an actor's approach to the by henry max...
Post on 18-Mar-2018
217 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
An actor's approach to the character of Richard III
Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic)
Authors Kendrick, Henry Max, 1942-
Publisher The University of Arizona.
Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this materialis made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona.Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such aspublic display or performance) of protected items is prohibitedexcept with permission of the author.
Download date 19/05/2018 20:38:12
Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/317940
AN ACTOR'S APPROACH TO THE
CHARACTER OF RICHARD III
by
Henry Max Kendrick
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the
DEPARTMENT OF DRAMA
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
In the Graduate College
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
1 9 7 2
STATEMENT BY AUTHOR
This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library.
Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.
APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTORS
This thesis has been approved on the date shown below:
PETER R. MARRONfiY Professor of Drama
ROSEM^Y P. GIPSONAssistant Professor of Drama*
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Space limitations forbid a complete list of persons to whom
the writer is indebted for their contributions to the production of
Richard III. Special thanks are extended to Rosemary P. Gipson, As
sistant Professor of Drama, without whose scholarship, expertise, and
kindness this thesis would never have been written. Gratitude is also
expressed to Professor Peter R. Marroney, Head of the Department of
Drama, for his fine directoral hand. Thanks go to Miss Irene Comer,
Professor of Drama, for her invaluable advice. The writer is es
pecially grateful for the friendship and artistic work of Helen W.
Currie, Associate Professor of Drama and Costume Director, for her work
on Richard III. An affectionate note of gratitude goes to Miss Bonni
Rae Haber for her make-up work and her kindness to the writer. An all-
encompassing thank you to the cast and crew who worked so long and hard
to accomplish such a good effect, with so good a will.
Finally, the writer acknowledges the love and faith of his wife
Kathryne, who, unlike Anne in the play, survived being the wife of
Richard III..
TABLE OF CONTENTS
, Page
A B S T R A C T ........... . . . , v
CHAPTER
I BACKGROUND OF THE TRAGEDY OF KING RICHARD III 1
England During the Time of the HistoricalRichard I I I ...................... ............... 1
Sources of the P l a y ................................ 5Stage History of the Play . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
II AN ACTOR'S ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF RICHARD III . . . . 18
The Multiple Personality of Richard ........... . 18Relationship with the Main Characters
in the P l a y ................................... 22Adapting Richard III to Today's Audience ......... 28
III THE ACTOR'S L O G ....................................... . 31
IV AN EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF RICHARD III .......... 52
LIST OF R E F E R E N C E S ........... 57
iv
c ABSTRACT
Throughout theatre history the usual portrayal of Richard III
has been that of a gloating archvillain or a colossal Satanic figure.
However, Richard III1s character contains a multiplicity of sides, each
of which manifests his central quality of villainy and it may be this
perfection which has blinded many to his true character.
In order to fully understand the many facets of Richard III,
an actor needs to investigate the life and times of the historical
Richard, to carefully analyze the character created by Shakespeare, and
to present Richard to the audience as a vital personality--one that can
be enjoyed, admired, and feared.
v
CHAPTER I
BACKGROUND OF THE TRAGEDY OF KING RICHARD III
Of all races and peoples, the British, perhaps, have the great
est love for their history and their historical figures, both good and
bad and all shades in between. They have also had, in this writer's
opinion, the finest writers to give voice to this history. William
Shakespeare, in particular, brought to the stage and brought to life
English history in his chronicle plays. In The Living Shakespeare
Campbell (1958:118) says, MShakespeare1s audiences saw Richard III less
as a tragedy than as a dramatization of history teaching an important
political lesson.M Although the stage Richard does not always agree
with the historical Richard, Shakespeare created a character which all
audiences would watch with enjoyment: vital, intelligent, and stepping
from the pages of English history was Richard III, "Richard Crookback."
England During the Time of the Historical Richard III
The most tragic and bloody war is civil war and the civil
strife between the powerful houses of York and Lancaster in England
marked a period (1422-1485) of blood in the history of that.nation.
Historians have shrunk from the Wars of the Roses and most of those who
have written on them have left only a sad and confused picture. Winston
Churchill, in his History of the English Speaking Peoples (1956:1, 442),
states:.
2We are however in the presence of the, most ferocious and implacable quarrel of which there is factual record. The individual actors were bred by generations of privilege and war, into which the feudal theme had brought its peculiar sense of honour, and to which the Papacy, contributed such spiritual sanction as emerged from its rivalries and intrigues. It was a conflict in which personal hatreds reached their maximum and from which mass effects were.happily excluded. There must have
. been many similar convulsions in the human story. None however has been preserved with characters at once so worldly and expensively chiselled. The ups and downs of fortune were so numerous and startling, the family feuds so complicated, the impact of national feeling in moments of crisis so difficult to measure, that it has been the fashion to disparage this period.
In 1455, in St. Albans,the first shedding of blood took place.
The Yorkists gained possession of King Henry VI, but soon the inherent
power of Lancaster was seen. The Lancastrians had the majority of the
nobles on their side. Continual trials of strength between the rival
houses were made. There were dissensions in the country as the lesser
nobility and the common people took sides, grim assemblies in Parlia
ment, and violent and bloody episodes in the hinterlands.
War began in earnest in July of 1460; "Pity was banished from
all hearts and death or vengeance was the cry" (Churchill 1956:1, 443).
After many bitter and bloody struggles, the climactic battle of Barnet
was fought on April 14, 1471; the Lancastrian Queen Margaret
tried to reach Wales but Edward IV intercepted her and brought her to
bay at Tewkesbury. The Lancastrians were scattered or destroyed, Mar
garet was captured, and Margaret's son, Edward, the Prince of Wales,
was killed.
Churchill (1956:1, 473) describes the subsequent action in this
way:
3Richard of Gloucester hastened to London. He had a task to do at the Tower* As long as the Prince of Wales lived King HenryT s life had been safe, but with the death of the last hope of Lancaster his fate was sealed. On the night of May 21 the Duke of Gloucester visited the Tower with full authority from the King, where he probably supervised the murder of the melancholy spectator who had been the centre of fifty years of cruel contention.
i-//.
Edward IV set about getting his house in order. Clarence died
in the Tower of London, a grim stone edifice that had seen the impris
onment and deaths of many nobles. Richard of Gloucester married Anne
Warwick, the King-maker1s daughter. Queen Elizabeth, the wife of
Edward IV, had two sons and the Crown seemed secure. King Edward IV
was only forty years old. In another ten years the Yorkist triumph
would have become permanent. But, suddenly, in April, 1483, Edward
died. Although not next in line for the throne, Edward*s faithful
brother, Richard, saw that with the proper machinations, his future
could be entirely different.
The reign of Richard III, formerly Duke of Gloucester, was a
short and stormy one. He was crowned on July 6, 1483, and died fight
ing on Bosworth Field on August 22, 1485. It was.not a happy reign.
Charles Dickens in his A Child*s History of England (1894:207) says:
He was dreaded and hated by all classes of his subjects. His nobles deserted every day to Henry * s side; he denounced them, and, for want of money, he was obliged to get *benevolences* from the citizens, which exasperated them all against him.
However, Clements R. Markham in Richard III: His Life and Char
acter states:
The king was a great builder and took great interest in the administration of justice.. There was nothing mean or sordid in his nature. He was liberal, open-handed and generous and his foreign policy, was wise and judicious (1950:130).
4Churchill (1956:1, 455) states, however:
From the moment of the coronation there began that marked distrust and hostility of all classes towards King Richard III which all his arts and competence could not allay. It is contended by the defenders of King Richard that the Tudor version of these events had prevailed. But the English people who lived at the time and learned of the events day by day formed their convictions two years before the Tudors gained power or were indeed a prominent factor. Richard III held the authority of government. He told his own story with what facilities were available, and he was spontaneously and almost universally disbelieved. Indeed, no fact stands forth more unchallengeable than that Richard had used his power as Protector to usurp the crown and that the princes had disappeared in the Tower.
So we are left with three different opinions from three emin
ent writers as to the general English reaction to Richard III. This
writer supposes it is up to each individual reader or historian to make
up his own mind which side to choose in a dispute that is probably
doomed to insolubility.
In April, 1484, Richard's only son, the Prince of Wales,, died.
>Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond!, now biding his time in France, became
the obvious successor to the throne. Throughout the year of 1484,
Richmond was preparing for an invasion. Richard readied himself for it
although he felt surrounded by fear and resentment on every side.
Richmond set sail for England and on August 7 landed on Milford Haven.
The news traveled by "post-horse" and on the 17th of August Richard
went after him. x
On the 22nd of. August the two rivals clashed on Bosworth. Field.
Here, fighting for his life and crown, Richard was betrayed for the
last time. Lord Stanley threw his forces to Richmond while the Earl of
Northumberland stood idle. From an eyewitness, identified as "a soldier"
5comes this account of the final minutes of King Richard: "King Richard
hewed his way almost to where Richmond was standing by his standard but
was cut down short of his goal" (Matterson 1930:108). Dickens (1894:
208) completes the bloody end:
That night a horse was led up to the Church of the gray friars at Leicester, across whose back was tied, like some worthless sack, a naked body brought there for burial. . It was the body of the last of the Plantagenet line, King Richard the Third, usurper and murderer, slain at the battle of Bosworth Field in the thirty-second year of his age, after a reign of two years.
Dickens gives no source for this grim picture, so whether it comes from
a contemporary account, some obscure source known to Dickens, or
Dickens1s own imagination is open to conjecture.
Thus ended the short reign of Richard III. Thus ended the
splendid line of warrior-kings, the Plantagenets. One final note: on
the day after Richard's death, the following was printed in the City
Registry of York (1938:n.p.), "He was piteously slain and murdered to
the great heaviness of this city."
Sources of the Play
The principal source of the play is Raphael Holinshed, Chroni
cles of England, Scotland, and Ireland (192 7), the general source for
all of Shakespeare's English history plays. In turn, Holinshed had
copied almost verbatim Sir Thomas More's History of King Richard the
Third, written about L513 and printed in 1557 (Eccles 1963, More 1883).
More's account provided Holinshed material up to Richard's coronation;
for the coronation Holinshed relied upon the histories of Edward Hall's,
The Union of the Two Noble and Tllustre Families of Lancaster and York
(1965), and Richard Graftonf s A Chronicle at Large and Mere History of
the Affairs of England.and Kings of the Same (1569) (Satin 1966:1).
