Richard II - Act I [Archive] - Literature Network Forums

Quark

01-06-2009, 08:10 PM

The first Act appears filled with argument: Bolingbroke and Mowbray's recriminations, the duchess and Gaunt disagreeing over revenge and justice, etc. Another of the interesting arguments follows Bolingbroke's banishment. After hearing his sentence, Bolingbroke consults with his father:

HENRY BOLINGBROKE: Nay, rather, every tedious stride I make
Will but remember me what a deal of world
I wander from the jewels that I love.
Must I not serve a long apprenticehood [270]
To foreign passages, and in the end,
Having my freedom, boast of nothing else
But that I was a journeyman to grief?

JOHN OF GAUNT: All places that the eye of heaven visits
Are to a wise man ports and happy havens. [275]
Teach thy necessity to reason thus;
There is no virtue like necessity.
Think not the king did banish thee,
But thou the king. Woe doth the heavier sit,
Where it perceives it is but faintly borne. [280]
Go, say I sent thee forth to purchase honour
And not the king exiled thee; or suppose
Devouring pestilence hangs in our air
And thou art flying to a fresher clime:
Look, what thy soul holds dear, imagine it [285]
To lie that way thou go'st, not whence thou comest:
Suppose the singing birds musicians,
The grass whereon thou tread'st the presence strew¹d,
The flowers fair ladies, and thy steps no more
Than a delightful measure or a dance; [290]
For gnarling sorrow hath less power to bite
The man that mocks at it and sets it light.

HENRY BOLINGBROKE: O, who can hold a fire in his hand
By thinking on the frosty Caucasus?
Or cloy the hungry edge of appetite [295]
By bare imagination of a feast?
Or wallow naked in December snow
By thinking on fantastic summer's heat?
O, no! the apprehension of the good
Gives but the greater feeling to the worse: [300]
Fell sorrow's tooth doth never rankle more
Than when he bites, but lanceth not the sore.

JOHN OF GAUNT: Come, come, my son, I'll bring thee on thy way:
Had I thy youth and cause, I would not stay.

HENRY BOLINGBROKE: Then, England's ground, farewell; sweet soil, adieu; [305]
My mother, and my nurse, that bears me yet!
Where'er I wander, boast of this I can,
Though banish'd, yet a trueborn Englishman.

(I, iii)

Henry's father believes that imagining better circumstances would improve his son's exile, while Bullingbrook thinks that fantasizing would only lead to more misery. Later in the play this argument gets reiterated by the Queen and Sir John Bushy. Who do you agree with? Does imagination only cause pain by tantalizing us with impossibilities or does it help us escape grief?

Jozanny

01-07-2009, 11:08 PM

Well, this is just a preliminary statement, and I could be wrong, as
1. I have not read any Shakespeare for a number of years
2. Never studied R2 under an instructor

That said, I get the sense that Bolingbroke is seeing things in Mowbray's actions which aren't there to be had, and if Richard had been a little more astute he might have seen that Bolingbroke was like the proverbial bull in the china shop, and done something to protect himself by sending the future H4 off to kill the French, or whatever.

Bolingbroke's charges, in other words, are really an indicator of his ambition toward the throne itself. That is what I see. I mean, first Mowbray snivels and says but the king knows very well he owed me, and then he is pissed and wants to kill his accuser. I don't really see much of an Iago in his character, although he does admit to laxity of a sort.

Second, Richard's and Gaunt's attempts to parley peace between the two dukes seem almost deliberately insubtantial, no? A signal that R2 has his head in the clouds and abstracts himself to the point of ineffectiveness? He doesn't really make an argument to counterpoint Bolingbroke, or even to assure Mowbray. He simply says make peace, and when that isn't enough, concedes the joust. Then we move to the Dutchess upbraiding Gaunt, in which I agree with Quark that recrimination is paramount in the opening scenes, but Shakespeare is pretty much always about recrimination.

The Coventry scene is a bit stilted, in my estimation, but again points to a certain flawed logic in R2's operating method, since one cannot govern through mere pagentry.

Jozanny

01-09-2009, 04:05 AM

As I posted in the Shakespeare Winter thread, I did read R2 before. It isn't a masterwork, and a rereading doesn't detract from my sense of a certain stilted formalism which is a little too careful in its evenness, but I think the play as a whole touches upon something that makes Hamlet have one of the greatest dialectic tensions in all literature, which is, a certain cerebral reflection over and above acting--and this may be a pun on William's part, once removed, in the sense that acting is both taking action and playing the part of a character.

Act 1 seems to be about those loathe to act (R2 himself, Gaunt) and those who are quite willing to accept the consequence of bloodshed (Bolingbroke, Mowbray)

In the edition I am reading, for ease on my eyes, I don't have the verse numbers, but this is Richard in the opening after Bolingbroke gives vent:

KING RICHARD.

Wrath-kindled gentlemen, be rul'd by me;
Let's purge this choler without letting blood:
This we prescribe, though no physician;
Deep malice makes too deep incision:
Forget, forgive; conclude and be agreed,
Our doctors say this is no month to bleed.

And again at Coventry:

And list what with our council we have done.
For that our kingdom's earth should not be soil'd
With that dear blood which it hath fostered;
And for our eyes do hate the dire aspect
Of civil wounds plough'd up with neighbours' swords;
And for we think the eagle-winged pride
Of sky-aspiring and ambitious thoughts,

Not that I mean to jump ahead of myself, but if memory serves, this is both Richard's doom, that he literally thinks of himself as a metaphor, and Bolingbroke's *flaw* that costs him his conscience. Bolingbroke does not like the price it cost him to take the power of the throne, because he gains it as a consequence of acting--which only his son Prince Hal can rectify because Hal acts justly. He does not have to kill a king to grow into being a just king, thus the heady victorious *high* that is the play of Henry the Fifth.

An interesting conceit to ponder, as we go along.

mayneverhave

01-09-2009, 03:30 PM

HENRY BOLINGBROKE: O, who can hold a fire in his hand
By thinking on the frosty Caucasus?
Or cloy the hungry edge of appetite [295]
By bare imagination of a feast?
Or wallow naked in December snow
By thinking on fantastic summer's heat?
O, no! the apprehension of the good
Gives but the greater feeling to the worse: [300]
Fell sorrow's tooth doth never rankle more
Than when he bites, but lanceth not the sore.

This is, indeed, the kernel of Bolingbroke's (Henry IV) character.

The play as a whole discusses the nature of kingship, the legitmacy of kings, and the divine right of kings. Although Henry's son (Prince Hal) is more of the Machiavellian than his father, Bolingbroke is placed in the role of the usurper, the de facto king, in contrast to Richard as the de jure king.

Richard's ineptitude at ruling is immediately established in the first act. He is king in name only - a man whose identity is so wrapped up in his kingship, and so convinced of his divine right, that it prevents him from doing what not only is most effective for his people, but for himself. It is one thing to forgive a powerhungry ruler that does all he can to secure for himself more power, but it is impossible to feel sorry for a man that can neither rule justly nor tyranically.

The first scene establishes the antithetical nature of the play, with the two nobleman arguing with each other in very formal blank verse. It is important to note that nearly the entire play is in verse (there is no Falstaff to speak in prose in this play), and that is important (although slightly boring) to the play's conflict taking place in the upper echelons of society.

Bolingbroke's speech - that I quoted above - establishes him as the realist. Richard, however, is a poor king but a good poet. For Richard, it would not be absurd to think that one could "hold a fire in his hand / By thinking" - as we'll see later when Richard attempts to summon up the earth to help him in disposing of Bolingbroke.

Quark

01-10-2009, 10:27 PM

Richard's and Gaunt's attempts to parley peace between the two dukes seem almost deliberately insubtantial, no?

They do, but I chalked that up to the neccesities of the play and not to anything in Richard or Gaunt. A long back-and-forth between these characters over the issue might get boring. I think Shakespeare accelerated the scene merely to get past this moment as fast as possible. All that needs to be established is that Mowbray and Bolingbroke won't be reconciled, and the scene does that effectively--even if it makes Richard and Gaunt appear a little quick to move on.

I think the play as a whole touches upon something that makes Hamlet have one of the greatest dialectic tensions in all literature, which is, a certain cerebral reflection over and above [I]acting

There is something abstract about Richard, but I wouldn't say he's too cerebral. In a sense, he might not be cerebral enough. Remember, that he does take action, but he often fails to recognize how the means through which he acts disrupts the ends which he's trying to achieve. Richard wants to quell the Irish revolt to keep England secure, but he simultaneously endangers his kingdom by taxing it to fight his war. Bolingbroke and Mowbray threaten violence, so the King intervenes for the sake of peace, but he doesn't realize that their grudge could disrupt more than their joust. In both cases, Richard acts, but he doesn't take into account the consequences--which perhaps a more cerebral king would.

Act 1 seems to be about those loathe to act (R2 himself, Gaunt) and those who are quite willing to accept the consequence of bloodshed (Bolingbroke, Mowbray)

I like your grouping of Richard and Gaunt. There is something similar about them. I wouldn't quite say it's passivity, though. Like I pointed out above, Richard is decisive. Also, he isn't afraid of bloodshed. After all, he plans on going to war soon after Act I.

The play as a whole discusses the nature of kingship, the legitmacy of kings, and the divine right of kings. Although Henry's son (Prince Hal) is more of the Machiavellian than his father, Bolingbroke is placed in the role of the usurper, the de facto king, in contrast to Richard as the de jure king.

Richard's ineptitude at ruling is immediately established in the first act. He is king in name only - a man whose identity is so wrapped up in his kingship, and so convinced of his divine right, that it prevents him from doing what not only is most effective for his people, but for himself. It is one thing to forgive a powerhungry ruler that does all he can to secure for himself more power, but it is impossible to feel sorry for a man that can neither rule justly nor tyranically.

