Showing posts with label Vinnie Heaven. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vinnie Heaven. Show all posts

Thursday, 6 March 2025

Richard II

by William Shakespeare

seen at the Bridge Theatre on 27 February 2025

Nicholas Hytner directs Jonathan Bailey as the eponymous king with Royce Pierreson as Henry Bullingbroook (sic.) in a production designed by Bob Crowley and lit by Bruno Poet.

This is the fifth production of Richard II I have seen since beginning this blog and, true to form, it is quite different from all the others: proof, if any were needed, of the capacity for intelligent reinterpretation afforded by many of Shakespeare's greatest plays.

Performed on a long thrust stage initially bare, but with parts of the floor able to be sunk in order to set and remove furniture as required, the production is in modern dress, entirely subdued in greys and blacks. Stripped of the gorgeous medieval finery often used in honour of the Wilton diptych (which features a portrait of Richard II as a sacral king), all attention is on the language and on how the characters relate to one another in political and personal terms. The result is fascinating, the power plays surprisingly modern, and Richard's self-absorption entirely credible, rarely descending into self-pity.

Jonathan Bailey is a superb Richard, speaking the verse with unerring musicality, and he is surrounded by an excellent supporting cast even if none of the others quite rise to his level of delivery. Bullingbrook is something of a cipher, not obviously irritated with his cousin's theatrics in the deposition scene, but instead impassively prepared to indulge him. But he upholds his rights earlier in the play with conviction and hence gains the support he needs to press his claims and ultimately to become the new king.

Two of the major scenes involving women have been cut: the dialogue between John of Gaunt and his widowed sister-in-law the Duchess of Gloucester; and the famous "gardener" scene in which Queen Isabel overhears commoners discussing the disaster befalling her husband. This streamlines the play, and puts heightened emphasis on the poignant but brief scene in which Richard and Isabel are parted. The only other woman featured is the Duchess of York (Amanda Root); her frantic support for her errant young son Aumerle (Vinnie Heaven) is beautifully staged, providing some light relief from the increasing tension without tipping over into parody. (The Bishop of Carlisle here was female, the only concession to gender-blind casting, which in the modern context was effective.)

The staging was excellent; from the gallery to one side I never felt that I was being deprived of good views of the actors or being presented with a badly skewed vista of the production - indeed it would be interesting to see the play from the front as it were, to gauge whether there was a significantly different effect: in the deposition scene, conducted like a commission of enquiry or a court hearing, Bullingbrook sat for some time with his back to those sitting at the 'front', rendering him even more inscrutable at this point.

In the modern setting there were some clever adjustments. The joust between Bullingbrook and Thomas Mowbray is prepared for in all its formality, but rather than being a cumbersome affair in full armour (possibly on horseback) it is re-imagined as a bare-knuckled fight - bare-chested too - in a pit conveniently created in the versatile stage floor. The visceral rivalry between the two noblemen is thus given a macho physicality barely contained when Richard intervenes to stop the fight.

Richard himself speaks with authority but comes dangerously close to losing face as he interrupts the 'joust'. His fitness to rule is more seriously put into question for us in the scene with his favourites, who are lounging together and snorting cocaine, a very modern but all too plausible indication of their unfitness to govern the realm. They and Richard are obviously still high when visiting the dying John of Gaunt, so that the king's assumption of Gaunt's revenues is enacted in a drug-fuelled haze as the king lolls on the old man's vacated sickbed. Yet despite the hedonism, the king is for the moment still the king and none can gainsay him.

Richard in his last scene is contemplative and vulnerable. As part of the editing of the play for this production, his murderer was evidently Bagot (a former crony) rather than the named new character Exton, but nothing was made of this being a final example of betrayal. At least this was a more credible directorial choice than having Aumerle (a cousin of the two kings) perform the deed, as has been done elsewhere, something that would have been beneath him. Shockingly the corpse was presented to Henry IV in a body bag, undisclosed but a fateful reminder of the guilt which would overshadow the new king in the subsequent plays.

 

Tuesday, 31 May 2022

The Misfortune of the English

by Pamela Carter

seen at the Orange Tree Theatre, Richmond on 26 May 2022

Oscar Toeman directs Hubert Burton as Harrison, Vinnie Heaven as Eaton, Matthew Tennyson as Lyons, and Éva Magyar as a tour guide in Pamela Carter's new play The Misfortune of the English, concerning the fateful excursion of some twenty-seven London schoolboys in the Black Forest in 1936, during which five of them died as the result of an ill-adivsed hike into a snowstorm.

Politics swirled around the tragedy, with the Nazi government extolling the role of boys from the local Hitler Youth in rescuing many of the English boys (ignoring the contribution of the adults involved), and the teacher who led the expedition later being exonerated of any culpability though he ignored the advice of locals warning him of the oncoming storm.

The play however is focussed on three of the boys and their immediate experience setting out on the day of the hike. Secure in their Englishness, buoyed up by the inspirational ethos of their school (the Strand School of London, imitating the great public schools in its mission to produce men of good character) and the charismatic flair of their teacher, they reveal a turn of mind all too easy to parody in these more cynical days, but our sympathy is caught by the boys' guileless enthusiasm and amusingly patronising willingness to explain themselves (and their Latin). The encroaching horror of the situation is masked by their breezy assumption that all will be well, and their creeping doubts are tempered by esprit de corps and a fateful uwillingness to display weakness to their fellows.

Dressed in schoolboy grey trousers and maroon jackets (Lyons is still in short trousers, to his mortification), amused by the foreignness of German customs, flattered to be consulted as to hiking plans rather than being told what to do, but completely unaware of the bias in the way proposals are phrased, the boys are a mixture of high hope, woeful naivety and misplaced self confidence. Pamela Carter is concerned to extrapolate from this particular story to a more general exposure of the inherent flaws in the character building so beloved by adults. The damage runs unchecked through the enthusiasms of the boys as they explain how all is right with the world in which they feel that acknowledgement of their privileged position is sufficent guarantee that they will always be safe.

With such a careful evocation of attitudes which most people nowadays would find antiquated, and a general attention to the kinds of ideas the boys would have espoused and the ways in whih they would express them, it was jarring to hear the occasional modern idiom, most notably describing a popular boy as 'cool' and referring to 'out of the box thinking'. Apart from these lapses the period was well observed, while the young actors playing the boys caught the infectious enthusiasms of early adolescence as well as its determination not to admit to weakness or ignorance. With no adults actually embodied on stage (the guide hailed from modern times) the approaching disaster felt cruelly impersonal, as indeed it plausibly might have seemed to the boys who were not really participating in any of the discussions between their beloved teacher and the incredulous locals. The question of adult culpability was not the focus of the play, so it was wisely avoided.

At times there wass too much circumstantial information being smuggled through the boys' repartee, and it perhaps reduced the tension too much to know in advance the fates of the boys on stage, but the play nonetheless hit home in both its general critique of unthinking masculine pride and in the personal tragedy befalling the hikers.