A Lingering Glance Here, a Lingering Glance There

I, too, watched The Hollow Crown's Richard II. While I had watched the movie before, I tried to watch it now in the context of a stage interpretation of familiar events. Comparing Richard to the onslaught of historical biopics made this viewing so much more fun.

As with recent films like J. Edgar, JKF, The King's Speech, Frost/Nixon, Lincoln, and The Iron Lady, rumors fill the gaps of the story in, adding color and speculation to a framework of facts. Ben Whishaw plays an effeminate Richard, and the first half of the movie is charged with looks and silences that lead us to conclude that Richard has relationships with most of the young pretty men at court.

Look at those lingering eyes.

Whishaw's gentle performance through the end of the play maintains an intimate dynamic with his followers and his captors. It helps to maintain a sympathetic air around a man who, in the harsh light of text, is a clear cut bad king.

What Goes Around Comes Around

Seeing Richard II performed allowed me to pay attention to the interactions between the characters rather than just the words they speak; it put the characters in context of their relationships with one another. The two interactions that stood out to me the most were those between Richard and Mowbray at the beginning of the play, and Richard and Bolingbroke near the end. Richard, who has turned a blind eye to Gloucester’s murder (if not requested it), is forced to banish Mowbray in order to maintain a facade of justice. Mowbray, who acted under royal condonation, now faces condemnation that he cannot argue against without committing treason— merely suggesting that the king okayed the murder is a crime greater than killing a duke. If he claimed that Richard turned on him by banishing him, Mowbray would die— not only from admitting guilt, but from accusing Richard of plotting with him. So he is backed into a corner, banished by his inability to refute his sentence. As the play progresses, Bolingbroke is added to the list of Richard’s victims when his inheritance is usurped by the throne.

Richard’s final interaction with Bolingbroke parallels his interactions with Mowbray in the first act. When Richard’s title is stripped from him, he becomes powerless to speak out against the crown, just as Mowbray is, because doing so is treason. Richard’s land and goods are usurped while his back is turned, just as he stripped Bolingbroke from his inheritance. He is then covertly murdered in prison, with the intent of ridding the new king of a political threat, just as he had allowed Gloucester to die. Depicting Richard’s sins being visited upon his head in like kind shows that though he was king with a supposed divine authority backing his kingship, he is not exempt from divine punishment.

Richard II, Costumes Tell the Story

I had watch the Shakespeare Series: King Richard II version of the play. At the very beginning of the film, when the names of the actors were being shown, the background was of a chess set with a white king laying down as if defeated. This picture is reflected throughout the play by the colors of the costumes. King Richard wore white while he reigned as king. This bright color made him stand out, making him easy to spot even when he was in the background watching things unfold in front of him. Along with this, anyone who sided with Richard wore bright pastel colors. To counter Richard's bright colors, Henry Bolingbroke and those who supported him wore dark colors. When Richard is stripped of his crown, he is stripped of his glorious white clothes and is left in his cell with nothing but a dark blanket and underwear. Bright colors in the clothing become a rarity and darker colors become the norm when Henry Bolingbroke becomes king. The color schemes of the costumes reflect the two different kings and their supporters much like the pieces of a chess set.

Taking One for the Team . . . I mean King

From the very beginning of the play, Richard has subjects who step up to take responsibility for his decisions. Ordering Mowbry to kill Glouchester isn't a radical move for a king fighting to keep the power of his throne. However, the language Shakespeare uses and the secrecy he implements during the scene at Gaunt's house reeks of cowardice, an attribute no one wants in a sovereign.

That being said (and as many posts so far have discussed), Shakepeare's emphasis on Richard's kingliness through Boilingbroke juxtaposes the assumptions we make of a king, especially one who is saved by the grace of history, with the blatant cowardice of his actions. Unless being king exempts him from cowardice? Does power overcome deception, or is power itself a deception if lies are needed to keep it?

The Henriad

Upon perusing Richard II, I found myself wondering about the historical context of the play. After reading a bit about the play, I found that it was based greatly on a few historical texts of the time, and that it was likely written as a part of a whole; by that I mean that Richard II was written in a series of plays known as The Henriad, containing Henry IV parts 1 and 2, and Henry V. I'm sure many of you already know this fact, so instead of expanding on those details, I'd like to raise a question: is it beneficial to the reader to experience only one of the parts of the whole? Without reading all of them, how can a Shakespeare lover get the entire scope of work in one single text? More to the point, would reading Richard II along with all of the other supposed works included in that series make the single play of Richard II more meaningful?