As an inept, divinely-chosen king, how much sympathy do you suppose we're supposed to have with him? I agree with both the points you make, but they're at odds with each other. Do we concentrate on his poor rule or on his kingship?

It is important to note that nearly the entire play is in verse (there is no Falstaff to speak in prose in this play), and that is important (although slightly boring) to the play's conflict taking place in the upper echelons of society.

Act I is a little stiff. The other Acts are not quite so bad, though.

Bolingbroke's speech - that I quoted above - establishes him as the realist. Richard, however, is a poor king but a good poet.

I think this is true and it goes along with what Jozanny was saying above. Richard is too removed--perhaps that's a better word than cerebral. He--and Gaunt, I would say--don't appear to appreciate the situation.

Virgil

02-23-2009, 10:35 PM

I will start reading this tonight. Perhaps tomorrow I may comment on Act I. I hope others are reading along. :)

Janine

02-24-2009, 12:32 AM

I will start reading this tonight. Perhaps tomorrow I may comment on Act I. I hope others are reading along. :)

Finally, someone shows up for the discussion, yeah. I watched Act I of the play twice now on BBC DVD; will probably repeat a third time, if you will be commenting on it soon, Virgil. I will try to watch it tomorrow night. It is good so far, but I am not clear on some of the text. Maybe you can shed some light on that for me. Also I am not yet sure what to make of Richard or his true intentions. I don't find this play the easiest of the histories to fully understand. I could use you help.

Quark

02-24-2009, 12:53 AM

How's it going guys? I think it's been a while since I've said hi. Is the L thread still going?

Perhaps tomorrow I may comment on Act I. I hope others are reading along. :)

I don't know if anyone is still around--we really didn't have that much participation to begin with, either--so, I can't say if you'll get much of a discussion going. I check in occasionally and would respond if you post something. The play is better than I remember it being, and I think there's plenty worth talking about in Act I.

It is good so far, but I am not clear on some of the text. Maybe you can shed some light on that for me.

Which parts are you unsure about? Post some of the text, and we can try to muddle our way through it.

Janine

02-24-2009, 03:09 AM

How's it going guys? I think it's been a while since I've said hi. Is the L thread still going?

Quark, how great to see you again! I thought you might eventually surface. We took a break in the L thread - probably start up again in March. Meanwhile, I have been discussing Ibsen plays with Gladys. We basically discussed "Ghosts", a very mind-boggling, but interesting and fine play.
Also, I read so may rave reviews on Ken Branagh's stage performance of Ivanov, that I had to read the actual play finally. It was quite interesting; the ending was a shocker. I wish to once again, listen to all of the short story on my CD's. I hope we can get something going again in that thread. Quark, I actually miss old Chekhov afterall... haha.

I don't know if anyone is still around--we really didn't have that much participation to begin with, either--so, I can't say if you'll get much of a discussion going. I check in occasionally and would respond if you post something. The play is better than I remember it being, and I think there's plenty worth talking about in Act I.

As usual, it looked like it fizzled out. Where are all the countless people who voted on it and against Richard III (which I wanted to discuss:()? Ok, well here is the remedy: I will try and watch the play tomorrow night. I can view the one from the BBC set, since someone nice lent it to me; they know who they are - thanks. Then you and Virgil can post some commentary; it only takes a few of us brainy people (haha) to get this discussion back on track.

Which parts are you unsure about? Post some of the text, and we can try to muddle our way through it.

I will let you know. I will check the full text online and post some parts. It is too late now. I can post something after I watch the play again - say Wed or Wed night would be good. See you then, and we can all muddle through together, J.:)

lugdunum

02-24-2009, 07:59 AM

I am starting TONIGHT! Promise!

Janine

02-24-2009, 02:57 PM

I am starting TONIGHT! Promise!

Yes! Another good discusser! Glad you found the thread again, lugdunum. This should be a great discussion afterall.:thumbs_up

sofia82

02-24-2009, 03:46 PM

Janine

02-24-2009, 04:08 PM

When I want to start something, I become so busy it is funny! By the way I am reading Othello, and as I've just started, I can read it later and read Richard II but not before Sunday, I have to go on a journey As I return, I start.

Hi Sophia, my good friend; it is great to see your here and possibly going to participate. I have missed you. I love the play "Othello"...that one is so exciting it goes pretty quickly. Maybe you can accomplish both, who knows. Enjoy your journey!

Virgil

02-24-2009, 07:44 PM

Virgil

02-24-2009, 10:04 PM

What does one make of Richard II in the first act? The first act is essentially devoted to the dispute between Bolingbroke and Mawbrey. In the first scene we see them dispute Mawbrey's treason which ultimately reaches the two challenging each other to a duel and the third scene where they set up to joust and fight. But each time Richard has the most odd reactions. In the first scen he seems to act as judge:

KING RICHARD II
We thank you both: yet one but flatters us,
As well appeareth by the cause you come;
Namely to appeal each other of high treason.
Cousin of Hereford, what dost thou object
Against the Duke of Norfolk, Thomas Mowbray?
And Bolingbroke explains his charge and throws his challenge, and then Richard turns to Mawbrey

KING RICHARD II
How high a pitch his resolution soars!
Thomas of Norfolk, what say'st thou to this?
And Mawbrey takes on the challenge, and Richard tries to be objective

KING RICHARD II
Mowbray, impartial are our eyes and ears:
Were he my brother, nay, my kingdom's heir,
As he is but my father's brother's son,
Now, by my sceptre's awe, I make a vow,
Such neighbour nearness to our sacred blood
Should nothing privilege him, nor partialize
The unstooping firmness of my upright soul:
He is our subject, Mowbray; so art thou:
Free speech and fearless I to thee allow.
And when the two men in conflict agree to a fight, Richard aborts it:

KING RICHARD II
Wrath-kindled gentlemen, be ruled by me;
Let's purge this choler without letting blood:
This we prescribe, though no physician;
Deep malice makes too deep incision;
Forget, forgive; conclude and be agreed;
Our doctors say this is no month to bleed.
Good uncle, let this end where it begun;
We'll calm the Duke of Norfolk, you your son.
"Forgive" and "forget"? Wait a second. These rough men have made challenges and accusations. They aren't children, they're knights who have insulted each other through their accusations. There must be a resolution. Mawbrey says it first:

THOMAS MOWBRAY
Myself I throw, dread sovereign, at thy foot.
My life thou shalt command, but not my shame:
The one my duty owes; but my fair name,
Despite of death that lives upon my grave,
To dark dishonour's use thou shalt not have.
I am disgraced, impeach'd and baffled here,
Pierced to the soul with slander's venom'd spear,
The which no balm can cure but his heart-blood
Which breathed this poison.
And then Richard heavy handed says

KING RICHARD II
Rage must be withstood:
Give me his gage: lions make leopards tame.
In effect, Richard is saying "I am king and I have the right to to tame you." He is not allowing these men to work out their grivences. And then just like that, he changes his mind and allows them to fight:

KING RICHARD II
We were not born to sue, but to command;
Which since we cannot do to make you friends,
Be ready, as your lives shall answer it,
At Coventry, upon Saint Lambert's day:
There shall your swords and lances arbitrate
The swelling difference of your settled hate:
Since we can not atone you, we shall see
Justice design the victor's chivalry.
Lord marshal, command our officers at arms
Be ready to direct these home alarms.
So how has Richard handled this? He has violated the honor of both men and then reversed himself anyway and allowed them to fight anyway. So he has looked bad in both respects. I'll speak about the fight in Scene III tomorrow.

papayahed

02-24-2009, 11:40 PM

So how has Richard handled this? He has violated the honor of both men and then reversed himself anyway and allowed them to fight anyway. So he has looked bad in both respects. I'll speak about the fight in Scene III tomorrow.

I got the impression that Richard tried to get them to solve their differences and when he saw that wasn't going to work he's going to let them fight.

Not to mention he's in a bit of a sticky wicket himself since he may have had a hand in the omurder as well.

Virgil

02-24-2009, 11:48 PM

I got the impression that Richard tried to get them to solve their differences and when he saw that wasn't going to work he's going to let them fight.

Not to mention he's in a bit of a sticky wicket himself since he may have had a hand in the omurder as well.

Perhaps in our everyday modern life one might feel that Richard is being reasonable. But in the era of knghts and unbridaled manhood ;) I think Richard comes across as wishy washy, weak, and not in command. Scene III of this act doubles up on the very same thing - Richard's wishy-washyness.

Janine

02-25-2009, 12:21 AM

Perhaps in our everyday modern life one might feel that Richard is being reasonable. But in the era of knghts and unbridaled manhood ;) I think Richard comes across as wishy washy, weak, and not in command. Scene III of this act doubles up on the very same thing - Richard's wishy-washyness.

I agree with you; my impression of Richard at first, was of fairness and a sort of 'peace-keeper'; but now I think he is quite wishy-washy, mamby bambish, actually; he doesn't seem firm in anyway, in any type of commitment to ruling. Back then, when so much emphasis is placed on the 'Divine Right of Kings', Richard comes off as sort of pansy to me; he is even sort of sleezy in the production, I have been viewing (BBC). I wasn't quite sure how to take his actions: first to the argument and as to the challenge itself. To me his actions were rather irratic and strange, to say the least. I did not like him banishing Bollingbroke and felt he was being quite harsh and very unfair. Exactly what are Richard's motives in doing so? It also seemed so rash and unpreditable a verdict.

Ok, also I am not real clear on what the argument actually originally there was between Mowbray and Bollingbroke. Can someone fill me in on this part?

Janine

02-25-2009, 12:24 AM

posted twice by mistake....oops....

sofia82

02-25-2009, 01:38 AM

Hi Sophia, my good friend; it is great to see your here and possibly going to participate. I have missed you. I love the play "Othello"...that one is so exciting it goes pretty quickly. Maybe you can accomplish both, who knows. Enjoy your journey!