Then More1s incomplete work was used by Holinshed up to the falling out
between Richard and Buckingham. The remainder of Holinshed*s account
is taken from Hall (see above) who in turn based his history on Poly-
dore Vergil, Historia AngTica (1844). ,!0f all these Chronicles two
only, the compilations of Hall (or Grafton) and of Holinshed, were ac
tually utilized for the drafting of the playM (Wilson 1954:xiii).
There were other histories of Richard III.available to Shake
speare, three literary accounts, still extant and all probably composed
before Shakespeare wrote his play: MThe Tragedy of Clarence** in The
Mirror for Magistrates, a book published in 1559 and 1563 by William
Baldwin; The True Tragedy of Richard III, an anonymous play written in
1590 and first published in 1594; and Thomas Legge*s academic Latin
play, Richard Tertius, written about 1580. It is likely that Shake-
peare knew the plays and a few slight resemblances have been detected.
Bryan Field states:
The portion of the storys in which the plays make the nearest approach to each other, is just before the murder of the Princes, where Richard strangely takes a page into his confidence respecting the fittest agent for the purpose. This should hardly be called strange in our dramatist, since it is authorized in the history of Sir Thomas More (1844:53).
It seems only possible that there would be similarities in lit
erary compositions which drew their material from the same chronicles.
But more important is the interpretation, attitude, and facts selected
for treatment from all the sources by Shakespeare in formulating his
play Richard III.
Stage History of the Play
On the basis of internal evidence Richard III is assigned to
1593 (Campbell 1958:119). The earliest dated reference to this is its
entry in the Stationersf Register on October 20, 1597, by the London
publisher, Andrew Wise, which was'succeeded in the same year by the is
sue of the First Quarto edition under the following compendious title:
The Tragedy of King Richard the Third./Containing/His treacherous Plots against his brother Clarence:/the pittieful murther of his innocent nephewes:/his tyrannical vsurpation:with the whole course/of his detested life, and most deserued death./As it is hath beene lately Acted by the/Right Honourable the Lord Chamber-/laine his seruants (Wilson 1954:ix).
The words "lately Acted by the Right Honourable the Lord Cham-
berlaine his seruants" are repeated down to 1605, and "duly altered in
1612 and 1622 to * lately Acted by the Kings Maiesties seruantsT" (Wil
son 1954:xlvi). On November 16, 1633, Richard III was performed "'by
the K. players' at Court before King Charles and the Queen" as recorded
by Sir Henry Herbert in his Office Book (Adams 1917:53). This is the
only recorded date of the play's performance before the closing of the
theatres in 1642. Yet the popularity of Richard III must have been
great in Shakespeare's time, judging from the repeated Quarto editions.
Furthermore, Francis Meres in his Palladis Tamia: Wit's Treasury (1938:
45) lists Richard III as one of the six plays proving Shakespeare to be
"most excellent'' in tragedy "among the English."
Richard III was evidently first made popular by the acting of
Shakespeare's companion, Richard Burbage, We have a rather flowery
record of the Burbage style, written as- late as 1664 by Richard Fleck-
noel:
8He was a delightful Proteus, so wholly transforming himself into his Part, and putting off himself with his Cloathes, as he never (not so much as in the Tyring-house) assum'd himself again until the play was done. . . He had all the parts of an excellent Orator (animating his words with speaking, and Speech with Action) his Auditors being never more delighted, than when he spoke, nor more sorry than when he held his peace; yet even then, he was an excellent Actor still, never falling in his Part when he had done speaking; but with his looks and gesture, maintaining it still unto the heighth, he imagining Age quod agis, onely spoke to him (Nagler 1952:128).
After the return of Charles II, in 1660, to the English throne,
a small number of history plays were written and played in the heroic
manner. Richard III himself was presented in several of these dramas
and the most successful was John Caryl's The English Princess or the
Death of Richard the Third (Granville-Barker 1933:225). The actor por
traying this heroic Richard at Lincoln's Inn Fields, March 1667, was
Thomas Betterton (Wilson 1954:xlvii), the greatest actor of his age.
According to a cast list written on the verse of the title page of
Quarto 8, Betterton did perform in a 1690 production of Shakespeare's
Richard III, playing the role of Edward IV, while the role of Richard
III was. acted by Samuel Sanford (Wilson 1954:xlvii). Sanford was "a
crooked little man, obviously designed by nature for villain roles.
The audience had seen him so often in the black wig of villainy that.
they could not conceive of him as an honest man" (Wilson 1954:29).
In 1700 Shakespeare's Richard III was rewritten by the actor '
and playwright Colley Cibber. Many scenes and characters were totally
omitted; Clarence, Edward IV, Margaret, and Hastings disappeared. "The
cuts of whole scenes leaves Richard always in the centre of the action;
but he is a melodramatic.villain without the subtlety and wit of Shake
speare T s murdererM (Young 1954:1). In Cibber's version, appeared the
greatest actors of England and America: Garrick, Kean, Kemble, Edwin
Forrest, and the Booths. Cibber played the title role until his re
tirement in 1733; "but on 31 January 1739, Cibber returning to the
stage, again essayed the part, only to discover it to be too arduous
for his nearly seventy years" (Young 1954:1). "The Laureate," a con
temporary critic, says of Cibber's Richard: "When he was kill'd by
Richmond, one might plainly perceive that the good people were not
better pleas'd that so execrable an actor was silent" (Wright 1960:
xxix).
Cibber's play was performed 87 times from 1701 until the advent
of Garrick in 1741. Fifty-two of these performances were at Drury Lane
where Cibber monopolized the role of Richard III; "but from 1721 Lin
coln's Inn Fields became a serious competitor, with fifteen perform
ances. Goodman's Fields showed the play nine times and Covent Garden
seven in the period" (Hogan 1952:378). At Lincoln's Inn Fields, James
Ryan, previously Richmond at Drury Lane, played the title role; and the
Goodman's Fields Richard was acted by T. R. Delane. Upon Cibber's re
tirement, James Quin, who had acted the role of Buckingham in Lincoln's
Inn Fields and Covent Gardens, succeeded him as Richard at Drury Lane.
"Quin carried on the Betterton tradition of the chant-like delivery and
almost oppressive dignity" (Baker 1897:1).X
David Garrick made his debut in London at Goodman's Fields in
the title role of Richard III on October 19, 1741, and instantly took
10the town by storm. A, M, Nagler tells of Garrick's debut in this way:
[ He had an ] easy and familiar yet forcible style in speaking:: and acting.,.,0f the just modulation of the words and concur- . ring expression of the features, the audience had been strangers, at least for some time. . . . But after he had gone througha variety of scenes in which he gave evident proofs of consum- ate art, and perfect knowledge of character, their doubts were turned into surprise and reiterated applause (Nagler 1952:361).
Ida Perry Wood in her Stage History of Richard the Third says that Gar
rick "freed the interpretation of Richard from the conventional deline
ation of the wicked tyrant who was savage and furious, and nothing
else" (1909:104).
After Garrick, the next great actor to essay the role of Richard
was John Phillip Kemble. "Kemble put back some of Shakespeare's lan
guage into Gibber's version and then acted Richard with great success,
although his impersonation was characterized by a subdued, almost re
fined manner" (Campbell 1958:119). Kemble's "eminently fine face was
strangely incongruous with the resolve to descant on his own infirmity, "
observed Sir Walter Scott (Furness 1908l:I, 30). Kemble's "reception
was not too favourable; but he repeated the part for the Drury Lane
company more than twenty times from 1788, when he became manager, until
1801" (Young 1954:4). Kemble surrendered the part to George Frederick
Cooke who outdid Kemble in popularity. Charles Lamb (1912:214) con
demned Cook for failing to dissemble his villainy:
Not one of the spectators who have witnessed Mr. Cooke's exertions in that part, but has come away with a proper conviction that Richard is a very wicked man and kills little children in their beds, with something like the pleasure which the giants and ogres in children's books are represented to have taken in that practice; moreover, that he is very close and shrewd and devilish cunning, for you could see that by his eyes . . . .A horror at his crimes blends with the effect that we feel,
11but how it is qualified, how it is carried off, by the rich intellect which he displays, his resources, his wit, his buoyant spirits, his vast knowledge and insight into characters, the poetry of his part--not an atom of which is made perceivable in Mr. Cooke's way of acting it. . . . The murderer stands out,but where is the lofty genius, the man of vast capacity--the profound, the witty, accomplished Richard?
When Cooke left for America in 1810, Kemble was without a rival
until Edmund Kean appeared four years later. Like Garrick before him,
Kean instantly leapt into permanent fame, and Richard III became the
most popular of his Shakespearian roles. Byron wrote of him, "Richard
is a man and Kean is Richard" (Baker 1897:VI, 155). Coleridge said,
"Watching Kean is like reading Shakespeare by flashes of lightning"
(Baker 1897:VI, 156). Kean's approach emphasized the subtler, more
complex sides of Richard's nature. Kean's principal rival, Junius
Brutus Booth, closely followed Kean's interpretation.
William Charles Macready played Richard in London at Covent
Garden in 1819 and was very successful although Kean was then at the
height of his powers, Macready tried to combine "the dignity of Kemble
with the vivacity of Kean, the deliberativeness and majesty of the one
with the animal spirits and rush of the other" (Wood 1909:123).
On March 13, 1821, Macready made the bold experiment of presenting a text in which he had restored most of Shakespeare's Richard III, but had prudently retained the most popular of Cibber's gags. Much to his disappointment, the critics and the public so definitely preferred Cibber's version that Macready was obliged to revert to it (Campbell 1958:120).
From about 1840, performances of Richard III became relatively
infrequent (Young 1954:18). In 1845, however, the first reinstatement
of Shakespeare's text was made by Samuel Phelps for a production at
Sadler's Wells. Phelps "got rid of all Cibber's alterations, and apart
12from some transpositions and omissions offered his audience the
original drama" (Young 1954:vii)„ However, "the play was not par
ticularly successful„. When he revived Richard the Third seventeen
years later, he chose Cibber's version" (Wright 1960:xi),
In 1869 and again in 1876, Barry Sullivan played the title
role in Drury Lane0 George Bernard Shaw declared Sullivan to be the
one actor after 1845 who "kept Cibber on the stage, producing exactly
the effect Cibber had intended" (Shaw 1932:288).