Another thought that I had, pertaining particularly to history plays, is whether or not the writing of a historical work can properly enlighten a viewer. Throughout the entire play of Richard II, the king displays many behaviors that lead to his being overthrown. However, when looking into the life of Richard before the events of the play, there are many aspects of his ruling that were beneficial to his kingdom. In writing a play about a real historical figure, Shakespeare takes on the responsibility of portraying that person; however he chooses to do that is his decision and thus the responsibility is his burden. When undertaking that task, one must draw material from a source, be it original or otherwise. In this case, Shakespeare used an immense volume that chronicled the history of England, as well as other sources. However, the play is not simple fact. Although it is written based on events, the words used, the nuances, even the character traits had to come from somewhere, and despite the extensive historical records that may have existed, Shakespeare did not get all of his material from those texts. He embellished, for the sake of the story. Therefore, the reader can only draw conclusions based on what they themselves are exposed to--in this case, a play where the characters are not facts and figures, but have personalities. Again, I end in a question. How can a reader distinguish between fact and story, and how great is the bias that we inevitably glean from the works that read?

"All In Vain Comes Counsel to His Ears"

I was intrigued by Richard's unwillingness to follow others' counsel and by the impact that behavior had on his subjects who witness it. This unwillingness to heed criticism from his counselors and friends stems from his belief that he is infallible as king because of his divine appointment. When Bolingbroke makes a public stand against him, Richard declares that "my master, God omnipotent, is mustering his clouds on our behalf . . . and they shall strike" those who rise up against the crown.

However, this belief that monarchs are selected and sustained by God does not placate all of Richard's subjects; fed up with his poor ruling, they embrace Bolingbroke as an honorable contender to Richard's judgments. By honorable contender, I mean that Bolingbroke's claim to his father's estate is valid. However, monarchs over the ages have taken what they want without regard to proper ownership, and their claims have often gone unchallenged. Why then is Richard being challenged on this particular count of corruption? Why is the usurped land not chalked up to a perk of his divine authority?

I believe that Richard's unwillingness to listen to outside advice or requests allows him to be deposed from the throne. Placing the utmost faith in his own judgments because of his divine appointment, Richard ignores Gaunt's warning to seek honest, not flattering tongues to avoid driving England into ruin. He also ignores Bolingbroke's pleas for the assets that are rightfully his, a move that paints him as a tyrant in the public's eye. Even his once-devoted subjects like York abandon him once they realize the king is deaf, "stopp'd with other flattering sounds." Though divine authority is a compelling reason to follow a ruler, it cannot satisfy a country looking for a leader to put its best interests at heart.

Stop! It's Lizy time!

Lizy,

I'm actually really intrigued by your idea of analyzing Shakespeare's play based on the controversy of the monarchy. I think it's a pretty unique idea. I did a little research on royal scandals especially connected with Shakespearean plays, and this seemed like it would fit. I didn't read it all the way through, but the abstract made it seem pretty applicable. I hope this helps!

Jeffrey S. Doty. "Shakespeare's Richard II, "Popularity," and the Early Modern Public Sphere." Shakespeare Quarterly 61.2 (2010): 183-205. Project MUSE. Web. 19 Mar. 2013. <http://muse.jhu.edu/>.

Kaylee

Richard II on Demand

Hello from the grave (of the semester? Bad analogy methinks. Oh well)!

I watched Richard II on the BYU Films on Demand site since I've been so interested in the successive history plays that start with this one and ends with the fifth King Henry. I didn't look into the background of this play, but after watching it I wonder very much if it wasn't a special filmed dress rehearsal type thing. The entire flow was done as it would have been if it were a stage play. There was no fading in or out, and the transitions between scenes was obviously done as a play would be.

The acting was good, but there weren't any outstanding ones in my mind. I didn't follow along with the text on hand, but this version of the play was obviously true to Shakespeare's script. This is a good thing because it's good to stick with the original because a feel of integrity or legitimacy usually goes along with it. However, the way many characters did their lines was obviously iambic pentameter. This was a bit distracting and not so attractive to me. The costumes were good, but I would have preferred a little less modern style. There was a cut very very short duel at the beginning, with swords, but later on in the play a minor character (about as important as the prison inmate #2 role that Tobias Funke gets), a guard, had a gun as a prop and I wasn't too keen on that. Yeah, I'm being picky, and I admit I'm biased with a love of medieval style anything, but it seemed out of place to me.

In the end I'm really glad that they seemed to be very true to the text. Honestly the main thing it did was greatly fuel my desire to watch the most recent 2012 version included in the BBC mini-series-type called "The Hollow Crown." Yeah, I've mentioned it about a million times now.