Richard II 3.2 from Shakespeare's Globe

[orchote]

Furthermore, there is a different between humor being present in some trace in a scene, (which I don't think this one has, but whatever), and playing up laughs. In this case, with the pointing and the nodded and the facial expressions, the scene was being PLAYED for laughs. It's one thing to guffaw at the irony and all that sort of thing. It's another thing to mug for the assembled groundlings this day and age.

[SHSGHSGg]

JEEEEES! The Audience is so annoying. Poor bastards don't even understand a tenth of what shakespeare was playing to here-AND THE MOST ANNOYING THING IS WHEN THEY LAUGH WHEN THERE'S NO REASON TO DO SO-I see in every play in every opera-ITS A FREAKIN SHAME AND ITS SIMPLY PUT FREAKIN ANNOYING! They don't get the true intentions or the witty allegories, BUT they laugh when the actor acts like a fool-OH LOOK AT HIM GUGU GAGA HES SO SILLY HEHEHEHEH-LIKE FREAKIN KINDERGARDEN-so saaaad!!!!

[shantidude]

I always love seeing a new (to me, at least) reading of a familiar line from Shakespeare, regardless of whether it totally works. I did initially find it a bit jarring when they played some of Shakespeare's all-time bleakest imagery for laughs, but it certainly ended up working for me by the end. I was misting up when he got to "need friends."

[shantidude]

And speaking of, it's amazing how, at the end of the speech, the florid language and images are gone - "feel want, taste grief, need friends." And it packs so much more of an emotional punch as a result.

Goddamn, I love Shakespeare.

[swannavon]

Yes, yes! Well said about how the language works in this speech! So beautiful!

[steerpike66]

I thinks it's masterly. He actually has the skill to play the most dolorous line for laughs and then slowly reclaims the tragedy. I've seen this happen with great singers; they get delighted laughs as the audience hears a favourite song, which dies away to spellbound melancholy as the power of the music takes over.

[rfcbeilfuss]

matthewmacphail12,

you said it!!! Indeed, you said it!

I agree with you 250%!

Well put.

I've just had the pleasure of working with Giles Block, the Globe's text coach, and friend of Mark's, and I can now definately understand, and feel, what the Globe stands for: truth indeed; and its complexities, and its ambiguities: humour and sadness.

[matthewmacphail12]

i do not agree! in all drama there is humour, they are inseparable from each other! the difference between laughing and crying is tiny, as rylance shows here! the tears of a clown etc! no scene should be "played" in a ny certain way! what hit me there was truth! and i dont know if you have ever been on stage at the globe but it is a place where the audience must be included as they are ALL visible to the actors! they are as much a character as anyone else! so be quiet witht the negativity!!

[schizovreni]

Oh I saw that play four times! I love Marc Rylance. Lovely voice and manner of speaking. I can still hear him say; a little, little grave... It's a shame he's no longer at the globe. Do you know what he's doing now?

Thank you so much for uploading this.

[strangebrooch]

I seem to recall he's going to be doing an original-practices tour of Othello (as Iago, yay!). Also, he's in "The Other Boleyn Girl" and is by far the best thing about it.

[GCmediacourse]

@strangebrooch He is in the New Roland Emmirbirch film 'Anonymus'. Type in the title on youtube and watch the trailer

[khi590]

@schizovreni he is doing lots of new plays with great success - unforgetable - and some films (watch out in Wikipedia or just google) - the best I saw ever

[orchote]

that scene shouldn't be played comical...odd choice, and not a very good one.

[jmharrison51]

I saw Ian Richardson play Richard in Stratford in 1974. I didn't know the play at all before then; this scene had the whole audience, everyone near me at least, in tears. It made a lasting impression on me. I saw this production at the Globe - my second live Richard - I felt kind of cheated by the way the scene was performed. There were many enjoyable things about the production as a whole, but, as you say, this was a strange directorial choice and, in my opinion, a very poor one.