Sir Henry Irving successfully ousted the Cibber travesty of
Shakespeare with his Lyceum productions of 1877 and 1896-97. Irving
went back to Shakespeare's text from which by abridgment he made his
• version. Irving's "realistic Richard t impressed some as a colossal
.Satanic figure, to be rated with Mephistopheles; others found his humour
and enjoyment of villainy the salient feature" (Stoker 1906:125, 322-
325).
In the present century there have been but a few London produc
tions, with the Old Vic Company maintaining a.virtual monopoly of the
play. Its most recent revivals have been in the 1944-45 and 1948-49
seasons, with Sir Laurence Olivier as Richard.
In the United States during the 18th and 19th centuries few
Shakespearian plays were more popular than Richard III. Cibber'.s al
teration was the accepted acting script. The first recorded dramatic
performance in New York City was "that of Richard the Third on the
fifth of March 1750" (Dunn 1939:38). The first American actor to por
tray Richard III was Thomas Kean; however we know very little about him.
13Prior to the Revolutionary War Richard the Third constantly
appeared on bills in Philadelphia, New York, Annapolis, and on De
cember 5, 1766, was performed at the Southwark Theatre in Philadel
phia. The part was played by Lewis Hallam, now the leading actor of
the country. The next year, when a permanent theatre was built-on
John Street in New York, Richard the Third was played on the 14th of
December following the theatre's opening on the 7th. In the audience
at that performance was a delegation of Cherokee Indians. The Penn
sylvania Gazette^ of December 7th said, "The Indians regarded the play
. . . with seriousness and attention" (Wood 1909:129). Regarding
Hallam's acting, Alexander Graydon, who saw the American Company per
form, wrote: "In tragedy, it cannot be denied, that his declamation
was either mouthing or ranting; yet [he was] a thorough master of all
the tricks and finesse of his trade" (Hewitt 1959:25). In 1778 Congress
passed a resolution calling for suspension of all amusements, and this
closed the colonial period of the American stages In the South, the
Continental Congress Resolution was not taken - seriously. In 1782 a
Baltimore company held a season from January to June. Richard the
Third was chosen to open their season -
After the Revolutionary War, Lewis Hallam, Jr., and the Ameri
can Company who had weathered the hostilities in Jamaica, returned to
the United States. To appease the anti-theatre Quakers, Hallam pro
duced Richard the Third in Philadelphia in 1788 under the guise of a
"moral dialogue" (Moses 1906:114). However, the prohibitions against
dramatic entertainments were repealed in 1789 and Richard III could
return to the boards as a play.v ■ '
14In the season of 1793-94 John Hodgkinson made his first ap^
pearance as Richard at the John Street Theatre. Hodgkinson was
brought over from England by the American Company and remained the
leading Richard during its remaining years at this theatre. Hodg
kinson was called Mthe American Kemble” by most contemporary critics.
However, Irvingf s comments on Hodgkins on ,f s acting were not flattering,
but he paid the actor an indirect compliment, indicating that his style
was "quieter and more natural than that of some of his predecessors”
(Hewitt 1959:64).
In 1802 Hodgkinson was succeeded by Thomas Ae. Cooper who became
the leading tragedian in America. Cooper's acting is described in the
following: ,
He relied less on art than on impulse. His memory was treacherous. Yet he possessed that fine heroic quality which enabled him to convey 1 a sense of superb passion and power' combined manly beauty, manners and a good voice. . . . Cooper, says Hackett,sometimes broke away from the trammels of his original schooling with f some very touching and effective bits of acting. Thus propriety and conventions began to melt in the fires of subjective and romantic interpretation (Dunn 1939:38).
Cooper kept his position of leading tragedian even after George Freder
ick Cooke arrived and until the appearance of Edmund Kean and Junius
Brutus Booth.
Richard III was a stock piece on the transatlantic, tours of
Cooke, Kean, Booth, and other conspicuous English tragedians who fol
lowed the Cooke trail. Junius Brutus Booth started his career in the
States in 1821 as Richard but Edwin Forrest was the first great Ameri
can tragedian in fhe part. Forrest's "Richard emphasized the darker,
more brutal aspects of the character. Forrest refused to play Richard
15as deformed and portrayed him closely to the line of thought later
adopted by Irving and Edwin Booth. The text he used was his,own ver
sion of the Cibber text" (Wood 1909:121).
During the first fifty years of the 19th century, the role of
Richard was acted by the child tragediennes Kate and Ellen Bateman and
by the famous actress Charlotte Cushman. The play received unusual
theatrical treatment ranging from equestrian events, in which the play
was performed on horseback, to a rather strange production by Dr. Lan
dis of Philadelphia and his imaginary company (Wood 1909:201). Richard
III, of course, was fair game for caricature, and all kinds of peculiar
representations. These were not confined to second class theatres but
' were rather widespread. It is a commentary on the times and signifies
• the popularity of the piece and the familiarity of audiences with it.
On January 7, 1878, Edwin Booth (who had first played Richard
in May 1857) broke with tradition by performing Shakespeare1s text,
a severely cut version prepared by William Winter (Young 1954:41).
William Winter, in his Life and Art of Edwin Booth, states:
According to Booth, Richard is a compound of fiend and man. . . Booth embodied his ideal with the fervent vitality of inspiration. Even when he used Cibber!s -form he acted Shakespearef s spirit. The cold malignity, the sardonic ease, the dreadful complacency and alertness of evil were, for a long time,blended into one unshaded current of light. ... .He was superb in the delirium of the ghost scene and he was marvelous in the energy of the final charge and the viper-like plunge of the headlong death. .. .. . The ambitious and wicked prince was made to appear, not as a raging ruffian, but as a wily and win-
. . ning diplomatist,.a blunt, frank soldier, and audacious man of action and, above all, a human being capable of remorse and redeemed from hellish depravity by that capability of human na- ture (1893:208-209).
16Successors declined to follow Booth’s example and he too fell back on
Cibber in his last production in 1886 (Odell 1942:xiii, 28).,
According to Shakespeare in America by Esther Cloudman Dunn
(1939:223):
The Wallacks, Lawrence Barrett, John McCullough, J. W. Keene all rose to respectable eminence in the part but they used the Cibber text and traditional lines in interpretation seem to have been followed. Not until Richard Mansfield appeared did a new version appear, a compromise between Shakespeare and Cibber.
The Mansfield production was in March of 1899. Mansfield followed Cib
ber in that he began the play with the scene in Henry VI, Part 2 (V,
vi) dealing with the murder of Henry VI. As late as 1920 John Barry
more included much of the Cibber alteration in his performance of
Richard III. When asked how he was in the production Barrymore replied,
"Really, I can’t say. No actor can evaluate his own work properly. My
father thought highly of Mansfield in the part, although I heard Mr.
Jefferson say of Mansfield’s Richard III, ’it was not a performance .it
was an impertinence’” (Fowler 1944:194).
In August of 1929 John Barrymore made a technicolor sequence of
Richard the Third for Warner Brothers’ Show of Shows. It was the first
time that Shakespeare appeared on the sound screen. Sir John Gielgud
took to the screen with Richard the Third in 1960.
In the summer of 19 70, Joseph Papp and Stewart Vaughan produced
The Wars of the Roses, including Richard the Third at the Delacourt
Theatre, Central Park, New York, with Donald Madden as Richard. In its
review Madden was rated as "fair" but his support was terrible. Micro
phones were used and not used well. The production "seemed to be
17staged for the high moments only and was not a unified whole" (Gild
1970:322-23).
In December, 1969, in Warsaw, Polish producer Jan Macejouski
felt the need to improve on Shakespeare and produced Richard the Third
expressionistically. His Richard, Jerzy Kammas, according to the re
view, "gave a brief monologue as he slid, slowly headfirst on his back
down a flight of stairs" (Dukore 1970:323-24). Thus, it can be said
that Cibber!s version had been superseded.
The script used in The University of Arizona production was The
Kittredge Shakespeare!s Richard III, edited by George Lyman Kittredge,
revised by Irving Ribner, Blaisdell Publishing Company, Waltham, Mass.,
1968. All quotations from Richard III in this thesis are from that
source.
CHAPTER II
AN ACTOR’S ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF RICHARD III
The Multiple Personality of Richard
The fascination for actors over the centuries for the role of
Richard III can be accounted for, in part, by the multifarious person
ality of the mane Careful study of the script reveals a character
which can be approached from many different directions. Whether the
actor chooses to portray him as a ranting, raving tyrant, or as a
slyer, more intellectual villain is dependent on the individual actor's
abilities and tastes, the director's approach, and the overall style of
the production.
The personality of Richard III is a convoluted one at best and
not, by any means, all bad. He has an overwhelming joy, albeit an evil
joy, when his plotting succeeds. After the wooing of Anne, in the midst
of a funeral procession, he tenderly sends her bn her way, then glee
fully exclaims, "Was ever woman in this humour woo'd?/Was ever woman in
this humour won?" (I, ii).
Richard's sense of irony and his humor lift him out of the usual
mold of villainy. At the end of Act I, scene iii, he is about to leave
the stage when he turns and says, "Shine out, fair sun, till I have
bought a glass,/That I may see my shadow as I pass." In Act IV, scene
iii, in his soliloquy,.he enumerates what he has done; then recognizing
that Richmond will be planning to marry Edward's daughter and by that
18
' - / 19means gain the crown, Richard says happily, "To her go I, a jolly
thriving wooer."
When he is finished using a person, that person must be re-. .
moved. Richard preys on Buckingham!s hope for preferments and uses
Buckingham’s greed to help him to the crown. Buckingham sees himself,
with Richard’s help, as succeeding to Hereford’s estates and sitting in
a seat of high power. Buckingham paves the way for Richard’s receiving
the crown by wooing the townspeople and Lord Mayor (III, vii) and is
constantly by Richard’s side as his henchman. Yet, when Buckingham’s
usefulness is over, Richard turns against him (IV, ii).
Richard does not stop to think if an action is good or bad,
merely if it is helpful to his ends. He has an advantage in that he is
more intelligent and more ruthless than his adversaries. Richard ap
preciates these qualities in himself as he says, ’’The secret mischiefs
that I set abroach/I lay unto the grievous charge of others” (l, iii).
When he woos Anne (l, ii), he takes no note of the rightness' or wrong
ness of the situation, merely that it must be.done for his advancement.
