Robert H. Davis Interpretation Of Richard III

An Evaluation of Robert H. Davis' Interpretation of Richard III
By: Mr. Michael R. McCaffrey

This past Sunday, on October 20th around three o’clock in the afternoon, I had the pleasure to watch a play that was scripted into history centuries ago. Shakespeare left the world astounded during his time; through witty word play and perfected analogies he was eligible to infatuate not only the people of his time, but captivate those of more modern times today. These reenactments continue to be portrayed, I was lucky enough to be a participant of his Richard III play as depicted by Robert H. Davis, the director, that took place at the Roberts Theater in Hartford, Connecticut. A school renowned for its performing
arts, University of Hartford students along with other exceptional actors played roles that were once illustrated long ago. Since I was younger I was always more of a hands-on understanding person, and although my viewing of the play was mandatory, I found it more relatable and less abstract which furthered my overall perception of the performance because of the actors. These talented individuals worked together in order to depict one of time’s most reviewed masterpieces that have left audiences echoing its intriguing nature throughout history. To make a long story short, the audience is introduced to an England that has recently been reacquainted with peace.
A feud between two families, the house of York and the house of Lancaster finally come to a stalemate during the time of Edward IV's reign. However, Edward's brother, Richard, who has never been satisfied with the course of his life due to his physical deformities and lack of relationships in courting a wife has reached a peak of stress and strives for an authoritative position. He wishes to become king. A con-artist skilled in the areas of deviance and manipulation through his tongue, systematically kill the competition relating to the ladder of power which is overseen by the King. Richard goes to great lengths, so far that they include killing his brother. His intolerance to these acts and lack of remorse are displayed throughout the play, his actions result in grievance and pain of many others, one of which includes his older brother, King Edward. The King is currently sick and his illness grows stronger as the corruption increases. Past wars between the two families, York and Lancaster, are again fueled because of Richard's tactics that revolve around taking out Queen Elizabeth's side of the family. Eventually, the audience views the play from a different angle that corresponds to the people of the town. They grow fearful of Richard's power due to his bloody, power-hungered nature. Word of a challenger to Richard begin to tornado throughout the town, a
relative of the Lancaster family begin to herd members to create a force to overthrown the Lord Protector of England, Richard. The public expects and encourages this arrival of a threat to Richard; known as the earl of Richmond. Richard realizes his view in the eyes of England is deflating and in a flash decides that in order to receive gratuity from the people he must create an alliance or courtship with the young Elizabeth, or his niece. Eventually she secretly goes behind his back and promises to wed Richmond, this is the first time we see Richard losing control and foreshadows the remainder of the play. Finally, Richard has a dramatic dream where all of the people he sent to be murdered arrive as ghost and curse him of his nearby death which takes place the next morning. The ending scene, we find Richmond wed to Elizabeth, reuniting Lancaster and York and allowing the quarrel to end and peace to flourish. In the recent play I viewed, a straightforward and relatively direct translation was depicted.
Obviously, because of time management purposes, they truncated portions of the play however the major themes and motifs were still clearly identifiable. I originally was not looking forward to the play, I thought to myself, “I could be watching football.” However, I laughed at one point when I found my jaw dangling above the floor. Flabbergasted is the only word I can use to describe the actor, Andrew Mazer, the individual who played Richard. His unnatural, cynical walk along with his height corresponded directly toward my interpretation of Richard while reading the play, aside from the pirate hook of course. When enraged, his voice shook through the theater along with my bones. When trying to be sincere, his tongue slithered like a snake. I never realized how much assonance and consonance Shakespeare used in his plays but the imagery ceased to amaze me, until I heard it fluently expressed aloud. Another actress whose perception of her character was ideal was Queen Margaret, played by Emmaline Riley. Riley did a phenomenal job during the scene where she curses out Richard. Her black witch-like outfit further supported her characterization of being negative. Throughout her entire stage time, her grieving outlook on life is clearly shown multiple times. For example, her make-up running down her face symbolize the tears she once cried, along with her spastic movements conclude her
