Richard III: Two Views

King Richard III represents what is perhaps the most ambitious character in a Shakespearean pantheon full of ambitious characters. Whereas a single murder or two is enough to guarantee the average character's downfall, or at the very least set events in motion for the tragic ending, as in Julius Caesar or Macbeth, Richard orders the death of his brother, young nephews, wife, Prince Edward, Henry VI, Rivers, Grey, Vaughan, Hastings and Buckingham. It is difficult to attempt to analyze his character psychologically because he seems so far removed from sanity, so possessed in the throes of total ambition.

To a lesser extent, the production of Richard III suffers from some of the same faults as its main character. It tries to do too much, reinventing the role of women for the play and splitting the role of Richard into three apparently distinct personalities and actors, while at the same time utilizing an innovative stadium stage. While interesting individually, the combination of these three leads to a production that comes across as jumbled and unfocused.

The lamentation of women is what the producers emphasize the most throughout Richard III. As there are many deaths, this theme is repeated over and over and over again. It is not as if the actors do a poor job in their performance of the lamentations, but it gets to the point where it seems more tedious and distracting than anything else. On Friday night, several people in the audience even began snickering at the incessant wailing and beating of breasts. Feminism dominates the play; for example Richmond, the vanquisher of Richard, is played by a woman. The final battle between Richmond and Richard's forces include only one male actor (Lord Stanley, a traitor to Richard) on the victorious Richmond's side. And the second Richard himself is played by a woman.

Which brings us to the second wrinkle. Richard was played by three actors: Paul Monteleoni '01, Marisa Echeverria '00 and Henry Clarke. The first is supposed to represent the Master of Ceremonies, the second the actor and seducer and the third the ultimate evil. While a clever idea, interesting because it gives the audience the opportunity to see three different actors' interpretations of the same character, this device is, in the end, mostly disjointed. Clarke best unifies the play with his presence, while the first two Richards were somewhat more detached from the action.

By far the most successful innovation was the set. Cocoa-shell mulch covered the floor in a stadium-style stage, with seating on both sides. While at times it was difficult to see with an actor standing directly in front of the seating and facing the action, overall it was a very effective use of space and an impressive feat for the actors to be able to maintain contact with an audience that was on both sides of them.

Richard III is not by any means an easy play to perform, and the dedication of this cast and production crew to stretching its complexities even further must be admired. However, in the end one feels that perhaps the entire production is overdone and would have been more effective in choosing one or two of the three twists on the traditional play instead of all three

The lamentation of women is what the producers emphasize the most throughout Richard III. As there are many deaths, this theme is repeated over and over and over again. It is not as if the actors do a poor job in their performance of the lamentations, but it gets to the point where it seems more tedious and distracting than anything else. On Friday night, several people in the audience even began snickering at the incessant wailing and beating of breasts. Feminism dominates the play; for example Richmond, the vanquisher of Richard, is played by a woman. The final battle between Richmond and Richard's forces include only one male actor (Lord Stanley, a traitor to Richard) on the victorious Richmond's side. And the second Richard himself is played by a woman.

Which brings us to the second wrinkle. Richard was played by three actors: Paul Monteleoni '01, Marisa Echeverria '00 and Henry Clarke. The first is supposed to represent the Master of Ceremonies, the second the actor and seducer and the third the ultimate evil. While a clever idea, interesting because it gives the audience the opportunity to see three different actors' interpretations of the same character, this device is, in the end, mostly disjointed. Clarke best unifies the play with his presence, while the first two Richards were somewhat more detached from the action.

By far the most successful innovation was the set. Cocoa-shell mulch covered the floor in a stadium-style stage, with seating on both sides. While at times it was difficult to see with an actor standing directly in front of the seating and facing the action, overall it was a very effective use of space and an impressive feat for the actors to be able to maintain contact with an audience that was on both sides of them.

Richard III is not by any means an easy play to perform, and the dedication of this cast and production crew to stretching its complexities even further must be admired. However, in the end one feels that perhaps the entire production is overdone and would have been more effective in choosing one or two of the three twists on the traditional play instead of all three