I miss you, so much Janine! Happy to be here to participate ans esp with you. I try to handle both... though I have not so much free time ;) Unfortunately the book is the collection of Shakespeare's plays and I cannot take it with myself :D

sofia82

02-25-2009, 01:52 AM

No problem Sophia. I'm sure we'll still be discussing this next week.

happy to hear that ...

lugdunum

02-25-2009, 11:58 AM

Finished Act I and I've really enjoyed it.

So, if I've understood properly:

Thomas, Duke of Gloucester (brother of Gaunt and uncle of both Richard and Bolingbroke) has been killed and Bolingbroke is accusing Thomas Mowbray (Duke of Norfolk).

It must be noted that apparently, this isn't the first time that Mowbray tries to kill/harm someone of the "Royal family" since he says in scene 1 (v. 135 - 138):

For you, my noble Lord of Lancaster,
The honourable father to my foe
Once did I lay an ambush for your life,
A trespass that doth vex my grieved soul

Act I, scene 1 opens on Bolingbroke accusing Mowbray and M. defending himself.
Richard II is apparently trying to bring peace between the 2 of them: (v. 115 - 123):

Mowbray, impartial are our eyes and ears:
Were he my brother, nay, my kingdom's heir,
As he is but my father's brother's son,
Now, by my sceptre's awe, I make a vow,
Such neighbour nearness to our sacred blood
Should nothing privilege him, nor partialize
The unstooping firmness of my upright soul:
He is our subject, Mowbray; so art thou:
Free speech and fearless I to thee allow.

(BTW, I found it quite ironic that R. would say "my kingdom's heir" when talking about Bolingbroke the future Henry IV.....)

But R.ll fails to bring peace and agrees to letting them fight.
And then, on the day of the fight, he waits until the end of the "preliminaries" when the fight has just started to call it off and decide (out of nowhere) that instead of the fight he'd rather punish both of them and send them into exile, B. for 10 years (then reducing it to 6???) and the other for good. What a weird decision that was....

I have to say that I agree with Virgil and Janine on Richard coming across as "wishy washy" and him making decisions without really thinking twice about their consequences.

Then there is Gaunt, who someone said (Jozanny or Quark?)before is not really taking part in the debate (except at the end when he tries to reduce his son's exile even more).
I'm not sure whether he is not taking part because of his personality or rather because he doesn't think that Mowbrey is really 100% guilty. Twice during Act I, he says that the king himself is guilty and that they should let God decide on that issue (hence him letting the fight happen):
Scene 2, v 4-6:

But since correction lieth in those hands
Which made the fault that we cannot correct,
Put we our quarrel to the will of heaven;
and v. 37 - 41:

God's is the quarrel; for God's substitute,
His deputy anointed in His sight,
Hath caused his death: the which if wrongfully,
Let heaven revenge; for I may never lift
An angry arm against His minister.

So can we understand that it was Richard who was behind Gloucester's death? That would explain 2 things:
1/ the part where Mowbray says in scene 3 (v. 148-152) after hearing his punishment:

A heavy sentence, my most sovereign liege,
And all unlook'd for from your highness' mouth:
A dearer merit, not so deep a maim
As to be cast forth in the common air,
Have I deserved at your highness' hands.

and 2/ why R. is punishing M. so harshly and sending him into exile forever without having proof of whether he's innocent or not and telling both Mowbray and Bolingbroke to: (sc. 3, v. 174-182)

Swear by the duty that you owe to God--
Our part therein we banish with yourselves--
To keep the oath that we administer:
You never shall, so help you truth and God!
Embrace each other's love in banishment;
Nor never look upon each other's face;
Nor never write, regreet, nor reconcile
This louring tempest of your home-bred hate;
Nor never by advised purpose meet
To plot, contrive, or complot any ill
'Gainst us, our state, our subjects, or our land.

...because he's too scared that M. will confess or betray him.

What do you all think? :idea:

Janine

02-25-2009, 03:01 PM

Finished Act I and I've really enjoyed it.

So, if I've understood properly:

Thomas, Duke of Gloucester (brother of Gaunt and uncle of both Richard and Bolingbroke) has been killed and Bolingbroke is accusing Thomas Mowbray (Duke of Norfolk).

It must be noted that apparently, this isn't the first time that Mowbray tries to kill/harm someone of the "Royal family" since he says in scene 1 (v. 135 - 138):

Act I, scene 1 opens on Bolingbroke accusing Mowbray and M. defending himself.
Richard II is apparently trying to bring peace between the 2 of them: (v. 115 - 123):

(BTW, I found it quite ironic that R. would say "my kingdom's heir" when talking about Bolingbroke the future Henry IV.....)

But R.ll fails to bring peace and agrees to letting them fight.
And then, on the day of the fight, he waits until the end of the "preliminaries" when the fight has just started to call it off and decide (out of nowhere) that instead of the fight he'd rather punish both of them and send them into exile, B. for 10 years (then reducing it to 6???) and the other for good. What a weird decision that was....

I have to say that I agree with Virgil and Janine on Richard coming across as "wishy washy" and him making decisions without really thinking twice about their consequences.

Then there is Gaunt, who someone said (Jozanny or Quark?)before is not really taking part in the debate (except at the end when he tries to reduce his son's exile even more).
I'm not sure whether he is not taking part because of his personality or rather because he doesn't think that Mowbrey is really 100% guilty. Twice during Act I, he says that the king himself is guilty and that they should let God decide on that issue (hence him letting the fight happen):
Scene 2, v 4-6:

and v. 37 - 41:

So can we understand that it was Richard who was behind Gloucester's death? That would explain 2 things:
1/ the part where Mowbray says in scene 3 (v. 148-152) after hearing his punishment:

and 2/ why R. is punishing M. so harshly and sending him into exile forever without having proof of whether he's innocent or not and telling both Mowbray and Bolingbroke to: (sc. 3, v. 174-182)

...because he's too scared that M. will confess or betray him.

What do you all think? :idea:

I think you are 'right on' with your analysis, lugdunam, I would agree with all, or most of what you say; much of this has cleared up my own confusion. Thanks for writing all this and pointing out specific passages. I didn't get a chance to view the play again but hopefully will do so tonight. I read a little of the text but then fell asleep.

To this part I think Richard is merely stating that Bollingbroke is not his brother and successor to his throne, but rather further removed, being his cousin and so Richard puts him on par statis-wise with Mowbray.

(BTW, I found it quite ironic that R. would say "my kingdom's heir" when talking about Bolingbroke the future Henry IV.....)

Virgil

02-25-2009, 11:13 PM

Finished Act I and I've really enjoyed it.

So, if I've understood properly:

Thomas, Duke of Gloucester (brother of Gaunt and uncle of both Richard and Bolingbroke) has been killed and Bolingbroke is accusing Thomas Mowbray (Duke of Norfolk).

Yes, and there is also the charge in Scene II from the Duchess that Richard himself is suspected of being complicit in the murder. But I'm not sure that's ever established as fact. If so, it really makes Mawbrey's banishment incomprehensible.

But R.ll fails to bring peace and agrees to letting them fight.
And then, on the day of the fight, he waits until the end of the "preliminaries" when the fight has just started to call it off and decide (out of nowhere) that instead of the fight he'd rather punish both of them and send them into exile, B. for 10 years (then reducing it to 6???) and the other for good. What a weird decision that was....
Entirely weird. And I think this is what Shakespeare is trying to establish in the first act, that and initiating the story line that will bring Bolinbroke in conflict with R.II.

Then there is Gaunt, who someone said (Jozanny or Quark?)before is not really taking part in the debate (except at the end when he tries to reduce his son's exile even more).
I found some interesting information on Gaunt today. Apparently Gaunt was not the patriotic character in real life, at least as outlined in the History that Shakespeare used as his source. But since he was in the direct lineage of Queen Elizabeth, Shakespeare apparently made him come off as a loyal vassel.

I'm not sure whether he is not taking part because of his personality or rather because he doesn't think that Mowbrey is really 100% guilty. Twice during Act I, he says that the king himself is guilty and that they should let God decide on that issue (hence him letting the fight happen):
The central question of the play becomes is it justified to over throw a King and defy divine right of rulership even if the king is incompetant?

Given that it's already late this evening, and since I replied to this, I will post on Scene III tomorrow night.

Quark

02-26-2009, 12:24 AM

It's good to see so much action in the discussion, and it's also good to see you've picked an interesting place to start. Teasing out the qualities and past of the protagonist is always an excellent way to start. I would agree with Virgil when he says that the King is "wishy-washy." Richard's lack of resolve leads quite a bit to his downfall. I would like to go more into his involvement with the Gloucester affair. It's a little late for me post something tonight, but I hope to write a good response before I go out for lunch tomorrow.

Quark

02-26-2009, 12:28 PM

Yes, and there is also the charge in Scene II from the Duchess that Richard himself is suspected of being complicit in the murder. But I'm not sure that's ever established as fact.

It is interesting how much Shakespeare avoids the issue, but it probably would have been widely acknowledges that Richard was, at least, partially responsible for the death of Gloucester. The second scene reveals this a little, but the play doesn't dwell on the fact much at all. I think this may have something to do with the way the history plays love to include twisted and complex backstories, so that the outcome of the play depends on how the characters spin what has happened. We, the audience, and all the characters in this play could see the King as being entirely responsible for his own demise, or we could also see Bolingbroke as a ruthless aggressor--it all depends on perspective. This means that the main characters of the play have a great power to affect others through manipulation of the past and present. It also means that characters will view the world quite differently depending on their mood. Since there isn't a set of agreed upon facts, each character has to come to their own conclusions, and these might easily be affected by their own personality or mental state. The audience of Shakespeare's plays probably did have a more agreed upon sense of the situation, but I think Shakespeare is playing up the ambiguity to give his characters more power over the narrative and also to expose their personalities and emotions.