When he sees his brother Clarence off to the Tower, with many protesta
tions of good will, he has already hired the murderers (I, i). He
reaches for the crown and is quite willing to accept help from any
quarter to get it. He enlists the aid of Tyrrel to eliminate the
Princes (IV, ii), knowing that Tyrrel will do anything for gold.
Richard is first and foremost a dissembler; only in his asides
and soliloquies does he reveal his true nature. His hypocrisy is
further amplified in the many roles he plays: lover, warrior, friend,
grieving brother, and pious partisan. In his opening soliloquy Richard
says he plans "to set my brother Clarence and the King/In deadly hate
the one against the other" (l, i). Yet a moment later he played the
concerned brother to Clarence. When the King gathers all the nobles
together to make peace, Richard embraces each of them and swears his
undying affection for them all, saying, "I do not know that Englishman
alive/with whom my soul is any jot at odds/More than the infant that is
born tonight." Then Richard piously adds, "I thank my God for my hu
mility" (II, i). His fellows on stage are completely taken in by him.
He enjoys his many and varied roles and should project this joy to the
audience.
' Richard III is a vital, physical man as well as an intellectual
plotter. He is crippled and has been since birth. Emphasis is given
in the play to the physical impairments of Richard, Margaret refers to
him as a "poisonous bunch-backed toad" (I, iii). Elizabeth calls him
"that bottled spider, that foul bunch-backf d toad" (IV, iv). It would
appear, then, that to play Richard without at least a suggestion of a
hunchback would be to give the lie to allusions in the script. Con
versely, for the actor to play too heavily on the disabilities of the
hunch-back, limp,*- and withered hand would, in this writer's opinion, be
wrong. Richard is deformed, but not disabled in any sense. He is ca
pable of matching blow for blow with the best. Richard states in Act
I, scene ii, "To royalize his blood I spent mine own." He is alluding
to the battles during the Wars of the Roses when he was Edward's strong
right arm while Edward was fighting to gain the crown. Richard's
21combat ability is brought home finally when he and Richmond meet on
Bosworth Field. Richard says, in fury at not having found Richmond,
"Five have I slain today instead of him" (V, v).
Sigmund Freud stated the following regarding Richard*s physical
disabilities: ffWe all think we have reason to reproach nature and our
destiny for congenital and infantile disadvantages; we all demand repa
ration for early wounds . . . to our self-love" (1907:322-323). This
writer disagrees with Freud. There is nothing in the play that even
hints that Richard is the type of man he is because he is exacting rep
arations for his deformities. He long ago stopped whining (if indeed
he ever whined) about these deformities, and now jokes with glee at
Anne * s finding him pleasing. He says*, "Upon my life, she finds (al
though I cannot)/Myself to be a marv*llous proper man" (l, iii). This
soliloquy (I, ii), after the wooing of Anne, pokes fun at himself with
no inner bitterness apparent. He says, "I*11 be at charges for a look
ing glass/And entertain a score or two of tailors/To study fashions to
adorn my body./Since I am crept in favour with myself,/! will maintain,
it with some little cost" (I, iii).
The writer intends to make Richard only slightly deformed. The
hunchback will be there but not grotesquely so. This hunchback is re
quired because of the allusion to "bunch-back1d toad" (l, iii; IV, iv).
There will be a very slight limp, on the same side, the left, as the
hunch. The withered hand, also the left, will be covered by a black
glove.
22None of these deformities will be pronounced and will be prac
ticed until they are ignored by the actor and accepted as natural by
the audience.
Relationship with the Main Characters in the Play
Richard was a strong right arm during the Wars of the Roses to.
King Edward IV, Richard*s older brother. Now Edward is dying, having
proven himself to be strong in war but weak in peace. Richard * s
strongest feeling about him when he faces him in Act II, scene ii, is
one of contempt. Richard is contemptuous of the King * s weakness and is
anxious for the King to get his dying over with so that he, Richard,
might move one step closer to the crown. However, always the dissembler,
the face Richard turns to the King is one of piety and solicitude.
Richard is angered by Edward*s raising the Woodevilles to the peerage
and misses no opportunity in reminding them of the fact that they are
1,made gentlefolk’* (l, i), but Richard masks this enmity in the King * s
presence.
Richard * s other brother, George, Duke of Clarence, is a traitor
twice over. He betrayed Edward when he went to Warwick * s camp during
the Wars of the Roses, then betrayed Warwick by returning to Edward
when it became plain.that Edward would be victorious. George believes
strongly in Richard * s~love for him. Richard paints a picture for him
of a concerned, loving brother and then sends two murderers to dispatch
him (I, iii). Richard * s feeling toward Clarence can be summed up in
Richard * s line, ’’simple, plain Clarence” (I, ii).
23The only other member of RichardT s family blood is Edward,
Prince of Wales, the twelve-year-old son of Edward IV, nephew of Rich
ard, and next in line to inherit the throne. The only time we see
Richard with the Prince is when the Prince is coming into London to
take the throne (ill, i). Richard is very solicitous of the boy, but
in reality, has him marked for death. Because the Prince is heir to
the crown, he must be eliminated. Indeed, the fact that he, the
Prince, is still alive in the Tower prompts Richard to the bitter out
burst, Tt0 bitter consequence,/That Edward still should live true noble
prince*" (IV, ii)„ The Prince is very trusting of his uncle and is
sure that his uncle will do everything possible for his welfare, but
Richard has him and his younger brother kept under house-arrest in the
Tower and sends two murderers to snuff out their lives.
Several cohorts carry out Richard*s bidding, complementing his
villainy. Their feeling for him, and his for them, cannot be called
friendship. They follow him out of hope of power and prestige. He, on
the other hand, uses them to gain his own end, the end being the crown.
Richard*s chief henchman is the Duke of Buckingham. Richard uses him
as front man and chief instigator in this drive to the crown. Bucking
ham looks for many preferments from Richard, but when Richard says,
**. . . claim thou of me The earledom of Hereford" (ill, ii), he already
has in mind to rid himself of Buckingham. When Buckingham refuses to
fall into the plot to kill the two young Princes in the Tower, his doom
is sealed; Richard knows then that Buckingham*s usefulness is at an end.
24
When Buckingham is overtaken while attempting to rebel, Richard will
not even see him. .
Another close henchman is Sir William Catesby. Catesby is the
third part of the triumvirate whose avowed purpose is to put Richard on
the throne. He looks for preferments but dies fighting on Bosworth
Field. He is used by Richard to sound out Hastings to find if Hastings
will support Richard*s bid for the crown (ill, ii).
The other followers of Richard are Sir Richard Ratcliff and
Lord Lovel. They are loyal because they wish to rise to power with
Richard and also because they respect Richardfs superiority. Lovel re
acts like a well-trained dog to the commands of his master. Ratcliff
is the other half of this well-trained pair of killer dogs. Ratcliff
also remains loyal to his "master." Richard responds to this loyalty
by extending to Lovel and Ratcliff a sly friendship and uses them at
every opportunity.
Richard also has powerful allies in the army: the Duke of Nor
folk and the Earl of Surrey. The Duke of Norfolk, a companion at arms
of Richard's, is a thoroughly loyal man. Norfolk has fought faithfully
alongside Richard and owes his allegiance to the crown. Richard re
sponds to the loyalty by trusting him on the battlefield and his trust
is repaid by the Duke's death in battle fighting for Richard. The Earl
of Surrey, Norfolk's son, is another of Richard's battlefield command
ers and he also is loyal to the crown.
As might be expected, Richard collects a long list of enemies.
Chief among them is Henry, Earl of Richmond, later King Henry VII.
25
Richard meets Richmond only in combat. When Ratcliff reports that
Northumberland spoke of Richmond as never being trained in arms,
Richard says, contemptuously, "He said the truth" (V, iii). Richard
does not hold Richmond in high regard as is indicated in his oration
to his troops when Richard refers to Richmond as "a milk--sop, one that
never in his life/Relt so much cold as over shoes in snow" (V, iii).
The family of the Woodevilles are naturally Richard's enemies
because of their having been raised from obscurity to the peerage and
the threat they present by being in favor of the King. The Earl of
Rivers, Queen Elizabeth's brother, is one of this hated family, Richard
lets no chance go by to scorn him until the reconciliation with the
•King (II, i)„ For example, Richard spits his denunciation of the Queen
into River's face, daring him to take up the challenge (l, iii).
The Marquess of Dorset is a son of Queen Elizabeth. Dorset is
not too terribly bright and is a bit of a fop. Richard holds him in
great contempt as when Dorset is berated by the acid-tongued Margaret,
Richard contemptuously says, ". . . good counsel, marry.' Learn it,
learn it, Marquess" (I, iii). Dorset and Lord Grey, the eldest son of
Queen Elizabeth, are prominent members* of the Woodeville family which
Richard is intent'on wiping out. Richard indicates such a plan in his
soliloquy in Act I, scene iii.
Apart from the Woodeville family, there were other people hos
tile to Richard's plans. Lord Hastings, intended by Richard to be used
as a lever to get the crown, remains loyal to young Edward (ill, Li).
26
Therefore, Richard utilizes Hasting1s indiscretion with Mistress Shore
to instigate Easting's executione
Richard's instrument for the murders of the Prince of Wales and
his younger brother in the Tower is Sir James Tyrrel. Tyrrel is a man
who will do anything for gold. Richard is willing to use Tyrrel, as he
is willing to use anyone, but Richard has no liking or respect for him.
The Keeper of the Tower, Sir Robert Brakenbury, does what he is
ordered to do. Richard knows that Brakenbury hates him but also knows
that Brakenbury can do nothing about it because of his subservient posi
tion. Richard's feeling toward him is one of complete indifference as
long as Brakenbury does his job.
The women in Richard's life have powerful personalities. They
are outspoken, courageous, and resourceful. Elizabeth, Edward IV1s
Queen, is repelled by Richard. She cannot understand his hatred for
her. Richard has her house marked for destruction and she knows it.
She yields to his importuning for her daughter's hand when he calmly
informs her that, unless she does, he will plunder the land (IV, iv).