[orchote]

well said. and, not only should it not be played comical...what the audience finds so funny about "Let us sit upon the ground", alludes me.

[tndowns1122]

I could not agree more. The globe often plays up the comedy so much that it is misses the heart of the drama. This is a very sad, ironic speech. Here it seems as if Mark is winking at the audience.

[matthewmacphail12]

shh tndowns you are wrong

[dglekjofg]

I totally agree.

[IraqVetNY]

what you fail to realize is that this is but one production of Richard II. Don't hate what you cannot do.

[orchote]

I am fully aware that this is one production..one production that made a bad choice. And I do not fear what i cannot do..but I happen to be trained to do this very thing, having studied it in college, so cram it.

[IraqVetNY]

That's cool. So are you a playwright?

[orchote]

As far as my studies vs those of Rylance, I am afraid that is irrelevant too. To begin with, you have no clue how much of this I have studied. Secondly, you negate your own point, by even mentioning how much studying he or I have done on the subject matter...for by doing so you conclude that the more scholarly person is more apt to make the "right" choice...which your alleged thesis dictated does not exist.

Put thou, a sock inst to it.

[theparsonstale]

Dare I say that you were the first to mention studying. I merely responded to your original statement with one of equal posture.

And I was simply discussing this with you. There is no need to be rude.

[throwoutyourarms]

@orchote I have been studying how I may compare this person writing here unto Mark Rylance. And for because Mark's performance is populous, and here is not a creature but himself, I cannot do it...

[theparsonstale]

It did not make a bad choice, merely a different one.

If you are trained in something does not mean that if another makes a different artistic choice that it isn't valid.

This production was excellent, Rylance balanced this particular speech with humour to temper Richards lack of authority and his tragic demise. He laughs to avoid being laughed at.

And try not to brandish your apparent qualification, because it so happens that Mark Rylance has probably studied this a little more than you have.

[orchote]

No, sorry, bad choice, period. That is not to say it is a wrong choice, and there is a difference. People can do whatever they want with the play, and I could care less from a rights standpoint. However, from an artistic one, it was a poor choice to take the scene wherein we are to see the fall of the King, and turn it into slapstick. It saps the moment of it's potency. The choice is questionable, because of it's deleterious affects upon the mood of the scene. Ergo, it was a bad choice.

[theparsonstale]

One could say it balances the mood of the scene.

He plays Richards full octave of humanity rather than the usual wash of saddened, tragic king. It worked beautifully with his gradual deconstruction and reformation of the character.

It wasn't slapstick. It was a beautiful and awkward humour driven by Richard's emerging self doubt.

And its effects aren't 'deleterious', the gentle, saddened humour lays bed to, and builds up to, a crescendo of hysteria and pain. It created texture and tone.

[theparsonstale]

The wonder of interpreting Shakespeare, or any playwright for that matter (but especially Shakespeare!) is that every choice is questionable. A bad choice is a good choice to one, a good one is a bad choice for another.

You'll notice the audience aren't cued to laugh. They laugh on their own accord. All 1000 of them must be making a bad choice simultaneously.

Either that or the production suceeded in illiciting it's intended mood, 'ergo' a good choice.

[artbrent23]

This is your opinion. A subjective reaction. I find no slapstick in the scene. Rylance finds the humor in it and by contrast makes the poignancy and awkwardness of Richard's state even more painful. He is a character who is unsuited for his position, but nonetheless feelingly human; therefore, an uncomfortable humor is appropriate. The audience finds that moment funny because there is a certain absurdity in it and Rylance finds it and communicates it. Shakespeare is full of contrast. as is life.

[Dous88]

@orchote i disagree. i studied shakespeare also and this and stuhlbargs are my personal favorite interpretations of richard II. but if you didn't like thats fair, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but dont think it's a bad choice at all. gerald freedman said "theres no such thing as a bad choice, theres wat works and what doesnt work" this works pretty well.

[dglekjofg]

Many thanks for posting!