crazy behavior. Other depictions of characters that I felt were well portrayed by the actor was Clarence, his gentle behavior as seen by Jacob Grannan was spot on. The first scene we are introduced to Clarence his awkward and trusting behavior to his father was displayed. Through insecure movements and unconfident behavior the audience can decipher his affable personality. Previous to murder, he finds out his Richard has sent for him to be killed, the next scene we see a ghostly image of him with three stab wounds on his back with a face that demonstrates a melancholy vibe. Although all characters, I felt, did a professional job at performing an iconic play, one of my favorite characters was Prince Edward performed by Emily Wisser. Davis, the director, was a genius for having a girl play the role of a major male character. Back in Shakespeare's time, males played female roles. I felt like Davis was adding his own twist to the play by conflicting with Shakespearean tradition and having a female play a major male role. Aside from that, Prince Edward has a characteristic similar to female's in that naturally, their voices tend to be less deep in comparison toward that of men. Her witty word play was perfected simply through tone of voice and movements that could be relatable to that of Richard. All in all, the plays characterization of all characters was well supported and further complimented the overall ideology of genuine reproduction toward the original Shakespearean version. In Shakespearean time, they were not granted properties of enhancement that relate to entertainment. Of course, the stage could not contain a full-scale castle that has a mote in the front yard to match. The actors portrayed a realistic sense of a minimalist point-of-view that revolve around the design of the play. A steel structure was utilized where Richard runs throughout like a playground on his most enraged rants. I feel like this simple structure supports Shakespeare's knowledge of stage set-up, in that they probably did not have sophisticated stage designs. For example, the steel structure was versatile in that Clarence uses it as a resting place. Other design I found supporting toward the original Shakespeare was the costumes. For the most part, they successfully reflected Shakespeare's time relating to costumes. The wealthy were always well-dressed, for example Princess Elizabeth had a long dress that seemed to puff out, which was a popular fad during that time frame. Other male characters, such as Richmond in the last scene, were portrayed fully as a gentleman. His rivets were shinning and his large boots were sparkling, a long blue coat further concluded his wealthy background and high-ranking, he looked like a King. The only aspect that seemed out of context was the “I Love Jesus” hat that Richard wore, but I believe the comedic responses given by the audience during that scene make up for the lack of continuity. The last physical aspect that noticeably stood out and I enjoyed was the spotlight given to Richard during his soliloquies. While reading, I found myself sometimes getting confused as to why Richard said some of the things he did. Thinking he said it infront of the characters he was talking about, I would tend to forget that those lines were amongst his own thoughts. This confusion was scarce during the course of the play because I understood through simple lighting techniques that Richard was talking to the audience instead of the characters. In conclusion, if I could shake the directors hand, I would. Through ideal characterizations and stage set-up, it furthered my own individual knowledge of Richard III. Others were left absorbed into the play as well, I took the time to look around only to see undivided attention. Shakespeare would have been proud to watch that play, as it continues to attract audiences in more contemporary times even with more sophisticated resources that makeup entertainment. All in all, the play depicted a reliable sense of genuine respect toward the original that could only further extend the audiences admiration for Shakespeare and overall understanding of Richard III.

Rough Draft
Part 1:
- Focus more specifically on the physical viewing of the playground
- Introduce director, physical location
- Describe intentions behind viewing the play
Part 2:
- Talk about Shakespearean version
- Not a complete summary
- Provide basic knowledge so outside readers understand
- Not too much detail
Part 3:
- Bulk of play
- Most Important Part, describe characterizations depicted by director and relationship to actors
- 4 Major Characteristic Focus (Clarence, Richard, Etc.)
- Body movement
Part 4:
- Talk about steel structure
- Lights, not included in Globe where Shakespeare's plays took place
- Costumes (Talk about Clarence's shirt, Margret’s witch-like)
Part 5:
- Thank director
- Great interpretation
- Very interesting
- Shakespeare would be proud
* Highly enjoyed played, not many areas of critique