She lets her humanitarian instincts govern her and feigns acquiescence
to the marriage. *
The dowager Queen, Margaret, widow of Henry VI, is representa
tive of the furies of Greek mythology, Campbell in The Living Shake
speare states: "Indeed she [Margaret] seems not so much a woman as
the direct descendant of the Furies - hellish creatures who appear on
earth in order to stimulate and superintend the vengeance to be exacted
for ancient crime" (1958:117-118). She hates and curses Richard and he
27returns her hatred in kind. She says, MThis sorrow that I have, by
right is yours,/And all the pleasures you usurp are .mine." He replies,
"His curses then, from bitterness of soul/Denounc1d against thee, are
all fallen upon thee" (l, ii). She is feared by the court but not by
Richard. He grudgingly pays obeisance to her but reminds her of her
banishment (l, iii).
After having killed Edward, Prince of Wales, at the battle of
Tewkesbury, Richard woos Anne, EdwardT s widow in one of the boldest
scenes in the play. She is, at first, repelled by him, but he over
powers her by his strength of personality and cunning. He uses the
greatest charm and flattery at his command to win her and is overjoyed
when he does so (l, ii). However, when the time comes to be crowned
(IV, i), she is disenchanted but it is too late by then. Having se
cured her and the crown, Richard does not need her anymore and, it is
assumed, does away with her. She would only be an encumbrance.'
To all of the characters on stage, and to the audience* Richard
is a man of many moods and faces with one driving aim and desire--the
crown. In order to show the multidimensional nature of this character,
the writer intends to keep three thing's uppermost in mind: Richard is
a dissembler; Richard is an opportunist; Richard is a killer .
The writer feels it would be a mistake to portray Richard as a
sneering prototype villain. Richard is plausible to everyone he meets.
Only in his soliloquies, when he muses and plots to himself, with the
audience listening in, does he reveal his true thoughts and true char
acter. He should be portrayed as an emotional, swashbuckling figure
28who is completely ruthless in his drive to the crown. His movements
should be quick, his vengeance quicker. By his cold-bloodedness he
should chill the audience, and yet his actions should appear completely
logical when viewed from his standpoint. Thus, the writer intends to
portray a slightly deformed, ruthless, cunning, vital, and brilliant
villain who single-mindedly pursues his own desire--the crown.
Adapting Richard III to Today1s Audience
The audience should enjoy not RichardT s cruelty or evilness but
his dissembling, adroit manipulation of the other characters and his
tenacious pursuit of his goal--the crown.
The writer has always enjoyed playing villains because, gener-% *
ally speaking, the villain role is more interesting and more challeng
ing to an actor's talent. He has found that a well-played villain will
cause an audience to listen to what he says and watch what he does with
interest and attention. This appears to have been the case, even in
the medieval liturgical drama with its many saints and devils. Irving
Ribner (1968:xvi), in his "Introduction" to The Kittredge Shakespeare's
Richard III, says:
Shakespeare drew upon a long tradition . . . which had been embodied in the Vice of the medieval morality drama. The Vice was always the masquer or dissimulator, moving easily from one assumed role to the next, pretending always to be the friend of his victims, and exulting gleefully at the ease with which he was able to mislead and betray them. All of these traits Shake- , speare's audience could easily recognize in his Richard of Gloucester.
Richard is referred to as a devil by Queen Margaret when she calls him
"hell's black intelligencer" (IV, iv). Also, in liturgical drama, the
29devil1s'masks invariably had warts on them (Nicoll 1963:191); toads are
supposed to cause warts and Richard is referred to as a "poisonous
bunch-backed toad" (I, iii) and "that foul bunch-back!d toad"(IV, iv)0
Richard is a villain because villainy is something he under
stands, enjoys, and realizes is the shortest distance to the goal which
he wants above all other things--the crown. The writer must bring out
the enjoyment of villainy as well as the villainy itself. He can do
this by line readings and facial expression and by externalizing his
emotion when he is alone on stage.
Campbell makes a case for Richard as a Machiavellian character:
'When Richard III in Henry VI, Part 2 announces that he will 1 set the
murderous Machiavel to school,T he is warning the audience . . . [that]
he is going to act the part of . . . a Machiavellian villian" (1958:
117). Campbell goes on to bring Richard even closer to home:
With the impressive eloquence of the stage [Richard III] cries,"0 men of England, avoid strife over the succession to the throne that is now plaguing our country or you will soon be at the mercy of a despot as ruthless as Richard himself." This lesson designed as a very present warning to Elizabethans is almost equally impressive to every generation of free men, as events in our contemporary world amply prove (118-119).
The writer agrees with Campbell. The situation which we in the United
States now, face with false prophets on every side is one in which a
Richard III could easily come to power.
The ability of Richard to dissemble and to flim-flam the other
characters and his love of play acting must be plain to the audience.
They should see through his dissembling and realize the great joy he
takes in getting his own way through this means, no matter how serious
30is the objective. His sense of humor and his ironic outlook can lend
depth and variation to his villainous nature.
Much is made in the play of the physical impairments of Richard.
However, to overdo the physical deformities would harm the characteri
zation. . Richard is a warrior, and a competent one. He should be por
trayed as a lively, alert, energetic, vital man who has risen above his
infirmities.
Here is a man, albeit an evil one. He is a swashbuckler, given
to many moods. He embraces life, even as he spreads death. The char
acter must be energetic and forceful, always in command of every situ
ation. The ̂ audience should never be in doubt as to who is in charge
when Richard is on the stage. The acting style should be big so that
the audience will know they are watching a man of great force, but not
exaggerated so as to make the audience unable to understand and appre
ciate the man. The actor should be conscious of Richard as a charac
ter; as a human being; as a man. Thus by realizing that Shakespeare
expects us at once to enjoy and to detest the monstrous Richard can an
audience fully appreciate the play Shakespeare wrote about him.
CHAPTER III
THE ACTOR’S LOG
This log, a day by day record of the writer's activities, covers
the audition period from December I to December 3, 1970; the rehearsal
period from December 8 to February 7, 1971; and the performances from
February 8 through February 14, 1971.
DECEMBER 1, 1970
Today was the first audition, 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. Peter R. Mar-
roney, the director, held individual auditions, by appointment, in the
Park Theatre. Eighteen auditioned today and there were some knowledge
able readers.
DECEMBER 2, 1970 '
Eighteen auditioned. We moved to Room 6 in the basement of the
Drama Department for the final forty-five minutes. I believe this move
restrained those reading, because of the room1s small size and echo.
Tomorrow is the final day for auditions and, because of the large num
ber of those auditioning, the session is expected to be long.
DECEMBER 3, 1970
I met this morning with Mr. Marroney and Miss Irene Comer, the
associate director. Because of the ability shown during the auditions,
31
32it appears that the cast will be a strong one. The first read-through
will be held on Tuesday evening, the 8th.
DECEMBER 8, 1970
This evening was the first gathering of the company. We lis
tened to the first three acts of a British Recording Company1s Richard
III. It gave the less experienced members of the cast an idea of the
flow of the language. I spoke briefly on my ideas' of Richard. Michael
Finnerty, the literary adviser, gave the company an idea of the lineage
of the British kings. Miss Comer took the rehearsal because of Mr.
Marroney1s absence.
DECEMBER 9, 1970
Before rehearsal began, I explained to the company the extent
of Richard's crippledness. I told them I was going to play him with a
slight limp, an obviously humped back, and a withered hand. I would
not make him too crippled, however, because if I did, the audience
would never believe that he was the warrior that the script claims him
to be. Mr. Marroney told the company that we would be using a modified
Elizabethan multiple stage. We began the play read-through and pro
ceeded as far as Act IV.
DECEMBER 10, 1970
We had the final read-through tonight. The director made many
dialogue cuts which tightened the production considerably. There was a
33little complaining because some players felt their parts were being
shortened too much but the complaining will cease when they see how much
quicker the play moves along. It is still very lengthy.
DECEMBER 11, 1970
This rehearsal was cancelled because the Music Department used
the stage. We will not work again until Monday when we will begin
blocking,
DECEMBER 14, 1970
We blocked Acts I, II, and up to scene iii in Act III. We are
using an open stage with a smooth sweep from the back wall to beyond
the apron. I feel, however, the need for levels to add dramatic inter
est. Also, the fact that the.actors are performing on the same level
and entering from the same place might tend to create a sameness thati ■
our lengthy show can do without. The acting area consists of one level
with one entrance through the inner below at the rear of the stage and
an entrance on stage right and stage left. An inner above (balcony
over the inner below) is also used as an acting area. The set is
painted dark grey to black which absorbs light and, I am afraid, will
have a dulling effect.
DECEMBER 15, 1970
We blocked Acts II and IV. No conflicts have shown up as far
as the cast is concerned. They are working very well together. My
interpretation of Richard is following the plan that I had in mind. I
see him as an. energetic, plotting warrior whose eye is on the throne,
toward which he drives with singleminded purpose.
DECEMBER 16, 1970
Completed blocking today. We just sketched the outlines of the
final scene because we will need the soldiers in order to complete the
stage picture. The director will decide tonight whether he will hold
rehearsals tomorrow and Friday, as the Christmas vacation absenteeism
is expected to run very high.
DECEMBER 17, 1970.
We had an evening rehearsal of Acts I, II, and part of III,
setting blocking and getting the feel of the stage. The director
pointed out that I am playing Richard too old and must play him as a
hero-villain and not as a character villain. I accomplished this by
keeping my voice out of the very low register and making his movements
quicker, brighter, and livelier. The director suggested that I give
Richard less of a limp. The bodily deformities will have to be per
fected.
DECEMBER 18, 1970 -
Last rehearsal before the holiday break. We worked Acts III,
IV, and V. Some of the scenes particularly with Elizabeth and the test
soliloquy began to jell as far as line readings and stage business is
35concernede Mr. Marroney said I should be careful to make the lineage
clear when I speak of members of the warring houses. I can do this by
pause, inflection, or indication if that character happens to be on
stage. The scene with the bishops and Lord Mayor when Richard accepts
the crown is still muddy in my mind and my speeches are masterpieces of
dullness. Too many of the lines are given in a monotone and I am hit
ting some words too hard and others not hard enough.
JANUARY 4, 1971 «
We reviewed Acts I and II tonight. They were awful. It was
the first rehearsal after the holiday break and looked it. I was tense,
giving poor line readings, and missing some blocking. I feel very
stiff, particularly in the soliloquies. Act I, scene ii, between Anne
and Richard did not play. The lines were choppy but really it was a
feeling an experienced actor gets when he knows a piece of work is not
going well. Mr. Marroney spoke to me again about making the character
too old.
