RICHARD III I went to see Martin Freeman as “Richard III” at Trafalgar Studios last Monday. I had the advantage of sitting on the front row of the on-stage seats at the back of the stage, so I felt very much part of the action. Indeed, so much so, that on a couple of occasions I had to restrain myself from joining in – no, I didn’t shout out “A horse, a horse!” (my wife would have no doubt killed me on the spot if I had) - but when members of Richard entourage were obsequiously applauding one of his speeches, I nearly started clapping too. And when one of the ensemble players stood next to me with a tray of sandwiches, I thought I should be entitled to one too. But my putative involvement aside, the key issue about the production as far as I was concerned was that it was intelligent, accessible and coherent. Jamie Lloyd clearly knows who his audience are: his programme notes opine, “Many of you may not have been to the theatre before, let alone seen one of Shakespeare’s plays” and he is clearly concerned to ensure that the audience can make sense of the relationships and events that are operating at the start of the play. The decision to set the play just after the “winter of discontent” of 1979 works very well in this respect. There is no suggestion that Richard is Margaret Thatcher; rather, the chronology works because 1979 is, probably, for most of the audience part of their history too, but a recent history not a remote one, yet still a history when political leaders could don military uniform and rule with an iron fist. I’m not sure all the complex familial relationships are necessarily brought out in full to the audience, but that didn’t matter – the important ones are crystal clear. The claustrophobic setting also worked well here. The governance of the realm may be at stake, but what was at play here was a man determined to be in absolute control of everyone in his immediate circle. And it was this aspect of Martin Freeman’s interpretation of the role that I really enjoyed. A number of the critics I have read – who all gave the production 3 out of 5 stars – take the view that Freeman lacks sufficient malice. But I don’t share that view. For me – and it might well have been because I enjoyed such a ringside seat; for the first, and I suspect the only, time in my life I had the leading character die at my feet, his stage blood dripping gently onto my shoe – what I saw was a Richard who was determining how to prove a villain. He was finding out, for his own perverse ends, just how far he could push himself to go. The malice is there all right, it is just convincingly understated. The most chilling moment for me came in Act IV, Scene 2, when Richard tells Catesby: “Rumour it abroad That Anne, my wife, is sick and like to die” In this production, Anne is standing just behind Richard, hearing every word, her face a mask of horror. This is real evil; Richard lets his wife know he is going to have her killed, and he does it as if it is no more significant than cancelling the milk before he goes on holiday. It might not be the moment that everybody will take away from the play – Clarence being drowned in a tank full of goldfish being a strong contender – but for me it was the moment that crystallised Richard’s character.
Posted on: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 10:26:26 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015