Transformation of Costume Selection and Incorporating Props into the performance of Shakespeare's plays of King Richard, Richard the II and Richard III
Performance of plays can take various shapes depending on the director's perspective of the text, the key element, within the framework of the play. In addition text can be interpreted different ways, regarding directing technique, such as style and action choices, and scenery decisions. These factors contribute to the overall result of the performance containing either conventional elements or having a contemporary twist. Examples of the two perspectives could include costume selection or incorporating bizarre props into the performance. Throughout Shakespeare's writing career, no play has been transformed more than the historical plays of King Richard. Richard the II and Richard III over the years have been performed either the time-honored way or containing modern elements relating to the style, action, and visual aspects chosen. These revisions to the classic renewed the audience's sense that art does come in many shapes and forms. Specifically, during the late 19th century, director Frank Benson and Triple Action Theatre have concentrated on the aforementioned modern adaptations regarding structure and costume/scenery of the performance.
Richard the II has been a central play to analyze and revise due to the continuous debate of King Richard's personality. The debate revolves around the difference in King Richard's public versus private self, whether he was as powerful as he appeared on the throne compared to behind curtains. Margaret Shewring, author of Shakespeare in Performance: Richard the II
emphasized this point by saying, "Although it was not until the mid to ...
... middle of paper ...
...e and scenery decisions influence the overall impression of the play. These
decisions have an impact on the audience; the impact evokes some kind of emotion within the spectators, ranging from shock to sympathy. Depending on the director's interpretation, many
messages can be conveyed about the tragedies. That is the beauty of plays; there is no concrete formula. The plays of Richard the II and Richard the III throughout their stage history have been performed various ways, as the times change, so do the performances. If the future play productions are anything like the ones performed in the past, playgoers are in for a treat.
Bibliography:
Bevington, David. The Necessary Shakespeare, New York, 2002.
Cohn, Ruby. Modern Shakespeare Offshoots, New Jersey, 1976.
Shewring, Margaret. Shakespeare in Performance: King Richard the II, New York, 1996.
It seems that modern Hollywood filmmakers are as much in love with Shakespeare's plays as were the 16th century audiences who first enjoyed them. Recent updates of Hamlet (1996) and Romeo and Juliet (1996), both highly successful movies, bear this out, as well as the two best film versions of Richard III; Sir Laurence Olivier's 1954 "period piece", and Ian McKellan's more modern interpretation (1995).
Shakespeare constructs King Richard III to perform his contextual agenda, or to perpetrate political propaganda in the light of a historical power struggle, mirroring the political concerns of his era through his adaptation and selection of source material. Shakespeare’s influences include Thomas More’s The History of King Richard the Third, both constructing a certain historical perspective of the play. The negative perspective of Richard III’s character is a perpetuation of established Tudor history, where Vergil constructed a history intermixed with Tudor history, and More’s connection to John Morton affected the villainous image of the tyrannous king. This negative image is accentuated through the antithesis of Richards treachery in juxtaposition of Richmond’s devotion, exemplified in the parallelism of ‘God and Saint George! Richmond and victory.’ The need to legitimize Elizabeth’s reign influenced Shakespeare’s portra...
Instead of a powerful physical image, like Queen Elizabeth I, Richard implements elegant soliloquies, engages in witty banter, and attunes the audience to his motives with frequent asides. This flexibility demonstrates Richard's thespian superiority and power over the rest of the play's cast, making him a unique character in the play, but why does he do it? This constant battle between characters to claim mastery over a scene leaves the audience with a seemingly overlooked source of power for an actor [clarify/expand].
The elements of staging in Shakespeare's Hentry IV, Part 1 are critically important to the action, theme, and quality of the performance. Elements such as costume, blocking, casting, and even the physical attributes of the stage are, of course, important considerations in the production of a play. But other, less apparent factors contribute to the success of the production as well. For instance, an underlying theme(rebellion, in the case of Henry IV, Part 1) must be, whenever possible, incorporated into the scene. Also the number and complexity of props must also be considered with regard to the financial success of the production. These elements as well as others, such as delivery and movement, must be addressed and accounted for effectively. All of these factors will be considered in this analysis of staging for Henry IV, Part 1, act II, scene iv, lines 394- 476. Since this scene transpires in a tavern it is necessary to maintain the simulacrum while still leaving room on stage for the 'play extempore'. To do this efficaciously it would be wise to keep the props to a minimum so that nothing is in competition with Hal and Falstaff for the true audiences attention, as well as for financial considerations. To create the appearance of a tavern one simply needs four tables, each accompanied by three or four chairs; at least ten or eleven are necessary for this scene. One of these chairs will later serve as a prop for Hal and Falstaff when they use it as a throne. Three of the tables should be approximately four or five feet in diameter and one table slightly larger, perhaps six feet in diameter. This will be the table at which Hal and Falstaff converse in the beginning of th...
Shakespeare, William, and Peter Holland. The Tragedy of King Richard the Third. New York, NY: Penguin, 2000. Print.
...in themes similar to those found in the two Henry IV plays, such as usurpation, rebellion, and the issue of lineage of royal right. But Richard II and King Henry V are decidedly more serious in tone, and in comparing them to I Henry IV and II Henry IV, the argument can be made that it is these two latter plays which resound with greater realism with the broader spectrum of life which they present. Shakespeare carefully balances comedy and drama in I Henry IV and II Henry IV, and in doing so the bard gives us what are perhaps the most memorable characters in all of English literature.