JANUARY 5, .1971 . •
We worked Act II and part of IV. The rehearsal was better to
night but there is still a long way to go. Mr. Marroney had some fine
ideas for business in the scene where Richard is offered the crown.
Richard is preceded by standard bearers when he comes to the Lord
Mayor. Also, a "Hmm?M was added to the dialogue when Buckingham at
tracts Richard's attention while Richard is on the balcony with his
bishops. I felt a little more relaxed tonight.
. 36
JANUARY 6, 1971 '
We ran Acts IV and V. I was tense and my readings were off.
We got the battle scenes straightened out, however, and there was a
spark of feeling in my army. They are beginning to believe they are
Richard1s soldiers and will be fighting to the death. That is all to
the good. The director seems pleased with the cast and so am I.
JANUARY 7, 1971
Acts I and II tonight. I worked Act I without script. The
first two scenes were fairly good; the last scenes of Act I were abom
inable. I am beginning to loosen up in the scene with Anne. Some
comedy is showing up in the show. I must be careful to control myself
as I am showing an indication to scream a little too much. I went a
bit far in villainy, such as sneering too much. The company is begin
ning to come together as indicated by a camaraderie offstage and help
fulness to each other on stage.
JANUARY 8, 1971
I forgot quite a bit of blocking, particularly in the scene
with Elizabeth. The scenes on the balcony must be played carefully
because of the height but I understand there will be a railing. My
blocking is still not-solid and that distresses me.
37JANUARY 9, 1971
This was a very poor rehearsale I. went without script on Act V
but my work was terrible. I felt that I was portraying Mary Poppins
instead of RichardJ Everything--lines, blocking, characterization— .
went down the drain. I am extremely depressed about the work tonight.
Perhaps I am pressing too hard. I will try to relax a little. The
director is very patient as are the rest of the cast members.
JANUARY 11, 1971 .
We worked Acts I, II, and the first three scenes of Act III. I
felt much better. The lines are ragged but coming. The director ad
vised me to let out the stops in the "bold" scene with Anne. I will do
so but I must keep good taste in mind. Anne is a real pleasure to work
with as is Buckingham. All the rest of the cast are developing well as
is indicated by their willingness to work and their sharply delineated
characterizations. The director seemed pleased with the work tonight.
So was I.
JANUARY 12, 1971
Acts IV, V, and part of II were worked tonight; Absences are
becoming a factor but as we come closer to production they will prob
ably cease. Some of these absences are due to illness but some are due
to the less experienced members of the cast becoming weary of the long
drive to production. Richmond and I were blocked in the last part of
the fight and it feels good. However, the whole fight will have to be
38choreographed and worked on. The scene with Elizabeth did not play at
all and Mr, Marroney is not satisfied nor am I, However, Elizabeth and
I are still on script,
JANUARY 13, 1971
This was a good rehearsal. The lines are coming. Scene ii,
Act I began to play. I feel very easy in the scene with Anne and the
flow of action and speeches are beginning to peak and dip in the right
places„ The director advised me to be more presentational with my
soliloquies, I will do it but it might smack too much of melodrama.
From the beginning of rehearsals I have had to guard against overdoing
the villainy.
JANUARY 14, 1971
The rehearsal was not so good tonight. I was blowing a lot of
lines but the blocking appears to be solid. The scene with Elizabeth
is not good but then we are still on script. Elizabeth wanders a good
bit, but then I have been wandering also. The director is still pick
ing up small points of blocking and each time he does, a scene looks
better.
JANUARY 15, 1971
We attempted our first run-through but there were so many cast
members missing, due to illness or indolence, that we only went through
Act IV.. My lines are beginning to tighten up, but my blocking in the
39soliloquies bothers me. It seems I am wandering. The director had
told me that my speech was not clear, but tonight he said the clarity
was improved. The director said to point up "determined to prove a
villain11 (I, i) and "prophecy which says that G" (l, i) in the first
soliloquy since these further the plot. He also said to change the
line in the Buckingham denunciation scene (IV, ii). to read "Richmond
is your wife1s son." This will clarify the relationship for the audi
ence. I must begin appraising Buckingham and make it plain that I am
using him. .
JANUARY 19, 1971
We held combat blocking and a run-through tonight. The impor
tant thing is for Richmond and me to become so sure in the fight move
ments that there is no chance for an error. I hope the fight looks
good from the house.
JANUARY 20, 1971
The lines were not coming tonight and I had a great deal of dif
ficulty getting anything out of Richard. We went through II, iii. The
director advised that the pace must be extremely rapid or the audience .
will expire from dullness. He advised me not to play the soliloquies
so much to the audience but keep them more talking and musing to myself.
I agree. Keeping them more private will clarify the fact that these
are the innermost thoughts and feelings of the man. Miss Comer showed
me where my bows were wrong and also said that I should loosen up my
40jaw more. She meant that my articulation was muddy but did not say so,
Mr, Marroney said that in the scene with the princes- we should regard
the Prince of Wales1 discourse on Caesar with condescension because he
is merely an adolescent showing off a bit of new found knowledge,
JANUARY 22, 1971
The rehearsal went a trifle better tonight, particularly in the
last scene, Mr, Marroney reblocked the Mayor’s scene (ill, v). We
were on the upper, level and it was simply too crowded to get anything
done. He transferred the scene to the stage floor and forestage and I
think we will be able to do something with it. He also reblocked the
messenger scene (IV, iv) so that they are not all running in from the
same side which was comical. The director advised that the Elizabeth-
Richard scene should be a real dog fight, I have been missing many
points and transitions in this scene. I feel uncomfortable and not easy,
and it is not just a matter of lines. I am not sure of my blocking and
that is the main source of my uneasiness.
Another thing I must work on is the handling of Buckingham.
Richard must be in command at all times in order to make the audience
believe that he is the master manipulator the script'makes him out to
be. He must appraise Buckingham up to the moment he discards him.
JANUARY 23, 1971
The play is beginning to take shape. The cast members are be
ginning to believe in themselves as the characters they are portraying.
41Mro Marroney advised the company that the words are of paramount im
portance. He also advised all of the company to watch the play in
order to sense their own involvement. He brought up a valid point in
my final soliloquy in I, i, to become deadly grim on Mtake King Edward
to his mercy11 instead of playing it lightly as I had been. This would
indicate the bloody actions to.come and the complete earnestness of
Richardfs purpose. I tried it and the scene played. He said my solil
oquies were playing better, I seemed more at ease and the lines were
tightening up. After Margaret?s scene (I, iii) we met with the assist
ant director downstairs and ran it a few times. It seemed to improve.
I gave a tip to Elizabeth today about her posture in a scene.
I am sure that will be regarded as meddling. I must be careful of
that.
JANUARY 24, 1971
This was another good rehearsal. More scenes are beginning to
play each time we meet. We started with Act V which was not too suc
cessful because of missed blocking and bad timing. The director ad
vised me to give the ghosts in V, iii", time to fade before giving my
lines. Also, he advised me to draw out the word f,Jesu.,1 He said we
should be like leashed dogs in V, iii, just prior to the oration to
the troops. The battle needs much work but then the whole of Act V
does.
Act I went well. I am becoming easier in it. Margaret was re-
blocked in I, iii, and I shifted my blocking in a couple of places. I
42am moving closer to Stanley and Buckingham in the scene with the Queen
and her brother to give more playing area.
The mayor's scene (ill, v) plays well and should be fun because
of the play-acting of Richard and the obvious hoodwinking of the mayor.
JANUARY 25, 1971 . >
The first scene began to play in Act I. Mr. Marroney changed
the blocking on my soliloquy in scene iii, Act V. Mr. Marroney advised
me to speed up both the coronation scene (IV, ii) and IV, iv, as they
are dragging. The "Was ever woman . . . won" soliloquy (l, ii) must be
worked on. Both my blocking and my lines are weak. I changed my
blocking after Edwardfs exit on the reconciliation scene (II, ii). In
the soliloquy after the brawl (l, iii) Mr. Marroney advised me to point
up "Queen and her allies." Mr. Marroney also advised me to make off
stage illusions believable. This can be done by placing in my mind the
location of places offstage and mentally placing myself in the correct
space and time.
JANUARY 26, 19 71 -
The improvement of the play seems to be at a standstill. I was
very tired tonight and my work was shoddy. I was also short-tempered.
The sound crew fouled up the tapes and we were getting some strange
sounds including a freight train, Big Ben, and a rooster right after my
line, "It is now dead midnight." The last is apparently a legitimate
cue. I hope not.
43
We straightened out some blocking in the Elizabeth scene (IV,-
iv)» Mr„ Marroney told me I am overacting and appearing demented in
the messenger scene (IV, iv).
JANUARY 27, 1971
We ran completely through the show and it went well. I am
still blowing lines, particularly with Elizabeth and in the final act.
The extra business of going to the throne after Edward leaves will work
because it adds movement to the stage picture and sets the audience for
the change of mood coming up. Mr. Marroney told me that the volume of
the. soliloquies must be brought up. He told me that I should be overly
cheerful with Elizabeth in her mourning scene (II, ii). I am not sure
that I agree with this as I think Richard would go overboard in helping
her to mourn, but we will see. He said that I should keep more center
during Margaret? s cursing scene (IV, iy) and that I should taunt Mar
garet more. He said that I should pick up.the scene with Catesby and
Buckingham (III, ii). I felt that the tempo was lost in the crown-
refusal scene (ill, vii). This was my fault since I was dragging the
lines. I must take a moment before each scene to set the place and ac
tion in my mind. •
JANUARY 28, 1971
I.paraphrased my way through most scenes but still had to call
for lines. The character is very ragged and not true. I come in and
go out and he is not believable. I think this is mostly lack of intense
44concentration. Mr. Marroney said to be careful of the tempo and attack
on the Anne scene (I, ii). He told me that I am still roaring with
anger and must keep it down to crafty. I am still feeling out Richard
and must consolidate him over the weekend. Richard must concentrate on
the crown and drive to that goal.
JANUARY 29, 1971
The show ran fairly well until the mayor's scene (ill, v) and
really went downhill from that time on. I was into Richard until that
time. After that, Richard disappeared. I believe it again was lack of
concentration and not keeping alert. I had a lot of line trouble. I
meddled with Elizabeth's blocking again and this I must not do.' Mr.
Marroney was pleased with the scenes between Elizabeth and the Duchess
of York, less so with the Margaret and Anne scenes, and wants more work
done on them. I must do more work on relationships and begin to pull
the show together. Sunday must be the last day for experimentation. I
must start the drive toward performance level beginning Monday.
