Sadly I was not able to watch the live performance. But I did enjoy watching the BBC version of Richard II! I thought it was really interesting how they portrayed Richard in this version. When I had done the reading for class I envisioned Richard being pretty arrogant, moody, and loud. However, in this version he felt pretty dainty to me. There was also a weird part in the movie where he was touching a nude painting, and he seemed pretty into it. So I am not sure if the movie was purposely portraying him as a little feminine for a reason? But I am a little stumped.
I also noticed how much he resembled Christ. His robes were completely white and he had gold embellishments. It seemed like they were really trying to focus on the Christ metaphor that we've all been talking about. But I thought that aspect did a great job of portraying how Richard II portrays himself.
It's interesting that everyone has pinpointed how stage and film interpretations work to make Richard sympathetic. He isn't really a tyrant. He's the last of the kings who rule merely on the power of being king. To him, it's the way the world works: his birthright. The shifting philosophies and opposing alliances don't register with him because he is king. He's more naive than tyrannical, a nuance that relies on visual representation and interaction between characters rather than the printed word.
ReplyDeleteAs someone else who watched the BBC version, I totally agree!! I really wasn't sure what to make of the way he was portrayed... but I do think it was very well done!!
ReplyDelete