Richard III runs at the Genesian Theatre from March 9 – April
20 2013. By William Shakespeare, directed by Gary Dooley.
Genesian Theatre Company’s production
of Richard III is an entertaining, if perhaps unadventurous, take on
Shakespeare’s play. It is at its best when it embraces its own theatricality –
these moments are fleeting, but when they occur, they are truly memorable.
Director Gary Dooley has set his Richard
III in 1940s England, a time when (as in the historical period that the
real Richard and co lived) the nation was rebuilding after a long and intense
war. This is not a historically accurate 1940s, just as Richard is not a
historically accurate Richard: it is a dream of the 1940s, evoking the
uncertainties of the postwar world. Can there ever really be peace? The threat
is no longer coming from an enemy, an othered outsider: instead, it comes from
within the royal family itself. Roger Gimblett plays Richard like Scar from The
Lion King, prowling about the stage as best as he can with his cane (this
Richard has lost the use of one arm, presumably in the battles that occurred
before the beginning of his play). He relishes his scheming, delighting in his
own Machiavellian cleverness. This works very well in the first half of the
play, but it means that his crisis of confidence in the second half seems very
sudden. Richard’s unravelling is quite abrupt. It is well dramatised and
theatrically engaging, but it was a very sharp twist in a character who
apparently revelled in his own amorality.
There are some spectacular moments in
this production –spectacular in the sense of spectacle, visually and
theatrically remarkable. Richard’s coronation is one of these. Rivers’
execution at the end of the first half is another (this was just plain cool –
it was a great note on which to send the audience to interval!). The gas masks
in the battle are fantastically creepy. Perhaps the best of these spectacular
moments is Richard’s dream, where the people he have killed come back to haunt
him on the night before the Battle of Bosworth Field, telling him to despair
and die. This spectacle is abetted by a simple and functional set. Some set
changes were a little clunky, but when the set was in place, it worked
beautifully. In the dream sequence, the dead appeared behind Venetian blinds,
spookily lit in green. It was genuinely eerie.
Unfortunately, the production does
not maintain this level of dynamicism. I’m not saying that every scene needs to
be a spectacle, but there were other scenes in which I found my attention
drifting. These were generally scenes heavy on the political machinations.
Political machinations can be fascinating – if nothing else, we have learned
this from Game of Thrones – but here, some of them felt laboured,
slowing down the play’s momentum. At two hours and forty minutes, this
production definitely feels too long. Classic as Richard III is, I feel
it would have been a better show with some judicious trimming.
There were some really good
performances in this production –I especially want to mention Hailey McQueen’s
subtle yet wrenching portrayal of Lady Anne and Elizabeth McGregor’s determined
and enraged Queen Elizabeth – but the real standout for me was Patrick Magee.
He shone in the smaller roles, particularly as the murderer plagued by
conscience and as the triumphant Earl of Richmond. I saw someone in the
audience physically fistpump when he declared that the day was won, and I
understood the impulse. I’ll be interested to see what Magee does next. Perhaps
the oddest casting decision was the one to have the two young princes played by
mannequin-esque puppets. I understand wanting to find an alternative to child
actors, but I really don’t think “puppets” was the next logical place to go. My
theatre date and I both grew up watching children’s TV in the 1990s, and the
first thing we said to each other in interval was, “OMG THOSE PUPPETS WERE EC
FROM LIFTOFF”. (For clarity, EC was a talking, faceless, possibly omnipotent
doll. He was supposed to be a benevolent character, but in reality, he came off
sinister and terrifying.) The puppet princes were bizarre at best. They robbed
the death of the princes of a lot of emotional impact – it’s one thing to
brutally execute a couple of children, but another to dispose of a few creepy
mannequins.
I felt like there was more this
production could have done. It could have been bolder in its reading: it was
quite a straightforward and arguably cautious production of Shakespeare’s play.
However, it was very engaging and it contained some moments of real theatrical
spectacle. It’s not the most out-there production of Shakespeare you’ll ever
see, but it’s definitely worth watching.
No comments:
Post a Comment