Janine

02-26-2009, 02:26 PM

lugdunum

02-26-2009, 05:13 PM

This means that the main characters of the play have a great power to affect others through manipulation of the past and present. It also means that characters will view the world quite differently depending on their mood. Since there isn't a set of agreed upon facts, each character has to come to their own conclusions, and these might easily be affected by their own personality or mental state.

yes! but the lack of facts makes it a bit confusing because we (or at least I ;)) can't understaand why Richard if he doesn't know anything about the murder would send Mowbray into exile for life.... But anyway, I agree with you when you say:

but I think Shakespeare is playing up the ambiguity to give his characters more power over the narrative and also to expose their personalities and emotions.

On another issue, I've noted (or rather the footnotes of my book have noted for me :p) that there are a few biblical references. As I've said before, I'm a Shakespeare illiterate and was wondering if this was a common thing in his plays...?

For example: scene 1, v 104-109:

Which blood, like sacrificing Abel's, cries,
Even from the tongueless caverns of the earth,
To me for justice and rough chastisement;
And, by the glorious worth of my descent,
This arm shall do it, or this life be spent.
v 105 onwards is the the reformulation of the Bible:

Genesis, 4.10
The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground.

I'm on to Act II and will make some comments on the other thread.

Quark

02-26-2009, 10:32 PM

yes! but the lack of facts makes it a bit confusing because we (or at least I ;)) can't understaand why Richard if he doesn't know anything about the murder would send Mowbray into exile for life

Remember that Richard sends them into exile not for specific crimes, but rather to protect the kingdom. The King fears what open violence between these two would harm England's peace:

For that our kingdom's earth should not be soil'd
With that dear blood which it hath fostered;
And for our eyes do hate the dire aspect
Of civil wounds plough'd up with neighbours' sword;
And for we think the eagle-winged pride
Of sky-aspiring and ambitious thoughts,
With rival-hating envy, set on you
To wake our peace, which in our country's cradle
Draws the sweet infant breath of gentle sleep;
Which so roused up with boisterous untuned drums,
With harsh resounding trumpets' dreadful bray,
And grating shock of wrathful iron arms,
Might from our quiet confines fright fair peace
And make us wade even in our kindred's blood,
Therefore, we banish you our territories (i. 125-38)

Also, it should be noted that Mowbray is accused of more than just Gloucester's death. Bullingbrook claims that he also wasted money that was supposed to go to the army in "lewd employments" (i. 90)

We are pretty certain, though, that Richard was involved in Gloucester's death. Gaunt tells the duchess that:

God's is the quarrel, for God's substitute,
His deputy anointed in His sight,
Hath caus'd his death, the which if wrongfully,
Let heaven revenge, for I may never lift
An angry arm against his minister. (ii. 37-41)

"God's substitute" refers to the Divine Right of the King.

On another issue, I've noted (or rather the footnotes of my book have noted for me :p) that there are a few biblical references. As I've said before, I'm a Shakespeare illiterate and was wondering if this was a common thing in his plays...?

I don't know if there are any more in this play than what's usual for Renaissance drama, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were more. People often say that this play is more formal than other of Shakespeare's works. Biblical references might be part of that formality.

Virgil

02-26-2009, 10:43 PM

It is interesting how much Shakespeare avoids the issue, but it probably would have been widely acknowledges that Richard was, at least, partially responsible for the death of Gloucester. The second scene reveals this a little, but the play doesn't dwell on the fact much at all.
I think there was not enough evidence to condemn the King, but I think Shakespeare wanted to keep this in the minds of the audience. I think it adds to the justification for Richard's dethrownment, but given that historically it was not a point of contention he could not overtly dramatise it. He had to follow history to some degree.

I think this may have something to do with the way the history plays love to include twisted and complex backstories, so that the outcome of the play depends on how the characters spin what has happened. We, the audience, and all the characters in this play could see the King as being entirely responsible for his own demise, or we could also see Bolingbroke as a ruthless aggressor--it all depends on perspective.
Which plays are those? I've read Richard II, Richard III, Henry IV Parts 1 &2 and Henry V and I don't think Shakespeare was hedging his bets on who the audience should favor. I think he was quite explicit.

yes! but the lack of facts makes it a bit confusing because we (or at least I ;)) can't understaand why Richard if he doesn't know anything about the murder would send Mowbray into exile for life.... But anyway, I agree with you when you say:

I think it's because you're reading the words and not seeing the action played out. Here's a video of the scene and Derek Jacobi and the actor who plays Mawbray project hidden secrets in the way they act it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFkz9GrzJj0&feature=related

On another issue, I've noted (or rather the footnotes of my book have noted for me :p) that there are a few biblical references. As I've said before, I'm a Shakespeare illiterate and was wondering if this was a common thing in his plays...?

For example: scene 1, v 104-109:
Quote:

Which blood, like sacrificing Abel's, cries,
Even from the tongueless caverns of the earth,
To me for justice and rough chastisement;
And, by the glorious worth of my descent,
This arm shall do it, or this life be spent.

v 105 onwards is the the reformulation of the Bible:
Quote:

Genesis, 4.10
The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground.
This leads me into my analysis of Act 1 Scene 3. What I will say about that scene is that the fight is a ritualized ceremony and to some degree alludes to the central ceremony of Christianity, the re-enactment of Christ as sacrifice at Sunday mass. Richard II on one level is a sacrificial being.

Quark

02-26-2009, 11:24 PM

I think there was not enough evidence to condemn the King

Gaunt actually makes it pretty clear that Richard did have a hand in Gloucester's death. I posted a bit of scene ii just before you posted. If you look back at that, Gaunt seems to believe that Richard is guilty. The contemporary understanding is also that Richard had Gloucester killed while he was in prison. Most likely, Shakespeare's audience would have been aware of this.

but I think Shakespeare wanted to keep this in the minds of the audience. I think it adds to the justification for Richard's dethrownment, but given that historically it was not a point of contention he could not overtly dramatise it. He had to follow history to some degree.

It does make us question Richard more. He comes off rather hypocritical in this scene, since he's punishing Mowbray for a crime that he himself was involved in. I was just noticing that Shakespeare lets this play in the background, and one would expect that it would be quite central.

Which plays are those? I've read Richard II, Richard III, Henry IV Parts 1 &2 and Henry V and I don't think Shakespeare was hedging his bets on who the audience should favor. I think he was quite explicit.

You're right that our sympathies are almost always directed one way or another, but it's not always certain what the situation actually is. Much of it depends on how the characters' pasts are viewed. Take some of those you brought up. In Richard III, clearly the title character is not the one the audience is pulling for, but we are not exactly sure what to make of the current rulers (particularly the queen) when the play begins. Shakespeare makes the Queen look like an upstart in the first Act of the play--so much so that he bends history to have Queen Margaret appear somewhere she couldn't possibly have been. The old Queen appears so that she can rail at the new royalty. This complicates matters. Since the play is all about Richmond taking over and restoring order and benevolence to the English throne, complicating the relationship between Richard III and the rulers of Act I helps build up the demand for Richmond's arrival. Similarly, in Richard II, so much of which is a character sketch of a poor King, it helps if Richard's faults are minimized (but not entirely overlooked) early on so that the audience can watch as he becomes slowly less and less kinglike. In this way our perspective of the past is manipulated to show off Richard's character--and also the power which Richard wields. You're right that there isn't anything ambiguous about this, but at the same time I would say that Shakespeare is not being entirely direct about what is going on here. And, he's avoiding a certain part of the history for a reason.

Virgil

02-26-2009, 11:26 PM

Ok, Act 1, Scene 3. The scene is a ritualized ceremony. Look at how it opens:

SCENE III. The lists at Coventry.

Enter the Lord Marshal and the DUKE OF AUMERLE
Lord Marshal
My Lord Aumerle, is Harry Hereford arm'd?

DUKE OF AUMERLE
Yea, at all points; and longs to enter in.

Lord Marshal
The Duke of Norfolk, sprightfully and bold,
Stays but the summons of the appellant's trumpet.

DUKE OF AUMERLE
Why, then, the champions are prepared, and stay
For nothing but his majesty's approach.

The trumpets sound, and KING RICHARD enters with his nobles, JOHN OF GAUNT, BUSHY, BAGOT, GREEN, and others. When they are set, enter THOMAS MOWBRAY in arms, defendant, with a Herald

KING RICHARD II
Marshal, demand of yonder champion
The cause of his arrival here in arms:
Ask him his name and orderly proceed
To swear him in the justice of his cause.
A Marshall summons the combatants, trumpets sound, and the King demands the cause, even though he's the one who set it up in scene 1. Then he says to ask their names (of course he knows who is fighting) and to "orderly proceed" and to swear to justice. This is a formal ritual which the King and everyone attending are enacting. And so the ritual proceeds:

Lord Marshal
What is thy name? and wherefore comest thou hither,
Before King Richard in his royal lists?
Against whom comest thou? and what's thy quarrel?
Speak like a true knight, so defend thee heaven!

HENRY BOLINGBROKE
Harry of Hereford, Lancaster and Derby
Am I; who ready here do stand in arms,
To prove, by God's grace and my body's valour,
In lists, on Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk,
That he is a traitor, foul and dangerous,
To God of heaven, King Richard and to me;
And as I truly fight, defend me heaven!

Lord Marshal
On pain of death, no person be so bold
Or daring-hardy as to touch the lists,
Except the marshal and such officers
Appointed to direct these fair designs.

HENRY BOLINGBROKE
Lord marshal, let me kiss my sovereign's hand,
And bow my knee before his majesty:
For Mowbray and myself are like two men
That vow a long and weary pilgrimage;
Then let us take a ceremonious leave
And loving farewell of our several friends.

