before that, the audience hated Richard (in theory, but it seems that many viewers of the empty Hollow Crown version sympathized with Ben from the beginning), and starting to feel that Bolingbroke was being unfair, even though he did the right thing and was the "good" one in the story. But from the beginning, the audience's sympathy is subtly tilted towards Richard, and suspicions about Bolingbroke's motives, while Richard slowly begins to resemble a king and more humane process of losing his power. The ending of the story leftbthe audience with mixed emotions.

Speaking of which, the historical reason why Richard surrendered without even fighting a battle is rather ironic. The crucial mistake he made was end up with no soldiers at all. His own soldiers were divided into two halves, and half of them were sent back to Wales first. As a result, the half of the soldiers disbanded on their own because they waited for him for more than ten days and thought he was dead. Richard didn't decide to surrender through peace when he heard that half of his troops were gone, as in the play, but because he heard that Bolingbroke's power was growing, he hurriedly decided to surrender. The proposal to split the army in half was precisely Aumale, the future Duke of York, the loyal cousin who followed Richard until his dismissal, and was also adapted from the BBC Hollow Crown and RSC versions. Became the cousin of the murderer who finally killed the late king.

the kiss

The RSC version features Aumale's relationship with Richard II (such as the kiss on the city wall), but it gave vary interpretations. Although the critics have discussed the implications of this performance for Richard's sexuality and the interpretation of Richard's characters (such as what his behavioral temperament has to do with suppressed sexuality, and whether this interpretation is too plain and vulgar, etc. ), but according to what the RSC actors said in the discussion, this arrangement appeared naturally in the rehearsal, they felt that the mood was smooth and they kept it, and did not mention a particularly clear direction. Personally, I have also seen several reviews of the general audience who watched the drama and said that the scene felt that the scene was a very pure brotherhood, which was quite appropriate.

As for changing the ending, the art director of RSC explained that he felt that from the perspective of dramatic conflict and story structure, it should be Aumale, not a passerby who suddenly appeared and killed Richard. It's just that when the play was written, his descendants were still alive and powerful, and Shakespeare should have revised the ending accordingly. Personally, I think it's reasonable (but it should be that Amuale was forced to make a vote in order to clear the suspicion of treason after receiving a hint from Henry IV).

Of course, the final scene was mostly written for tragic effect, no matter how it was written. Because historically, Richard probably just starved to death silently (actually, thinking about it is even worse).

It is also worth mentioning that historically, when Richard II died, his wife was underage. DT said in the interview that they struggled especially during the rehearsal of Richard and his wife saying goodbye, because they didn't know how to control their relationship (he said he personally felt that Richard ignored his wife most of the time, and their first positive dialogue is to ask people to go back to France to go to a monastery, which is very difficult to grasp). Another actor interviewed at the time, who had played another RSC version of Richard II a few years earlier, said that his understanding was that it was a very emotional farewell. This wife is included in “I wasted time, and now doth time waste me”.

There is another important gossip about the Richard II show. When the play was written, it was widely interpreted at the time that Richard II was an allusion to Elizabeth I (then the era of Elizabeth I's reign). According to the RSC director's explanation, both Richard II and Elizabeth I doesn’t have children to inherit (a problem that people were very worried about during the Elizabeth I era), and both of them raised a lot of taxes during their reigns, facing problem in Ireland, when opponents of Elizabeth saw her as a tyrant like Richard II. There are written records that Elizabeth I herself knew this interpretation of the people at that time. She once said to her information officer, "I am Richard II, know ye not that?" The BBC's decryption Shakespeare told a more detailed story. Because of the sensitivity of the content, Richard II's abdication scene was deleted when the play was first released. Later, when it was first released in full, a powerful and usurping duke and his supporters went to the show and then forced Elizabeth I to the palace, but the people of London at the time did not support him. ultimately failed. All the actors who performed Richard II that night were also brought for interrogation and finally found not guilty.

There was a version of RSC that adopted the interpretation that Richard II was alluding to Elizabeth I, and designed Richard's entire costume to look like Elizabeth I.

However, for us in modern times, because of the evaluation of Elizabeth I's later generations, it is probably difficult to understand how she can be compared with Richard II in parallel. The RSC version obviously didn't take this reference into consideration. DT himself said that he never believed in this interpretation. He personally felt that Shakespeare did not imply Elizabeth I to write this play.

In addition, there was a legendary version of RSC in 1973. Two actors, Ian Richardson and Richard Pasco, took turns to play Richard II and Bolingbroke. The two leading actors would switch roles to perform, each night they would draw lots to decide their role. It is a very interesting interpretation to understand the two as a contrast of yin and yang. Before the release of the RSC version in 2013, Ian Richardson's widow gave DT the ring he wore when he performed Richard II. DT was wearing this ring that carried 40 years of history.(RSC has a real-life skull for Hamlet's performance, which is also a magical theatrical heritage).

Also, DT has seen the performances of the Hollow Crown version in the 70s and 80s.

After watching it, he was shocked by the actor’s acting ability, which seemed to come from another universe, and almost felt that he could not play this role. He claims to have used the entire rehearsal process to forget their performance.