JANUARY 31, 1971
Again we had a rehearsal that went nowhere. Mr, Marroney ad
vised that my character did not move this past week. Beginning tomor
row I must take a moment before each scene to set myself in time and
space and just rush through without calling for a line. Tomorrow I
start driving for opening. Mr. Marroney said that he is going to have
Miss Comer check the breaks in the iambic pentameter. We also have
45Bill McLaughlin, Dave Zarko, Michael Finnerty and anybody else who
wants to put his oar in as director. This is becoming ridiculous. I
must stop directing too. This show had better start to moveI
FEBRUARY 1, 1971
We are still bogged down. I experimented with the reading and
blocking of my soliloquies and they felt good, particularly in "Was
ever woman in this humour won?" (I, ii). The Elizabeth scene (IV, iv)
still isnit as I want it. Neither is the Anne scene (I, ii). Mr. Mar-
roney adjusted some blocking. I am to meet with Mr. Marroney tomorrow
and he will give me a critique then. I hope something happens to get
me out of this slump.
FEBRUARY 2, 19 71
Richard III began to pull together tonight. I felt good all
the way through and the character felt right. There was some minor
trouble with the fight (V, v). Mr. Marroney seemed pleased but advised
me to speak louder in the first soliloquy and not to pause before tell
ing Clarence, "This it is when men . .* ." (I, i). The pause is point
less and drags out the scene. I must continually review my lines.
Catesby and the murderers want me to help them with their scenes. I
must not meddle. A move was missed in the fight and I suffered a bad
cut and bruises on my right hand. This fight was before the rehearsal
proper.
FEBRUARY 3, 19 71
The gods are still frowning on the fight] This time a move was
missed and I kicked Richmond in the face. No serious injury resulted,
thank God] We must go over the fight several times tomorrow. I can
still control the stage business, including the fight, with my hand al
though there is quite a bit of pain. I will just have to overlook it.
I had an X-ray taken today and two fingers have hairline fractures and
a knuckle is broken. The cut cannot be closed except by clamps and I
cannot be immobilized so I will just have to wrap it tightly and hope
it does not jar open. I have found the glove and dagger I want so I am
set for props. Mr. Marroney advised me not to move so close to Clar
ence so soon in the opening scene as the distance between us gives a
greater dramatic effect. Mr. Marroney1s critiques are serving me well.
FEBRUARY 4, 19 71
This was the first dress rehearsal. There were some difficul
ties. The "A horse" scene (V, iv) drew a laugh. I do not know why.
The fight scene (V, v) worked. I was unsteady in my lines and must re
view tomorrow. Mr. Marroney had no specific criticism for me except
that I must quicken the tempo. We are running over three and one-half
hours and that is much too long.
FEBRUARY 5, 1971
This was the second dress rehearsal. It ran better although
just as long. By "better," I mean it was tighter and smoother. They
47are making me a new wig and working on my costumes tomorrow. Our tech
nical crews are getting smoother.. Miss Comer had a couple of points
for me just before curtain. One was to look at different points in the
house during the soliloquies; the other was to hit "plots have I laid"
(I, i). Mr. Marroney advised me that I bungled the opening, soliloquy.
He also said that I rushed the Lord Mayor's speech (ill, v). I will
check both of these tomorrow. The.fight went bad again but neither
Richmond nor I was at fault. I think everything will come together
soon. I feel good about it. I found why I get a laugh on the "A
horse" scene (V, iv) last night. I am carrying a weapon which looks
like a cardboard hatchet cut out by a third grader. I must figure a
way to get rid of it early in the scene.
FEBRUARY 6, 1971
This was the third dress rehearsal. My performance felt good
this afternoon. I had some good moments and it seemed to play. The
show is very long so I must be sure to keep it moving at all times.
However, I must be careful not to sacrifice clarity for rapidity. Mr.
Marroney said that I was garbling my words during the Elizabeth scene
(IV, iv) because of this. He also said to meet with him tomorrow and
we would decide what to cut out of the "Have mercy, Jesu" soliloquy (V,
iii). Miss Comer says that it drags and it probably does. Mr. Mar
roney advised me to be sure to get "killed her husband and his father"
(I, ii) right. The fight was sloppy, but we are getting tempered steel
blades so that should cut some of the comedy out of this scene. We had
48a few audience members but got little reaction. I am ready to open and
should be on performance level on opening night.
FEBRUARY 7, 1971
This was the final dress rehearsal. It ran smoothly with a few
technical problems, such as slow light cues and slow shifting of scenery
between scenes. We still need to cut off some time. Mr. Marroney told
me that I should speed up the first soliloquy and he is right. I was
unsteady in my lines and slowed the show down. My dream soliloquy (V,
iii) was cut. I must wear my own hairpiece under the chain mail be-
cause the wig slips and makes me look apish. We had a good-sized in
vited audience and they seemed to enjoy the show. They were predomin
antly a young group. A couple of people remarked that I was at
performance level today, but I did not feel it particularly.
FEBRUARY 8, 1971
Opening went well tonight. I hobbled a few lines but nothing
serious. Everyone was at performance level. Anne was great as was. x
Elizabeth. The auditorium had a - few empty seats but the people seemed
to be listening intently. However, the running time was long and the
theatre was cold. We lost a lot of people during the intermissions. I
hope it was not out of boredom. The light cues were slow, causing a
dragging effect.
FEBRUARY 9, 1971
There was a sizable audience tonight, but again we lost people
after the second intermission. I would be in favor of dropping that
intermission, but I am afraid that the audience members might walk out
anyway. I was tired tonight and my voice was lacking in depth. My
characterization held up. Richard is now what I had planned: vigor
ous, crafty, sly, and tough. The whole show seemed to go well, and
there was no second-night slump that productions sometimes suffer.
FEBRUARY 10, 1971
At curtain-time there were approximately twenty people sitting
on the auditorium steps, as there was* nowhere else to seat them.
Everything went well with the exception of one light cue mistake and
one minor costume difficulty. The women were high tonight and received
exit applause for the first time. My characterization was good. We
must hold this level and I think we will.
FEBRUARY 11, 1971
My throat was very bad tonight but my characterization and work
held up. I got to the proper level of playing. There were people sit
ting in the aisles and the audience was responsive.
FEBRUARY 12, 1971
My throat was better. I was slow in the first soliloquy, and
the first act dragged, but we picked up as the show progressed. It
50seems that the first soliloquy sets the pace for the rest of the show.
I must keep that firmly in mind and start fast. The fight scene (V, v)
was a shambles but we* got through it. We did not get tempered steel
weapons and the ones we have tend to bend. This causes laughter,.
understandably. There were people on the stairs and the audience
seemed to enjoy the play.
FEBRUARY 13, 1971
We had an afternoon and an evening performance today. I have
always enjoyed two-a-day performances although many actors detest them.
My * throat felt good and I was at performance level. We built the im
petus and kept it going. The Duchess*was too high in our scene (TV,
iv), but she is a sensitive actress and sometimes it.is hard for her
to control her work. My opening soliloquy is the key to the perform
ance level and pace.
We took a forty-five minute break and then went to work again.
The impetus was there and the show built to the end. All of the cast
stayed with me. I was at performance level. There was one slight
hitch: Ratcliff missed an entrance cue and I had to ad lib a bit but
nobody noticed. There was a full house with seating in the aisle.
FEBRUARY 14, 1971
Today was another afternoon matinee-evening performance. I de
livered the first soliloquy at a fast pace and the tempo held all the
way through the performance. I broke one of my own cardinal rules and
51
stuck my cigarettes in my sword belt during intermission. Then I got a
panic call and forgot the cigarettes were there. They dropped out when
I was greeting the young king (ill, i), and it took us the whole scene
to get the audience back to paying attention.
We closed on a high note. The impetus was still there and we
sailed through the play. The props were wearing out. My. sword came
apart just prior to my oration to the troops (V, iii) so I had to fake
my way through it. The cast gave me a hand at curtain call. I am very
sorry to close.
CHAPTER IV
AN EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF RICHARD III
Two weeks before opening night, Dan Pavillard, the Tucson Daily
Citizen magazine editor, interviewed the writer for a feature to be
published on February 6, two days before opening. In this article,
"VII Minutes with Richard III,M Pavillard quotes the writer as saying,
,!My approach is intellectual. Ifm not playing up Richard's physical
deformity. He has grown so far above the deformity, he can laugh at
it" (1971:4). Pavillard, describing the rehearsal after the interview
wrote: "Kendrick stepped forward, splashing the light on his royal
trappings, and once again was the malevolent, ambitious, cruel and
shrewd Richard III" (1971:5).
As the writer indicated in the interview and also in Chapter
II, his intention was not to characterize a deformed, melodramatic vil
lain, but rather to shape a character of intellect, drive, gusto, and
ambition: a man of consummate skill and daring; a cynical man who
played many roles and enjoyed them all; a man with one overriding am-
bition--to attain the throne. Frank Rizzo, Arizona Daily Wildcat Arts
Editor, reviewed the opening night production. Rizzo stated: "Kendrick
played with a beautiful touch of sardonic cynicism, giving this villain
the perfect glean to his razor1s edge--here was no deformed Quasimoto,
but a plotting killer, full of majesty and vice" (1971:10).
52
53That the character’s attributes of ambition and cynicisms were
apparent is revealed by the comment of David Nix, drama critic for the
Arizona Daily Star. Nix wrote: f’Kendrick is everything a Shakespear
ian Richard should be: „ „ „ ambitious, and consummately cynical11
(1971:sec B-3). These were aims of the writer. Malevolence is men
tioned in a review by Joseph N. Crystall over Radio Station KOPO on
February 9: "Kendrick’s performance which is technically perfect pre
sents a most evil and malevolent man” (1971:n.p.). This malevolence is
a natural outgrowth of the fierce feelings that rise up in Richard as
he drives for the supreme seat of power. That he is clever, ambitious,
and cynical is, to the writer’s mind, the only way Richard could be.
The writer played Richard with a slight hunchback and withered
left hand. Nix, in his review, stated: "The body is only slightly
twisted" (1971:sec B-3). The writer feels that by making Richard less
deformed it would lend believability to Richard’s vital movements on
stage. The withered hand was covered by a black glove which, the
writer feels, lent an air of menace to that particular defect. When
Richard ripped the glove off and struck Hastings across the face (ill,
iv), the audience gasped. The writer gave Richard a slight limp which
was only noticeable during moments of extreme agitation.