Lord Marshal
The appellant in all duty greets your highness,
And craves to kiss your hand and take his leave.

KING RICHARD II
We will descend and fold him in our arms.
Cousin of Hereford, as thy cause is right,
So be thy fortune in this royal fight!
Farewell, my blood; which if to-day thou shed,
Lament we may, but not revenge thee dead.
The Marshal stipulates "on pain of death"
that only he and the King an direct the fight, the kissing of the soverign's hand, the very acct of decided right by fighting - all these are ritual actions. And notice what Richard says in that last quote: "Farewell, my blood; which if to-day thou shed,/Lament we may, but not revenge thee dead." My goodness doesn't that echo Christ's words at the last supper? And then after some dialogue, the ritual continues:

KING RICHARD II
Farewell, my lord: securely I espy
Virtue with valour couched in thine eye.
Order the trial, marshal, and begin.

Lord Marshal
Harry of Hereford, Lancaster and Derby,
Receive thy lance; and God defend the right!

HENRY BOLINGBROKE
Strong as a tower in hope, I cry amen.

Lord Marshal
Go bear this lance to Thomas, Duke of Norfolk.

First Herald
Harry of Hereford, Lancaster and Derby,
Stands here for God, his sovereign and himself,
On pain to be found false and recreant,
To prove the Duke of Norfolk, Thomas Mowbray,
A traitor to his God, his king and him;
And dares him to set forward to the fight.

Second Herald
Here standeth Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk,
On pain to be found false and recreant,
Both to defend himself and to approve
Henry of Hereford, Lancaster, and Derby,
To God, his sovereign and to him disloyal;
Courageously and with a free desire
Attending but the signal to begin.
The ceremony becomes more elaborate, heralds speak for each combatant, and the fight is imminent. Trumpets sound and they are about to charge and then the King stops the ceremony:

Lord Marshal
Sound, trumpets; and set forward, combatants.

A charge sounded

Stay, the king hath thrown his warder down.

KING RICHARD II
Let them lay by their helmets and their spears,
And both return back to their chairs again:
Withdraw with us: and let the trumpets sound
While we return these dukes what we decree.

A long flourish

Draw near,
And list what with our council we have done.
For that our kingdom's earth should not be soil'd
With that dear blood which it hath fostered;
And for our eyes do hate the dire aspect
Of civil wounds plough'd up with neighbours' sword;
And for we think the eagle-winged pride
Of sky-aspiring and ambitious thoughts,
With rival-hating envy, set on you
To wake our peace, which in our country's cradle
Draws the sweet infant breath of gentle sleep;
Which so roused up with boisterous untuned drums,
With harsh resounding trumpets' dreadful bray,
And grating shock of wrathful iron arms,
Might from our quiet confines fright fair peace
And make us wade even in our kindred's blood,
Therefore, we banish you our territories:
You, cousin Hereford, upon pain of life,
Till twice five summers have enrich'd our fields
Shall not regreet our fair dominions,
But tread the stranger paths of banishment.
The King changes his mind and instead of a ritualistic fight decides on simple banishment. Why? He cannot carry out the ceremony. He is incapable. In Roman Catholicism a priest is endowed with the capability to transform bread and wine to the body and blood of Christ through the ritualized ceremony of transubstantiation. Only he has such power. Here the King has the power through this ritual to have the two men shed blood to resolve the conflict that will cleanse the kingdom of its sin. It will be a new day, a forgotten of past sin once one of the combatants die. But the King aborts the ceremony and therefore leaving the sin to fester and justifying his dethrownment. A prest is endowed by God for his power of transubstantiation; the King is endowed by God to have divine right of rule. If he can't carry out the power of ritual the justification of divine right disappears.

Janine

02-26-2009, 11:27 PM

I think there was not enough evidence to condemn the King, but I think Shakespeare wanted to keep this in the minds of the audience. I think it adds to the justification for Richard's dethrownment, but given that historically it was not a point of contention he could not overtly dramatise it. He had to follow history to some degree.

I am kind of jumping in here, hope you don't mind, V. I know you directed your post to several others; they can answer it, too. I think you may be right, Virgil. From what I have observed often the Queen herself would attend these plays and I think Shakespeare had to strike a sort of compromise, in order to present some of the actual facts, yet see how far he could bend them to create a hightened sense of drama in his plays. At that time I think the audience would have been aware of the actual history, especially the Queen and court, so I think he was justified in basing the plays on history but perhaps playing down some aspects of the plays for his own plot structures.

Which plays are those? I've read Richard II, Richard III, Henry IV Parts 1 &2 and Henry V and I don't think Shakespeare was hedging his bets on who the audience should favor. I think he was quite explicit.

Virgil,I read all those too, plus King John and Henry VI...I never got to Henry VIII, mostly because I was so familiar with his story already. I loved the history plays but it has been awhile since I read them, maybe about 2 yrs. I wish I had been engaged in a discussion group then; that would have been great.

Which way you see Shakespeare as being explicit in the audience's favor?

I think it's because you're reading the words and not seeing the action played out. Here's a video of the scene and Derek Jacobi and the actor who plays Mawbray project hidden secrets in the way they act it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFkz9GrzJj0&feature=related

I agree with Virgil on this point. I have been watching this same play and then I read the first couple scenes and I think watching I am getting way more out of the play by the inflections and tones and expressions of the characters. This version is excellent. I am watching the same Derek Jacobi version by the BBC, thanks to a generous friend who lent it to me. I also recently viewed on Youtube another version, with a woman actor playing Richard. In watching a commentary and interview on that version, I got an entirely different bend to the play's interpretation; this lead me to believe this play could perhaps be interpreted in different ways, depending on how it is played out on the stage.

This leads me into my analysis of Act 1 Scene 3. What I will say about that scene is that the fight is a ritualized ceremony and to some degree alludes to the central ceremony of Christianity, the re-enactment of Christ as sacrifice at Sunday mass. Richard II on one level is a sacrificial being.

That is an interesting. I have to consider this more clearly while reading through those exact passages again. I do think that Richard is a sacrifice, in order for Henry to acquire the throne; it just had to be that way, with the outcome as his death to finalize all for Henry. Much later on in "Henry V", Henry, the son, prays in the night camp and brings up the fact to God, that he has 'built two chantries to the memory of Richard" to atone for his father's wrong doing towards Richard.

Quote by Quark

It does make us question Richard more. He comes off rather hypocritical in this scene, since he's punishing Mowbray for a crime that he himself was involved in. I was just noticing that Shakespeare lets this play in the background, and one would expect that it would be quite central.

I only wanted to comment now on this part of your post, Quark.

That might explain why he is puts the heavier judgement on Mowbray; perhaps he can't wait to get him out of his sight; because he would be a threat to Richard directly, in exposing the truth about taking part in the death of Gloucester. Also, Mowbray may mirror the evil in Richard, this part of himself that made him take part or instigate Gloucester's death. In this way, it is as if Richard cannot really tolerate himself, while looking on a fellow conspirator. I kept wondering why he banished Mowbray for life and Henry only for a space of so many years. He is either contradicting his own admission that the court and he, as King, was imparial, even though he is linked in blood to Henry or he is looking to his own self-interest entirely. I tend to think it the second reason. I think, even though Richard is a weak king he is very crafty as well. This also might explain why he so abruptly stops the challenge and then banishes both contenders. It seems to me now to have been deliberate to lead them up to the very point of challenge and then pull something so strange. The shock of it was quite dramatic and to benefit Richard and glorify him as a peace-keeper; however in the next scene he expresses just the opposite in waging war with Ireland. This banishment is strange though in another way; doesn't Richard realise the threat that Henry poses to his crown, especially if he does leave and then gathers his own army to come overthrough Richard? Perhaps Richard is so full of himself he cannot believe he could be overthrown by his cousin.

I am going now to watch more of the play; getting late.

Quark

02-26-2009, 11:27 PM

Ha, you keep posting over me Virgil.

Virgil

02-26-2009, 11:56 PM

Gaunt actually makes it pretty clear that Richard did have a hand in Gloucester's death. I posted a bit of scene ii just before you posted. If you look back at that, Gaunt seems to believe that Richard is guilty. The contemporary understanding is also that Richard had Gloucester killed while he was in prison. Most likely, Shakespeare's audience would have been aware of this.

Yes, but that isn't evidence. This is hearsay. To charge a King you pretty much have to catch him in the act.

You're right that our sympathies are almost always directed one way or another, but it's not always certain what the situation actually is. Much of it depends on how the characters' pasts are viewed. Take some of those you brought up. In Richard III, clearly the title character is not the one the audience is pulling for, but we are not exactly sure what to make of the current rulers (particularly the queen) when the play begins. Shakespeare makes the Queen look like an upstart in the first Act of the play--so much so that he bends history to have Queen Margaret appear somewhere she couldn't possibly have been. The old Queen appears so that she can rail at the new royalty. This complicates matters. Since the play is all about Richmond taking over and restoring order and benevolence to the English throne, complicating the relationship between Richard III and the rulers of Act I helps build up the demand for Richmond's arrival. Similarly, in Richard II, so much of which is a character sketch of a poor King, it helps if Richard's faults are minimized (but not entirely overlooked) early on so that the audience can watch as he becomes slowly less and less kinglike. In this way our perspective of the past is manipulated to show off Richard's character--and also the power which Richard wields. You're right that there isn't anything ambiguous about this, but at the same time I would say that Shakespeare is not being entirely direct about what is going on here. And, he's avoiding a certain part of the history for a reason.
Hmm, ok, but I think in the cases you are siting Shakespeare is creating a sense of suspense as to what is going to happen, but I do think he is clear as to with whom the moral arguments rests.

