After the first reading of Richard III for the Rogue Theatre...the question had to be asked...Why in the world is this considered to be a good play? Somebody explain it to me.
It's a shame you missed Rylance's Richard III, which is the single most terrifying performance I've ever seen onstage. If Richard invites the spectators to become collaborators with him, and genuinely "asks" for their input, it works brilliantly. If Richard gets up there and goes, "Look at me and how evil I am!" then you are in one for long, painful night of theatre. Don't let your Richard have an ounce of obviousness in his methods to the other characters, or especially to the audience when he's engaged with the other characters. One Richard has to step out of the scene, another has to go in, and never the twain shall meet until he crumbles at the end. That's how Rylance got a Richard that is going to be still written about 50 years from now.
If the Court themselves are tense as hell regarding the "peace" that has arrived, worried now about what to do, so unsure about anything that they do not and are not speaking among themselves, leaving only Richard doing the talking, then perhaps it has a chance as you describe.
That also works just as well as the other extreme- the complacency that comes with peace, and Richard being able to slip under the radar that way. In either case an extreme has to be created in the world of the play- it's the only way the "unassuming" Richard can do the dirty work and not get noticed. But if he's got any shred of presence to him when he's around the other characters, or if there's any way the characters could see him becoming king, there will be problems, and not the right kind of ones. What made Rylance so damn creepy is he let himself be a doormat until he turned it on them 180, and the only safe people were the audience who were his "co-conspirators."
It's a shame you missed Rylance's Richard III, which is the single most terrifying performance I've ever seen onstage. If Richard invites the spectators to become collaborators with him, and genuinely "asks" for their input, it works brilliantly. If Richard gets up there and goes, "Look at me and how evil I am!" then you are in one for long, painful night of theatre. Don't let your Richard have an ounce of obviousness in his methods to the other characters, or especially to the audience when he's engaged with the other characters. One Richard has to step out of the scene, another has to go in, and never the twain shall meet until he crumbles at the end. That's how Rylance got a Richard that is going to be still written about 50 years from now.
ReplyDeleteIf the Court themselves are tense as hell regarding the "peace" that has arrived, worried now about what to do, so unsure about anything that they do not and are not speaking among themselves, leaving only Richard doing the talking, then perhaps it has a chance as you describe.
ReplyDeleteThat also works just as well as the other extreme- the complacency that comes with peace, and Richard being able to slip under the radar that way. In either case an extreme has to be created in the world of the play- it's the only way the "unassuming" Richard can do the dirty work and not get noticed. But if he's got any shred of presence to him when he's around the other characters, or if there's any way the characters could see him becoming king, there will be problems, and not the right kind of ones. What made Rylance so damn creepy is he let himself be a doormat until he turned it on them 180, and the only safe people were the audience who were his "co-conspirators."
ReplyDelete