Rizzo stated: "Kendrick played the role of Richard with hurl
ing perfection and driving virility" (1971:10). The writer feels that
the virility and vitality were essential in order to give a fast pace
and interesting, attention-getting movements on the part of Richard.
The style of playing for which the writer was striving was a
54swashbuckling style, a little larger than life. Miss Irene Comer, Pro
fessor of Drama, said in an interview, "The handling of the performance
was precise and the style was very understandable. It was a most be
lievable theatrical performance" (1971:n.pe).
Richard was first and foremost a dissembler. He acted parts
before his enemies and his friends and he enjoyed every role. In an
interview with William Lang, Assistant Professor of Drama, Lang said:
There was humor, variety, and complexity in the character, also a subtlety not normally found in actors working this role. The style was consistent, which is quite an accomplishment considering the four-hour length of the production. Here was no psychotic, but an emotional, intellectual, sardonic .leader. He was full of the magnetism that attracts the audience's atten-
• tion; barely contained, explosive, emotional, qualities which well-suit Richard (1971:n.p.);
However, Micheline Keating, drama critic for the Tucson Daily
Citizen, said in her review of the production's opening night: "Ken
drick's Richard, is all one color--the character seemed one-dimensional"
(1971:21). The writer disagrees with this criticism. With the charac
ter's ranging from blunt villainous plotting to smooth seduction, to
rage, to wheedling, to solemn piety, to ferocity, to joy, the writer
finds it difficult to feel that his characterization was one dimen
sional. Blanche Rubin, an audience member on opening night, said in
an interview with the writer: "The character had many dimensions and
much complexity. The inner drive and power of the man was evident at
all times but his moods changed from scene to scene" (1971:n.p.). The
character's dimensional quality was discussed in the interview with
Lang who said: "The style was consistent. It was sustained, interest
ing and complex. The reflections of the character fit. I liked the
55range from the smiles, to the explosive outbursts to the smooth seduc
tion. Richard showed a turbulence that the skin could barely contain"
(1971:ne p.). *
There are improvements which the writer would undertake if he
were to perform the role again. A smoother handling of the soliloquies
would help to achieve a happy medium between racing through the lines
and the long pauses. Lang said, "There were points, such as the solil
oquy at the opening, which could have been slowed down. I realize that
the length of the production was a problem which could account for some
racing through the lines" (1971:n.p.).
The writer feels that the scenes when Richard is alone, such as
IV, iii, when he resolves to go to Elizabeth to ask for her daughter's
hand, should have been introspective rather than played out to the
audience. Lang agreed when he said, "The scenes of Richard musing
should have been less presentational" (1971:n.p.).
The handling of the age of Richard presented a slight problem.
The director several times admonished the writer to. "make him younger."
Comer agreed with this criticism when she said in her interview, "I
felt there should have been more youthful charm"; however she went on
to say, "but the way it was played, with mature political and worldly
knowledge, was a most acceptable characterization" (1971:n.p.).
The writer feels that his approach to the character was sound.
The portrayal was one of overpowering ruthlessness with one goal in
mind--the crown. Richard could see the irony in his lines and situa
tions and could deliver some of his lines with humor. He could laugh
f 56at himself and his infirmities. The infirmities were kept at a mini
mum, enough for the audience to be aware that they were there, but not
enough to interfere with Richard's maneuvering about the stage. Richard
could be all things to all men, a master dissembler. The one person
he never attempted to fool was himself. He knew what he was; he knew
who he was; he knew what he wanted. His intellect was sharp and his
mental processes were adroit. He feared no one and died fighting to
keep what he had murdered to gain. He cold-bloodedly set about to de
stroy the house of Woodeville and oversaw the deaths of his brother
Clarence and his nephews. Yet, when all had turned against him except
his army,he could quietly say, "There is no creature loves me;/And if
I die, no soul will pity me./Nay, wherefore should they, since that I
myself/Find in myself no pity to myself?" (V, iii). This was the
Richard that the writer envisioned. This was the Richard the writer
portrayed. This is why the writer believes his work resulted in a
successful interpretation of the role.
LIST OF REFERENCES
Adams, John Quincy„ Shakespearean Playhouses: A History of EnglishTheatres from the Beginnings to the Restoration. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1917.
Baker, Henry B. English Actors. 2 vols. London: Henry Holt and Co1897.
Baldwin, William. The Mirror for Magistrates. Ed. Lily B. Campbell. Cambridge, England: The University Press, 1938..
Campbell, Oscar James. The Living Shakespeare. New York: MacmillanCo., 1958.
Chambers, Edmund K. William Shakespeare. 2 vols. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1930.
Churchill, Winston S. History of the English Speaking Peoples. 4 vols. New York: Dodd, Mead and Co., 1956.
City Registry of York (1485). New York: Scholars Facsimiles and Reprints, 1938.
Comer, Irene F. Professor of Drama. Interview with the writer. Tucson, November 15, 1971.
Crystall, Joseph N. Critic, "Tucson Dimension." KOPO-Radio, Tucson, February 9, 1971.
Dickens, Charles. A Child's History of England. London: Selford, Clark and Co., 1894.
Dukore, Bernard F. "Richard III," ETJ (October 1970), 323-324.
Dunn, Esther Cloudman. Shakespeare in America. New York: MacmillanCo., 1939..
Eccles, Mard, ed. The Signet Classic Shakespeare Richard III. New York: New.American Library, 1963.
Field, Bryan. , "Introduction and Notes," The True Tragedy of Richard the Third, Anonymous, to which is appended the Latin play Richardus Tertius, Thomas Legge. 46 vols. London: Shakespear ean Society, 1844.
Fowler, Gene. Good Night, Sweet Prince. New York: Viking Press,1944. (Reprinted in 1953.)
58Freud, Sigmund. The Collected,Papers of Sigmund Freud. Trans. Joan
Rivere. 5 vols. New York: Basic Books, 1959.
Furness, H. H., ed. A New Variorum Edition of Shakespeare. 1833-1912ed. 26 vols. The Tragedy of Richard III. Vol. 16. Philadelphia: J. P. Lippincott and Co., 1908.
Gild, David C. "The Wars of the Roses," ETJ (October 1970), 322-323.
Grafton, Richard. A Chronicle at Large and Mere History of the Affairsof England and Kings of the Same. ■ 2 vols. London: RichardTottie, Humffrey Toye, 1569.
Granvilie-Barker, Harley. Prefaces to Shakespeare. London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1933.
Hall, Edward. The Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Families ofLancaster and York. 3 vols. London: Richard Grafton, 1548.Printed for J. Johnson etc. New York: A.M.S. Press, 1965.
Hewitt, Barnard. Theatre U.S.A.: 1665 to 1957. New York: McGraw-HillBook Co., 1959.
Hogan, Charles B. Shakespeare in the Theatre., 1701-1800. 2 vols.Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952. (Reprinted 1957).
Holinshed, Raphael. Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland. 2nded. 1587. Ed. Allardyce and Josephine Nicoll. London: J. M.Dent and Sons, 1927.
Keating, Micheline. "U A Drama Department1s Richard III Impressive," Tucson Daily Citizen, February 9, 19 71, p. 21.
Kittredge, George Lyman, ed. The Kittredge ShakespeareTs, Richard III. Rev. Irving Ribner. Waltham, Mass.: Blaisdell Publishing Co., 1968.
Lamb, Charles. The Works of Charles Lamb. Ed. E. V. Lucas. New York: J. M. Dent, 1912.
Lang, William A. Assistant Professor of Drama. Interview with the writer. Tucson, November 17, 1971.
Legge, Thomas. Richardus Tertius, in New Variorum Edition. Ed. H. H. Furness. 26 vols. Philadelphia: J. P. Lippincott and Co.,1908.
Markham, Sir Clements R. Richard III: His Life and Character.Chicago: Simon and Schuster, 1950.
59Matterson, Te M., ed. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. New
York: World Syndicate. Publishing Co., 1930.
Meres, Francis. Palladis Tamis: Witls Treasury. New York: Scholar'sFacsimiles and Reprints, 1938.
More, Thomas. History of King Richard the Third. Ed. J. R. Lumby. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1883.
Moses, Montrose J. Famous Actor Families in America. New York: T. Y. Carwell and Co., 1906.
Nagler, Alois M. A Source Book of Theatrical History. New York: Dover Publications, 1952.
Nicoll, Allardyce. The English Theatre: A Short History. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1936.
Masks, Mimes and Miracles. New York: Square Publishers,Inc., 1963.
Nix, David. nU A Does Epic Play Superbly,,f Arizona Daily Star, February 10, 1971, Section B, p. 3. >
Odell, George C. D. Shakespeare from Betterton to Irving. New York: Columbia University Press, 1921. .
Pavillard, Dan. "VII Minutes with Richard III," Tucson Daily Citizen, February 6, 1971, pp. 4-5.
Ribner, Irving. . "Introduction," to The Kittredge Shakespeare's Richard III. Ed, George Lyman Kittredge. Waltham, Mass.: Blaisdell Publishing Co., 1968.
Rizzo, Frank. "Richard III Towering but Tiring Epic," Arizona DailyWildcat, February 9, 19 71, p. 10.
Rubin, Blanche. Member of audience. Interview with the writer.Tucson, November 11, 1971.
Satin, Joseph. Shakespeare and his Sources. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1966,
Shaw, George Bernard. Our Theatres in the Nineties. 3 vols. • London: Constable Publishers, 1932.
Stoker, Bram. Personal Reminiscences of Henry Irving. New York:Macmillan and Co., 1906.
60Vergil, Polydore. Historica Anglica. Ed. Sir Henry Ellis. London:
Jo B. Nichols and Sons, 1844.
Wilson, John Dover. introduction,,f to Richard III, by William Shakespeare. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1954.
Winter, William. Life and Art of Edwin Booth. New York: GreenwoodPress, 1893.
Wood, Ida Perry. Stage History of Richard the Third. New York: Columbia University Press, 1909.
Wright, Louis B., ed. The Folger Library General Reader's Shakespeare Richard the Third. New York: Washington Square.Press, 1960.
Young, Stark. Immortal Shadows: A Book of Dramatic Criticism. New York: C. Scribner1s Sons, 1954.
top related