Virgil

02-27-2009, 12:05 AM

I am kind of jumping in here, hope you don't mind, V. I know you directed your post to several others; they can answer it, too.
Thanks Janine. I wasn't ignoring you, but responding to the others seemed more pressing.

I think you may be right, Virgil. From what I have observed often the Queen herself would attend these plays and I think Shakespeare had to strike a sort of compromise, in order to present some of the actual facts, yet see how far he could bend them to create a hightened sense of drama in his plays. At that time I think the audience would have been aware of the actual history, especially the Queen and court, so I think he was justified in basing the plays on history but perhaps playing down some aspects of the plays for his own plot structures.
I would agree with that.

Virgil,I read all those too, plus King John and Henry VI...I never got to Henry VIII, mostly because I was so familiar with his story already. I loved the history plays but it has been awhile since I read them, maybe about 2 yrs. I wish I had been engaged in a discussion group then; that would have been great.

Which way you see Shakespeare as being explicit in the audience's favor?
My point to Quark was that I don't think Shakespeare is that ambiguous with what his sympathies and his themes in the history plays. We'll have to take on each play to discuss them. I'm not capable of speaking of the details of each play without re-reading them.

That is an interesting. I have to consider this more clearly while reading through those exact passages again. I do think that Richard is a sacrifice, in order for Henry to acquire the throne; it just had to be that way, with the outcome as his death to finalize all for Henry. Much later on in "Henry V", Henry, the son, prays in the night camp and brings up the fact, to God himself, that he has 'built two chantries to the memory of Richard" to atone for his father's wrong doing towards Richard.
I think that the use of ceremony and ritual is critical to many of Shakespeare's plays. Read my post above as to how he uses it in this play. This is one of the reasons I have always felt that Shakespeare was a closet Catholic.

Quark

02-27-2009, 12:28 AM

Yes, but that isn't evidence. This is hearsay. To charge a King you pretty much have to catch him in the act.

You've set the bar pretty high for evidence, but I think I can come close. First, it seems like scholars have concluded that Shakespeare worked from either the Hall or Hollinshed's histories to construct these plays. In their histories, Richard appears almost as a murderer. Most likely, Richard didn't kill the man himself, but he probably did direct someone else to do it. Also, Gaunt doesn't just divulge this information to the Duchess. He repeats it to Richard himself: "O had thy grandsire with a prophet's eye/ Seen how his son's son should destroy his sons" (II, i. 104-05). He says this in a speech which includes a few other prescient observations, and it seems unlikely that Shakespeare would slip a falsehood in with a speech which is supposed to be revealing of what's to come.

Hmm, ok, but I think in the cases you are siting Shakespeare is creating a sense of suspense as to what is going to happen, but I do think he is clear as to with whom the moral arguments rests.

Yeah, I didn't think what I was saying was that controversial. Is anyone really surprised he's perhaps downplaying some things and overplaying others to make the story better?

My point to Quark was that I don't think Shakespeare is that ambiguous with what his sympathies and his themes in the history plays

Right, I just said that Shakespeare is clearly directing our sympathies to one side or another, and that he isn't being ambiguous.

lugdunum

02-27-2009, 03:52 AM

First, it seems like scholars have concluded that Shakespeare worked from either the Hall or Hollinshed's histories to construct these plays. In their histories, Richard appears almost as a murderer. Most likely, Richard didn't kill the man himself, but he probably did direct someone else to do it.

yes, I've read that too. And if I'm not mistaken, according to Hollinshed's history, it was R. who told Mowbray to kill Gloucester. Mowbray refused at irst and R. had to threaten him to do it. I'll look more into that later.

Thanks Virgil for the link to the video, Im sure it will be both helpful and entertaining. I'll watch that this week end.

Janine

02-27-2009, 07:27 PM

In watching my DVD, I got up to the part where Richard is getting ready to hand over his crown to Bollingbroke. Does anyone know what scene this is and in which act? In my reading, I am still pretty far behind.

Quark

03-01-2009, 01:23 PM

Here's a video of the scene and Derek Jacobi and the actor who plays Mawbray project hidden secrets in the way they act it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFkz9GrzJj0&feature=related

Thanks for the link, Virgil. I'll have to take a look at some of the performances.

In watching my DVD, I got up to the part where Richard is getting ready to hand over his crown to Bollingbroke. Does anyone know what scene this is and in which act? In my reading, I am still pretty far behind.

I'm sure you're past this by now, but I think he hands over the crown in Act IV. It's toward the beginning--probably the first scene.

lugdunum

03-02-2009, 06:06 AM

I was going to watch the video this week end but then figured would read the whole play first. Am halfway through Act III.
BTW I am really enjoying this play!

Janine

03-02-2009, 04:07 PM

Thanks for the link, Virgil. I'll have to take a look at some of the performances.

I'm sure you're past this by now, but I think he hands over the crown in Act IV. It's toward the beginning--probably the first scene.

Ok, good, I am getting there then. I had the DVD running the other day on my computer, while I was doing household chores: I listened again to parts I had already viewed. I will watch some more tonight. I don't usually drag viewings out like this but I don't find this play so easily comprehended, as far as the text is concerned. I understand that, most or all, of this particular play has been written in the higher style of English; if you notice, there is not much humor or lower class peasant life in the play; I haven't encountered any so far...the play deals mainly with the court. Some of the other history plays do feature characters from the lower classes and so they add humor and pathos and they speak in the dialect of the lower classes. In this play, I notice much more poetry and formal language, especially rhyming. I think this makes this play's text a little harder to understand fully. It needs a few readings.

My reading is a still a bit behind my viewing; everytime I start to read I get in about 2 pages and fall asleep; I think I have 'winteritis'. I read up to Gaunt dying last night. I thought that Richard was really mean and cold to poor Gaunt in his last moments. Also, he makes the remark that his physician should aid him to death. In essense, then he is murdering him off, right (?) so he can cease his 'gold lined coffer' and his lands - nice guy Richard is.:( Immediately after he hears of Gaunt's death, he shows no remorse and instead sort of jokes and then turns his sites to the rebels in Ireland. Is Richard showing his true colors now? I was a little confused as to why he was so unfeeling about old Gaunt. Then it brings up the thought to me as to why he so suddenly banished the two men feuding, especially Bollingbroke. I can see he wanted him totally out of the picture. Didn't Bollingbroke, from the start, pose a direct thread to Richard's throne?

Hope all this makes some sense. You would think, my being on my second reading, I would understand this play a little better than I feel I do.

Quark

03-03-2009, 12:06 AM

Ok, good, I am getting there then. I had the DVD running the other day on my computer, while I was doing household chores: I listened again to parts I had already viewed. I will watch some more tonight.

Which version of the play are you watching? Is it anything good?

In this play, I notice much more poetry and formal language, especially rhyming. I think this makes this play's text a little harder to understand fully. It needs a few readings.

Oh, that's funny. I'm actually having an easier time with the formal, refined speech of Shakespeare's kings than I usually do with his comic characters. The lower-class farce and upper-class repartee are usually jammed with so many Renaissance colloquialisms and odd, witty constructions that I find myself reading more footnote than dialogue.

I thought that Richard was really mean and cold to poor Gaunt in his last moments. Also, he makes the remark that his physician should aid him to death. In essense, then he is murdering him off, right (?) so he can cease his 'gold lined coffer' and his lands - nice guy Richard is.:( Immediately after he hears of Gaunt's death, he shows no remorse and instead sort of jokes and then turns his sites to the rebels in Ireland. Is Richard showing his true colors now?

I think Shakespeare is trying to expose Richard's faults, and make Bullingbrook look better in this scene. The line you refer to is not just evil-sounding in itself. It's made even more disgusting by the comparison being drawn between Richard and Bullingbrook. Right before saying that he wishes Gaunt dead, he acknowledges Bullingbrook's popularity with the people. Unlike Richard, Bullingbrook curries favors with the crowd by showing sympathy. The king, however, looks down on them contemptuously and uses his power to levy taxes. Not only is Richard despicable in this moment because he eagerly anticipates Gaunt's death, but he looks even worse next to the depiction of the kind-hearted Bullingbrook.

To me, though, this is a little over-the-top. I think we could have gotten the idea without portraying Richard in such a negative light.

Then it brings up the thought to me as to why he so suddenly banished the two men feuding, especially Bollingbroke. I can see he wanted him totally out of the picture. Didn't Bollingbroke, from the start, pose a direct thread to Richard's throne?

I wonder about this, too. Reading this again, I'm noticing a lot more subtext in the first act that I didn't notice the first time through. Richard isn't acting as just a peacekeeper in these early scenes. The subtext seems to imply that he's really just protecting himself, and, since he's got the throne, no one is going to challenge him about it.

Janine

03-03-2009, 02:25 AM

Which version of the play are you watching? Is it anything good?

Quark, it is the BBC & Time-Life version; comes in Shakespeare sets; you can purchase them on Amazon. A very good friend lend me his History play set; it's very nice. This play is fantastic! I finished viewing it tonight. It stars Derek Jacobi as Richard II; you can't get a better performance than that. He was truly phenomenal. I was spellbound in some of the scenes - very intense. I am not sure of the other actor's names, but the guy who played Henry was quite good, as well. It followed the text explicitly I believe. I had to watch it on my computer, so I took in it in installments; would have been better in one sitting, although it was quite long. My DVD player is not playing right, so I just ordered a new one.

Oh, that's funny. I'm actually having an easier time with the formal, refined speech of Shakespeare's kings than I usually do with his comic characters. The lower-class farce and upper-class repartee are usually jammed with so many Renaissance colloquialisms and odd, witty constructions that I find myself reading more footnote than dialogue.