Importance of Costumes in As You Like It, Twelfth Night, and Henry IV, Part One
Shakespeare’s use of role playing and metatheatre in 1 Henry IV and A Midsummer Night’s Dream call attention to the nature of theatre. Not only the nature of the play we are watching, but also the play of life. As the audience, we have a broader perspective. As if we are allowed to see through a different lens. We inhabit a world that is very different from the one we live and yet in some ways we see ourselves in the characters (Bedford).
Written during a time of peace immediately following the conclusion of the War of the Roses between the Yorks and the Lancasters, William Shakespeare’s play Richard III showcases a multi-faceted master of linguistic eloquence, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, a character who simultaneously manages to be droll, revolting, deadly, yet fascinating. Richard's villainy works in a keen, detestable manner, manifesting itself in his specific use or, rather, abuse of rhetoric. He spends a substantial amount of time directly interacting and therefore breaking the fourth wall and orating to the audience in order to forge a relationship with them, to make members not only his confidants of murderous intentions, but also his accomplices and powerless, unwilling cohorts to his wrongdoings. Through the reader’s exploration of stylistic and rhetorical stratagem in the opening and final soliloquies delivered by Richard, readers are able to identify numerous devices which provide for a dramatic effect that make evident the psychological deterioration and progression of Richard as a character and villain.
According to many, Shakespeare intentionally portrays Richard III in ways that would have the world hail him as the ultimate Machiavel. This build up only serves to further the dramatic irony when Richard falls from his throne. The nature of Richard's character is key to discovering the commentary Shakespeare is delivering on the nature of tyrants. By setting up Richard to be seen as the ultimate Machiavel, only to have him utterly destroyed, Shakespeare makes a dramatic commentary on the frailty of tyranny and such men as would aspire to tyrannical rule.
The actions of Hamlet have changed up to the performance. Hamlet's behavior of being mad and depressed changed with the players because they are not involved with his "real" life and feels at ease and at his best, a prince reminding artists of the ideals their art is meant to uphold. The meanings of words have also changed. The meaning of "acting" plays a great role in the performance, not only by the observation of the entire audience, but by a more private and personal meaning or understanding of the play by Hamlet and the King.
Shakespeare, William. Richard II. The Norton Shakespeare. Ed. Stephen Greenblatt. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1997, 943-1014.
Elizabethan times in the 1600s was a progression for the world of the theater. A period named after Queen Elizabeth I of England, it is from this period that modern day society has its foundation for the entertainment industry. From the violence that was prevalent because of the Black Death, people turned to the theater for its poetry and romance. During this time period, there were two types of theatrical performances that were available for the people’s viewing, comedies or tragedies. These two genres were never really intertwined until the time of William Shakespeare. His play, Romeo and Juliet, is an example of both a comedy and a tragedy. It starts off as a comedy with Romeo weeping like a baby because of his love Rosaline, who did not love him back and ends as a tragedy when Romeo and Juliet, a pair of star crossed lovers, commit suicide because the lost of each other. It was also during Shakespeare’s time that writer were finally acknowledged by the people. Before this time, writers were not considered upper classman. Another group of people that began to rise into a higher social class were the actors. Actresses were not present back then because women were not allowed on stage. It was considered unladylike to have a female actor. Men played all the parts. Theater owners were dependent on actors to make them a profit. Rehearsals for the plays were fairly short, only lasting for about a week. The performances themselves would only show for three to four days.
Richard II is not your average king. He is useless with his power and does not know how to use it. He is the king of England when the play begins but shortly after his kingship is taken away from him. Richard II is a young man who has not matured much since his adolescence. He is disconnected from his land and its people, which becomes one of the downfalls of his crown. He has an extraordinary flair for poetic language. He is witty and poetic personality doesn’t work with his higher calling in life. A king should be strong and fearless. King Richard II is not a man of action and as the play advances, he gets into more and more trouble. As his end approaches, he becomes very poetic. Like most Shakespearean heroes, Richard II has a strong theatrical personality. He likes putting on a show and enjoys a bit of wordplay, even at his own expense. What sets him apart from other Shakespearean characters is the perverse joy he takes in his downfall.
In actuality, his mind overpowers his self. Because he firmly holds on to the belief that he “cannot prove a lover” without offering any proof that he really is incapable of wooing “a wanton ambling nymph,” Richard chooses “to prove a villain” (Shakespeare 6). His mind constantly rejects optimism and instead thrusts him back into the darkness where he can protect himself from disappointment. By doing so, Richard’s body becomes a canvas upon which his mind can paint any identity. Richard plays the concerned, supportive brother to an imprisoned Clarence, a good-hearted, loyal citizen in front of Brackenbury, and a drooling lover in front of Lady Anne. In reality, however, neither of these personas come even remotely close to the truth of his identity. By hiding behind these facades as well as expressing evil intentions and a strong connection to the dark side, Richard finds himself capable of being someone amazing. But that someone is not him. He revels in being able to “seem a saint…when mostly…play[ing] the devil,” and thus gains an identity through his villainous and monstrous ideas (36) Every physical action he takes can be traced back to its origin in the mind as a carefully crafted piece of his overall plan to ascend the