Enigmatic Bolingbroke

Having seen Peter MacLean display his talents in other roles, I can only assume that he consciously decided to play Bolingbroke absolutely straight, without characterizing him any more than the text does. Bolingbroke is an unscrupulous man, but he does what he does with a kind of grace.

Either a sympathetic or an unsympathetic interpretation would probably be justified, and either would be interesting to see. MacLean is probably "correct" in choosing neither. At the same time I wonder why he balances these two extremes with an almost total absence of gesture or inflection, and relies solely on his rich voice to sound noble and tough.

MacLean's Bolingbroke never smiles, and he never looks worried--even when he talks of his "unthrifty son." There must be some reason for Bolingbroke's solemnity, but MacLean never lets the audience know why he plays from behind a mask.

Even if the rest of the cast were far worse than it is, it would be worth going to see Richard to see Philip Kerr in the title role. He moves beautifully. He can hold the audience with a gesture, and switch the focus of attention with a glance. He has devised a death scene--for I understand he staged it--which is a small ballet.

His voice is rich and varied, and if at times he speaks too prettily, perhaps that is the way the part should be played. The only detail that bothered me was his way of staring ahead with his eyes bulging open; it did not seem appropriate all the times he did it.

Undefined Richard

Those who regard Richard II as a showcase for one actor may wonder why I praise Kerr so greatly, yet leave him to the end, and why a show with such a star is unsatisfying. But I think the key to Barstow's Richard is in Richard himself. For, though Kerr is a joy to watch, he does not project a united characterization.

That is to say, I was much more aware of his gestures and inflections than of the poet-king he was supposed to be. Why, for instance, was the death scene staged like a ballet? And if Richard was a minor poet, who could be fascinated by Bolingbroke's tired pun on "shadow," why does everything come to him so automatically? Why does he never stop to think of the next line?

I would rather Kerr had played the part with a stutter and given some feeling of the character, and by extension, of what it was like for England to have such a king. Perhaps it is because the other actors--except Lopez-Cepero--do not respond to what Richard says or does that Richard seems detached from the rest of the play. But, poet-king or no, Richard had consequences, and Barstow's production does not give us much sense of them, except as a few lines that people say.

I am not sure what Barstow could have done. Perhaps more inspired blocking would have helped. More might have been done with the response to York, who often looks like a man talking to statues. But whatever the remedy in detail, Barstow's production appears to be the result of sitting down at the beginning and saying, "Here are the lines. How shall I stage them beautifully," not, "This is what the play is about. How shall we make that clear?"