DT himself said that he was still in drama school when he first came into contact with Richard II's play. At that time, he had neither seen Shakespeare's book nor any other version of the performance. When Derek Jacobi went to Glasgow (Scotland's largest city) to tour Richard II, DT and a group of friends from drama school went to see it. They were shocked by the show and Sir's performance on the spot. Went to the back stage door and ask for an autograph. He fell in love with the Richard II show and wanted to challenge the role for many years. He mentioned this when he cooperated with Sir many years later, and was dismissed by Sir

Lastly,

John of Gaunt, Gloucester's widow, Duke of York and his son Duke of Aumale are impressively good. The handling of the relationship between Richard and Aumale is unexpected and reasonable. On the one hand, it brings a touch of warmth to the latter plot, and on the other hand, it has a stronger sense of tragedy. However, I personally think that because of Aumale's more mature and restrained performance, the plot was discovered by his father and then went to Henry IV's to beg for pardon. The turn of the characters was slightly unnatural. In contrast, Aumale, who may be naive and romantic and even a little stupid in the Hollow crown, seems to be more reasonable in the ups and downs in the back. From the report of RSC 2015-2016 that changed to Amuale's actor version, said that the last paragraph of the new version is very clear about Amuale's reluctance to plead for himself for the sake of her mother. Personally, I think it may sound more reasonable.

As for starring DT, I personally feel that he is more mature than Hamlet's performance. Although it may not be as extreme and outgoing as Hamlet, relatively speaking, the interpretation was quite satisfactory, and the intuitive feeling is not so shocking, but the level of the characters and the delicacy of emotions are definitely improved. His early expression of Richard II's willful and reckless behavior is clear and easy to understand, and at the same time, the deliberately exaggerated comedy effect makes the viewing process unexpectedly pleasant. Although reading the script, I would not have thought that Richard II could act like this. As a modern audience, it would be enjoyable. Most of the critics also liked his way of acting, believing that his acting brought Shakespeare into the modern age, so that even young, unfamiliar or even Shakespeare-fearing audiences would not feel alienated. Throw in the story and enjoy it (that's roughly what the RSC art director said about DT).

But regardless of the dramatic effect of the first half, my personal favorite is the return from Ireland to the beach, especially “let us sit upon the ground And tell sad stories of the death of kings”, which was completely enriched the first time I watched it. Emotional and dramatic tension attracts. For this alone, the DT version is the one that most expresses the impact of this series of news that shattered Richard.

My second favorite scene is probably the city wall scene. I feel that the transition between the majesty and arrogance of the DT version and the fear and cowardice is very natural. And because of the interaction with Aumale, the bitter sweetness of this passage made me feel Richard's sadness, brokenness and a certain relief the most.

Of course, there is also a major event of abdication. DT's abdication is not the most exciting performance in the whole drama (the Hollow crown version is undoubtedly the climax), but it still supports the drama according to the mood of the drama, and it is quite powerful. In terms of script understanding, DT paid more attention to the former king’s final stage of pride, ridicule and slapstick acting, as well as its occasional performance. The hidden sadness and confusion that are turned out are more useful to individuals. Reports who have watched more than one DT performance said that in this one, he completely controlled the scene on the spot, and his performance was different every night. With the mood of the night and the situation of interacting with other actors, his tone and actions even moved. are all different. DT also said in the interview that his understanding was that this was Richard finally showing his side as a king as a leader after losing the throne and showing Bolingbroke the influence he had.

In this way, the 1978 Sir version is highly recommended by individuals. The sadness and sarcasm of that version of the abdication scene were very full and explosive, and the control transition was just right, and it didn't give people the feeling of being insane at all. The emotional drama of the whole scene was completely controlled by the lord, and the sense of heaviness filled the entire stage space.

In this version, the performance of the last two acts of the DT version is relatively weak, saying goodbye to the Queen is just like what he said. It can be seen that he does not know how to understand Richard's emotions at this time. In the last scene in Richard's prison, there is some madness to feel tortured down and down, but the kind of introspection in the lines is not enough. When he finally died in Aumale's arms, audience would inevitably want to compare his acting in Hamlet. In comparison, his Hamlet's side is more expressive (although it is true that the emotions are not the same). Looking at the review, it seems that this reenactment from 2015 to 2016, except for the actors, the biggest change is to modify the stage design and performance of the last scene. It's a pity that there probably won't be any video to watch this tour

These four historical dramas, except for Richard II, are not particularly heavy. Henry IV has Falstaff, Henry V has French princesses and princes, and even Richard II has a lot of pun lines, which are obviously comedy. Moreover, after exiling Bolingbroke, he mocked him behind his back for how to please the commoners. He was overjoyed when he heard that his uncle was dying, and expressed his hope that we would have money left when he died. His uncle York said “The ripest fruit first falls, and so doth he; His time is spent, our pilgrimage must be. So much for that. Now for our Irish wars” , this is not only the DT version, revealing the globe of Shakespeare The actor said that the audience would snicker every time they came to this segment. Personally, I think the Hollow crown version's attempt to make it a tall, deep and tragic historical drama is not desirable, especially for these four dramas. This way of shooting makes the series dull and unsightly.