That is true, but I have encountered less formal text than in this play; it seems there is a lot of formality since it mostly all takes place at court. I didn't necessarily mean the peasants verses the court speech (although I did say that) - that contrast is a little extreme. If you read other plays such as Hamlet, Othello, or even some of the other history plays, I feel there is less court speech, less formality, even though they were royalty or high of birth or subjects to the king. An example would have been Henry V. I even find Hamlet less flowery than Richard II. I guess it is more the embellishments and high poetry, I am pointing to. I find that makes it harder to understand. Richard is a great one for embellishing his speech. He is rather flamboyant in this production that I have been watching; then when he is imprisoned, he is more intensely intraverted and reflective. He seems to go through many stages, emotions, attitudes, etc...I am still not sure exactly what to make of him.

I think Shakespeare is trying to expose Richard's faults, and make Bullingbrook look better in this scene. The line you refer to is not just evil-sounding in itself. It's made even more disgusting by the comparison being drawn between Richard and Bullingbrook. Right before saying that he wishes Gaunt dead, he acknowledges Bullingbrook's popularity with the people. Unlike Richard, Bullingbrook curries favors with the crowd by showing sympathy. The king, however, looks down on them contemptuously and uses his power to levy taxes. Not only is Richard despicable in this moment because he eagerly anticipates Gaunt's death, but he looks even worse next to the depiction of the kind-hearted Bullingbrook.

Exactly. I have to admit my sympathies keep turning to Bollingbroke. I can't muster up a lot of sympathy for Richard. I feel he brought a lot of this on himself and even to the end he does not admit it. He would not read the offenses after handing over his crown. He did not hand it over willingly at first, as I thought he vowed he would; he made a grand show of it. He seemed to make a real exhibition of his emotions and it felt a bit dramatic and overdone to me. I understand about the 'divine right of kings' and how he felt; how totally crushed he was to relinquish the crown and his title; he knows nothing else and he is broken at the end. I think he was more crushed though to give up his power to Bollingbroke; he has been very much into the pomp and ceremony of his office. Richard was not a good king in my eyes; he seemed weak and lacking and even cruel and crafty. I really can't say I liked him very much thoughout the play. I tried to find some sympathy for him, because I do think he is a complex character, but I admit I really didn't feel a lot for him in the end. Maybe I am looking at it from the wrong perspective. Are we suppose to feel sympathy for him?

To me, though, this is a little over-the-top. I think we could have gotten the idea without portraying Richard in such a negative light.

Perhaps. Was the historic Richard like this? I am a little confused still about this play and will probably play it over again and just listen to it. I am still reading the text, also. I must admit it is not my favorite of the history plays. I find it 'problematic' in some respects. Maybe, I just don't understand it fully.

I wonder about this, too. Reading this again, I'm noticing a lot more subtext in the first act that I didn't notice the first time through. Richard isn't acting as just a peacekeeper in these early scenes. The subtext seems to imply that he's really just protecting himself, and, since he's got the throne, no one is going to challenge him about it.

That is how I am viewing it. I don't think he is just being a nice guy here, a peacemaker. Something seemed 'off' to me from the beginning. I kept mistrusting his motifs. He seemed a rather self-centered and I thought he is really looking out for himself; I especially thought it when he suddenly banished the two men. That seemed too unreal to me, to come from someone with a sense of fairness; it contadicted his first display of benevolence. He wanted them both out of his way, I believe. When you view the play being staged, you can see these subtlies in the expressions and attitudes of the actors; now that may be only one interpretation, but Shakespeare leaves it open for the actors, since he does not say how they are expressing themselves within the play form. If it were a screenplay, it would state that, but this is rudimentary and simplified, so you have to decide on how the subtext would play out within each character.

Janine

03-07-2009, 02:53 AM

Hello hello, where is everyone? What happened to our discussion? I finished watching the play a week ago now. I hope someone answers my post above soon.

Virgil

03-07-2009, 09:50 AM

Hello hello, where is everyone? What happened to our discussion? I finished watching the play a week ago now. I hope someone answers my post above soon.

Janine I posted in Act II.

Quark

03-07-2009, 11:45 AM

where is everyone?

Sorry to suddenly leave like that, but I've had a lot of papers to grade recently. I do mean to post more, though. After all, we haven't even gotten out of Act II yet. Although, has a LitNet Shakespeare discussion ever made it to Act V? We always seem to exhaust ourselves with the first act. Anyway, there still is more to talk about--and I'll go post something in Act V just so we can say we got to the end.

I hope someone answers my post above soon.

I'm having my parents over this afternoon, but after that I can respond.

Janine I posted in Act II.

Oh, good, we're out of Act I.

Virgil

03-07-2009, 03:01 PM

Sorry to suddenly leave like that, but I've had a lot of papers to grade recently. I do mean to post more, though. After all, we haven't even gotten out of Act II yet. Although, has a LitNet Shakespeare discussion ever made it to Act V? We always seem to exhaust ourselves with the first act. Anyway, there still is more to talk about--and I'll go post something in Act V just so we can say we got to the end.

I think I've posted to Act V in all the Shakespeare discussions. You're the one who disappears. :D :p

Quark

03-07-2009, 04:57 PM

You're the one who disappears. :D :p

Ouch, Virgil.

But when have I disappeared? The Winter's Tale discussion is the only other one I've been in, and I don't remember abandoning it. In fact, my post in the Act IV thread was the last one in the discussion. I asked if there was still interest in the play, and no one answered. We never made it to Act V. From what I've seen, that isn't uncommon either. The Act I threads always have the most posts and then the following threads seem to have less and less. I'm not saying that's anyone's fault--or that it's even a bad thing--it just seems to happen a lot.

Quark, it is the BBC & Time-Life version; comes in Shakespeare sets

Is that the one they made in the late seventies? I think I saw that one somewhere on youtube recently. The acting is mostly good in that version, but the costumes always make me laugh. Are they wearing upholstery? I swear they made Richard's robes from my old couch.

I am not sure of the other actor's names, but the guy who played Henry was quite good, as well.

If it's the one I'm thinking of, I completely agree. He plays the part well. It's a little tough acting indignant and hot-headed without losing the audience.

My DVD player is not playing right, so I just ordered a new one.

I'm starting to think that you and electronics just don't mix. You're always negotiating some problem or another with an appliance. Of course, I probably shouldn't talk--my computer went into an endless reboot cycle last semester and I almost lost a crushing amount of work and money. Luckily, it was just a problem with a battery in the hard drive, though.

I guess it is more the embellishments and high poetry, I am pointing to. I find that makes it harder to understand. Richard is a great one for embellishing his speech. He is rather flamboyant in this production that I have been watching; then when he is imprisoned, he is more intensely intraverted and reflective. He seems to go through many stages, emotions, attitudes, etc...I am still not sure exactly what to make of him.

True, and I think there's more long speeches in this play than in others. I suppose those take a little more work than the lighter back-and-forths in other plays.

As for Richard, I think there's much us like him in the early scenes, but as the play goes forward we find ourselves much more sympathetic toward him. How could we not? He loses his kingdom, friends, and even his life. It's hard not to see him as a victim in all of this--even if he did bring it upon himself. One feels the punishment outweighs the crime. Also, Richard seems to reform as the play goes on. By Act V, he's shed all his timidity and self-importance.

Perhaps. Was the historic Richard like this?

I'm not entirely sure, but the histories that Shakespeare is believed to have used do not paint Richard in a flattering way.

That is how I am viewing it. I don't think he is just being a nice guy here, a peacemaker.

I agree. Even though it isn't explicitly said in Act I (as it is in Act II), Richard's seems to be acting out of self-interest.

Janine

03-08-2009, 12:12 PM

Ouch, Virgil.

But when have I disappeared? The Winter's Tale discussion is the only other one I've been in, and I don't remember abandoning it. In fact, my post in the Act IV thread was the last one in the discussion. I asked if there was still interest in the play, and no one answered. We never made it to Act V. From what I've seen, that isn't uncommon either. The Act I threads always have the most posts and then the following threads seem to have less and less. I'm not saying that's anyone's fault--or that it's even a bad thing--it just seems to happen a lot.

That's right, Quark, give him hell! :lol: I remember you popping in towards the end. I think I was the one who couldn't find the sticky threads and must have trailed off on that one. Quite honestly I did not know now we had moved onto another sticky with Act II. I always seem to be trailing behind. I found the thread last night so I will be over there after answering your post here.

Is that the one they made in the late seventies? I think I saw that one somewhere on youtube recently. The acting is mostly good in that version, but the costumes always make me laugh. Are they wearing upholstery? I swear they made Richard's robes from my old couch.

I guess that is about right. I agree about the clothing. I wanted to get hysterical a few times concerning Richard's gowns and robes; his hairdo was something else too. I am wondering if they were purposely making him look feminine since on Youtube I saw another version wherein a woman actor plays the role. They talked about how it was something like a love affair between Henry and Richard. That sounds weird but really the commentary was interesting. I will have to find the videos and send them to you. I don't know though...Jacobi looked pretty silly in some of the scenes with those ruffles aroung his neckline...that is a good one upholstery! Maybe it was your old couch. Jacobi seemed to thoroughly enjoy the role of being feminine; actually the actor in real life is gay indeed, so I read. It did not surprise me. Another part actually did crack me up; the part where the herald is announcing formally the two opponets of the joust. He goes on and on and I wondered if that part of Shakespeares play was actually suppose to come off humorously. At anyrate in this rendition it was so dramatized that it was truly laughable.

If it's the one I'm thinking of, I completely agree. He plays the part well. It's a little tough acting indignant and hot-headed without losing the audience.

Now as a contrast Henry is dressed very manly and has a dark accountance whereas Richard is light and soft looking. Henry is very strong looking in this video and wears black as well - usually knight's/warrior's type clothing. Therefore he comes off as very important and kingly. Richard never does actually look kingly; maybe he looks queenly, but not truly kingly.

