Printable View
Thanks for the link, Virgil. I'll have to take a look at some of the performances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
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.
Which version of the play are you watching? Is it anything good?Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
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.Quote:
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.
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?Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I'm having my parents over this afternoon, but after that I can respond.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Oh, good, we're out of Act I.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I think I've posted to Act V in all the Shakespeare discussions. You're the one who disappears. :D :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Quark
Ouch, Virgil.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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.
I'm not entirely sure, but the histories that Shakespeare is believed to have used do not paint Richard in a flattering way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
Exactly. Richard has a lot of flowery and high-minded speeches, too.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
I agree with that.Quote:
I'm not entirely sure, but the histories that Shakespeare is believed to have used do not paint Richard in a flattering way.
At least that is how I saw it on my second viewing of that scene and then my own reading to back it up.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Some people just get carried away with Shakespeare, I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Yeah, disregard the nonsense in my original post. I meant that we don't like him in the early scenes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Some people just get carried away with Shakespeare, I guess.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Yeah, disregard the nonsense in my original post. I meant that we don't like him in the early scenes.
Ok, I can wait.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
That's hilarious. I'll have to go watch that part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine