THEATER

Richard III: Two Views

Directed by Tina Packer

At the Loeb Mainstage

Through May 8

PRO

By Christopher R. Blazejewski

Advertisement

CONTRIBUTING WRITER

Richard III is a big production. There is very little that is simple, subtle or conventional about director Tina Packer's interpretations and logistical choices. But Packer does not allow the production's grandiose ambition to get out of hand. Rather, the performance comes together as an innovative, entertaining, colorful, emotional and eclectic menagerie of talented actors, an ingenious set, well-chosen musical accompaniment and even some battlefield choreography. Although the performance is rather long--running just shy of four hours--and the plot is often complicated and confusing for those not intimately familiar with the play's history, Richard III rarely looses its intensity, appeal and ambition.

Packer divides the character of the evil, hunchbacked Richard into separate roles played by three different actors (Paul Monteleoni '01, Marisa Echeverria '00 and Henry Clarke) in a skillful but rather conspicuous, representation of the central villain as a piecewise amalgamation of three distinct personalities. Although one should be suspicious of any theatrical performance that is compelled to provide a verbose description and justification of the director's interpretation in the program, Packer relies more on the performance than the program to present her concept of the three Richards convincingly.

The play begins powerfully, as the first Richard (Monteleoni) crouches in an eerie green light in the center of the stage and delivers the difficult "I shall prove myself a villain" soliloquy with a brilliant sense of introverted evil. The first Richard, the so-called Master of Ceremonies, hobbles around the stage in a whirlwind of action, murdering his way to the English throne. Monteleoni's performance is particularly pointed during Richard's outrageous, paradoxical, yet effective, seduction of Lady Anne (Amy Piper '99), who plays her role with convincing passion, reacting to the death of her husband at the hands of Richard.

There is a wonderful scene in the early stages of Richard III when two murderers (Clarke and Thandi Parris '02) creep into the bedchamber of the Duke of Clarence (Jeremy Bronson '02). The theatrical chemistry between Clarke and Parris first evidenced is later fully realized in their final confrontation as Richard and Richmond.

There is a momentary slump in the action during the performance of the second Richard, although this is not entirely the fault of Echeverria. Although she lacks the pervasive intensity of Monteleoni, she is perhaps the most fundamentally sound and cautiously precise Richard. The conflict between Richard and Margaret (Nora Zimmett) is nicely enacted, as Echeverria's chilling calmness in the face of Zimmett's unrestrained horror, fear and hatred subtly foreshadows Richard's eventual insanity.

Clarke is magnificent as the third Richard, slowly loosing grip on the kingdom and his sanity. He bounces around the stage in a fury of guilt and reproach as the valiant Richmond moves to retake the throne. Parris perfectly complements Clarke as the righteous force of good that inevitably defeats the evil Richard. The play ends with a gloriously choreographed battle between the forces of Richard and Richmond. But although the choreography, music and set are spectacular, the real engine that moves Richard III to success is the solid, intense, and complementary performances of the three Richards.

CON

By ERIK A. BEACH

CRIMSON STAFF WRITER

King Richard III represents what is perhaps the most ambitious character in a Shakespearean pantheon full of ambitious characters. Whereas a single murder or two is enough to guarantee the average character's downfall, or at the very least set events in motion for the tragic ending, as in Julius Caesar or Macbeth, Richard orders the death of his brother, young nephews, wife, Prince Edward, Henry VI, Rivers, Grey, Vaughan, Hastings and Buckingham. It is difficult to attempt to analyze his character psychologically because he seems so far removed from sanity, so possessed in the throes of total ambition.

To a lesser extent, the production of Richard III suffers from some of the same faults as its main character. It tries to do too much, reinventing the role of women for the play and splitting the role of Richard into three apparently distinct personalities and actors, while at the same time utilizing an innovative stadium stage. While interesting individually, the combination of these three leads to a production that comes across as jumbled and unfocused.

The lamentation of women is what the producers emphasize the most throughout Richard III. As there are many deaths, this theme is repeated over and over and over again. It is not as if the actors do a poor job in their performance of the lamentations, but it gets to the point where it seems more tedious and distracting than anything else. On Friday night, several people in the audience even began snickering at the incessant wailing and beating of breasts. Feminism dominates the play; for example Richmond, the vanquisher of Richard, is played by a woman. The final battle between Richmond and Richard's forces include only one male actor (Lord Stanley, a traitor to Richard) on the victorious Richmond's side. And the second Richard himself is played by a woman.

Which brings us to the second wrinkle. Richard was played by three actors: Paul Monteleoni '01, Marisa Echeverria '00 and Henry Clarke. The first is supposed to represent the Master of Ceremonies, the second the actor and seducer and the third the ultimate evil. While a clever idea, interesting because it gives the audience the opportunity to see three different actors' interpretations of the same character, this device is, in the end, mostly disjointed. Clarke best unifies the play with his presence, while the first two Richards were somewhat more detached from the action.

By far the most successful innovation was the set. Cocoa-shell mulch covered the floor in a stadium-style stage, with seating on both sides. While at times it was difficult to see with an actor standing directly in front of the seating and facing the action, overall it was a very effective use of space and an impressive feat for the actors to be able to maintain contact with an audience that was on both sides of them.

Richard III is not by any means an easy play to perform, and the dedication of this cast and production crew to stretching its complexities even further must be admired. However, in the end one feels that perhaps the entire production is overdone and would have been more effective in choosing one or two of the three twists on the traditional play instead of all three.