I'm starting to think that you and electronics just don't mix. You're always negotiating some problem or another with an appliance. Of course, I probably shouldn't talk--my computer went into an endless reboot cycle last semester and I almost lost a crushing amount of work and money. Luckily, it was just a problem with a battery in the hard drive, though.

Haha....I just need a good tech advisor and good equipment. Now this new computer works for me like a dream. I have no problems and thank God I have not messed anything up the computer; I only need to iron out one thing and that is reinstalling the program to my 3 in one printer - the scanner software is still missing. I back up files regularly and do all the maintance on schedule on this computer; keeping it running smoothly. My last computer my son gave me; it had been his; he had built it and it was way too inefficiewnt from the start. There was the problem right off. One does need good equipment. I will have you know I even took it appart to try and take out the hard drive to have the stuff taken off by a tech. I got it halfway out of the tower and I didn't have the right tools to unlodge the screws on holding it in; so I had to drag the whole tower to the store.

No, the other problem is my DVD player for my TV system; this is completely asside from my computer. It's one of those upconverting dual players. You would think it would work fine, since it is the same brand as the TV; but forget it. I read others had trouble with this same unit online; so I am not alone. Since I opted to buy a simplier play for way less money and not upconverting but progressive scan, I now have to hook up everything all over again - that is not my forte; it is my son's, but he is always too busy. Problem with me is that I just procrastinate way too much.

True, and I think there's more long speeches in this play than in others. I suppose those take a little more work than the lighter back-and-forths in other plays.

Exactly. Richard has a lot of flowery and high-minded speeches, too.

As for Richard, I think there's much us like him in the early scenes, but as the play goes forward we find ourselves much more sympathetic toward him. How could we not? He loses his kingdom, friends, and even his life. It's hard not to see him as a victim in all of this--even if he did bring it upon himself. One feels the punishment outweighs the crime. Also, Richard seems to reform as the play goes on. By Act V, he's shed all his timidity and self-importance.

You mean, don't like him in the early scenes? I agree but I have to say I don't think I personally ever really warmed up to him even in his times of distress. Maybe I am missing something or I am just hard nosed about it. I could not completely connect with his character for some reason. Did he shed all his self-importance by Act V? I might agree about his timidiy but not sure about self-importance; even in his dying words he seemed to feel he was great and going to his just award. Richard always seemed a little too self-righteous to me; but maybe that is just how I perceived it.

I'm not entirely sure, but the histories that Shakespeare is believed to have used do not paint Richard in a flattering way.

I agree with that.

I agree. Even though it isn't explicitly said in Act I (as it is in Act II), Richard's seems to be acting out of self-interest.

At least that is how I saw it on my second viewing of that scene and then my own reading to back it up.

Quark

03-08-2009, 04:58 PM

Quite honestly I did not know now we had moved onto another sticky with Act II. I always seem to be trailing behind. I found the thread last night so I will be over there after answering your post here.

I think Scher started a thread for all five Acts when the discussion started. I'm not sure if she does it that with every play, but this time it was pretty immediate. Right now, we're only up to Act II so you haven't missed much. Virgil and I started talking about some of Gaunt's speeches in scene i., which I have to say are some of the highlights of the play. Also, lugdunum and mayneverhave brought up questions about Duke of York and his role in the action.

I am wondering if they were purposely making him look feminine since on Youtube I saw another version wherein a woman actor plays the role. They talked about how it was something like a love affair between Henry and Richard. That sounds weird but really the commentary was interesting. I will have to find the videos and send them to you.

Yeah, I've heard that many consider Richard to be sort of effeminate. I don't know if I see it that way exactly, but that's certainly a common reading of his character.

He goes on and on and I wondered if that part of Shakespeares play was actually suppose to come off humorously. At anyrate in this rendition it was so dramatized that it was truly laughable.

Some people just get carried away with Shakespeare, I guess.

Now as a contrast Henry is dressed very manly and has a dark accountance whereas Richard is light and soft looking. Henry is very strong looking in this video and wears black as well - usually knight's/warrior's type clothing. Therefore he comes off as very important and kingly.

That's a good observation. There is a contrast, but even Henry's shirt, frock, mantle, or whatever you want to call it looks funny. It's a dark color, sure, but the gold leaf pattern looks like it belongs on a throw pillow your great aunt would have with her furniture. I suppose that's just Renaissance fashion, though. It could be poor production value, but I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt. I think if we actually saw Henry and Richard walking around today it would produce giggles. After all, look at the paintings of Queen Elizabeth. Apparently she thought the only difference between monarch and wench is the number of layers you have on. In all fairness, though, the industrial revolution is probably what changed our view of clothes. Once cloth became cheap, most likely it stopped being an indicator of class, and we put an end to the robes and gold leaf pattern.

You mean, don't like him in the early scenes?

Yeah, disregard the nonsense in my original post. I meant that we don't like him in the early scenes.

Did he shed all his self-importance by Act V? I might agree about his timidiy but not sure about self-importance; even in his dying words he seemed to feel he was great and going to his just award. Richard always seemed a little too self-righteous to me; but maybe that is just how I perceived it.

I'll respond to this in the Act V thread. I jokingly suggested I would post in there before, but this seems like an actual reason to do so.

Janine

03-09-2009, 11:51 AM

I think Scher started a thread for all five Acts when the discussion started. I'm not sure if she does it that with every play, but this time it was pretty immediate. Right now, we're only up to Act II so you haven't missed much. Virgil and I started talking about some of Gaunt's speeches in scene i., which I have to say are some of the highlights of the play. Also, lugdunum and mayneverhave brought up questions about Duke of York and his role in the action.

Thanks Quark, by now I have found all of that and read most of that second thread. I read it quickly and will have to go back and concentrate on the discussion towards the end of the week. The first part of this week will be a little demanding; I have a lot of things concerning my family to attend to. Seems like I always get interrupted in these Shakespeare threads. It was probably me who dropped off from the last one, even though I really did wish to be in the discussion; my intentions are in the right place. I will come back later this week to try to comment to some extend in the second Act thread - ha -by then you all will probably be moved along to Act III.

Yeah, I've heard that many consider Richard to be sort of effeminate. I don't know if I see it that way exactly, but that's certainly a common reading of his character.

So you heard that, also? Of course seeing him dressed as he was in this play certainly confirmed the notion. I was wondering if I just listened to the audio if I would pick up on this idea as prominently.

Some people just get carried away with Shakespeare, I guess.
Haha - that is sooo true. I have heard some funny renditions of the same plays. One could hardly believe they are the same texts but they are. It all depends.

That's a good observation. There is a contrast, but even Henry's shirt, frock, mantle, or whatever you want to call it looks funny. It's a dark color, sure, but the gold leaf pattern looks like it belongs on a throw pillow your great aunt would have with her furniture. I suppose that's just Renaissance fashion, though. It could be poor production value, but I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt. I think if we actually saw Henry and Richard walking around today it would produce giggles. After all, look at the paintings of Queen Elizabeth. Apparently she thought the only difference between monarch and wench is the number of layers you have on. In all fairness, though, the industrial revolution is probably what changed our view of clothes. Once cloth became cheap, most likely it stopped being an indicator of class, and we put an end to the robes and gold leaf pattern.

Good commentary and ideas on my observation. Yes, set in the actual time period many of these BBS characters do look like they are wearing upholstery or other tableclothes. This is one reason I prefer Branagh's version of 'Hamlet'. One does not find the clothes silly and want to laugh at them. The costuming seems a bit more natural and closer to what we know, since it is set in the early part of the 20th Century and we can relate to that a little better than the blousy, heavy brocades and velvets, 'men in tighs' sort of deal of the earlier Shakespearan period. I love Jacobi's earlier BBC "Hamlet" as far as the acting is concerned, but I have to say the costuming is bit a corny; wonder who designs these barebone sets and costumes for the BBC? I guess they are on a limited budget. Zefferelli did a little better job with his Mel Gibson version of "Hamlet", but I find some of the costuming a little over-the-top; something about Claudius' robes annoys me. I think the costuming should add and not distract from the play. The herald in this BBC production was truly funny - he sounded so dramatic and as if he was shouting to a football team.

Yeah, disregard the nonsense in my original post. I meant that we don't like him in the early scenes.

Yeah, that is it. I'm still not sure I like him even by the end, but that is just me and my own feelings towards him and in viewing this one production. Maybe after completing my reading of the text I will feel differently.

I'll respond to this in the Act V thread. I jokingly suggested I would post in there before, but this seems like an actual reason to do so.

Ok, I can wait.

Quark

03-10-2009, 03:33 PM

I will come back later this week to try to comment to some extend in the second Act thread - ha -by then you all will probably be moved along to Act III.

There isn't any rush. The discussion isn't moving that fast right now. I can only write a little bit here and there, and Virgil and lugdunum are the only others posting regularly. I'm actually liking it this way, though. I don't think I could keep up with a thread like we had going with Lawrence in which there were a dozen posts a day.

The herald in this BBC production was truly funny - he sounded so dramatic and as if he was shouting to a football team.

That's hilarious. I'll have to go watch that part.

Yeah, that is it. I'm still not sure I like him even by the end, but that is just me and my own feelings towards him and in viewing this one production. Maybe after completing my reading of the text I will feel differently.

I responded to this in the Act V thread just now. I think it is a little difficult coming to a sure conclusion on this, but I tried. Act V scene v. I think is the best look into his character at the end, but the problem is that his first speech appears to go one way and his words after go another. Initially, he rejects his own royalty. Yet, when Exton kills him Richard shows that he still views himself as king. There are a few ways one can take this. I think it's that Richard does still see himself as king, but that his idea of kingship has changed. So, while he has given up his position, he has given up the self-importance that he used to associate with his rank. This is far from the only way to interpret his character, and I'm not even fully convinced it's the best. But, it is the one I was referring to when I said he shed his self-importance.