LET US BE EVIL HISTORIES OVERLORDS.

[angevin2.livejournal.com]

So I was talking to faithhopetricks and speak_me_fair about things that should be done in productions of the histories but never (or rarely) are. (The specific thing that triggered it is that none of us had ever seen a production of the improv scene in 1H4 that took advantage of being in a tetralogy to play up the echoes of Richard II's deposition.)

And from this came the question of things we would totally put in the histories if we were in charge of the Shakespeare world.

I was going to write up my own list to start, but it would take me about three hours to write, so I will put them in in the comments. What sorts of things do you think should turn up in productions of the histories (but don't or probably don't)? ALTERNATELY what sorts of things do directors always seem to do that they shouldn't?

Comments

[angevin2.livejournal.com]

I've always felt Henry should have SOME reaction, because it's such a terribly embarrassing bit, and yet he usually just stands there.

DUDE I KNOW. IT IS LIKE, YOUR DAD VOTED TO BANISH YOU, SHOW SOME REACTION.

I agree wholeheartedly with ALL OF THESE.

[angevin2.livejournal.com]

YES. IT IS HIS THING.

(I do sort of sekritly like doubling Henry as the groom though. It would not work in all productions, but sometimes!)

ALSO. SPEAKING OF THE GROOM. Whoever plays him he should not be involved in the murder. Because while I am generally all about the grimness? THAT IS JUST TOO SAD.

[angevin2.livejournal.com]

YEAH. ...well, Richmond is a wanky tool, less so in the play than in real life, but I've seen a couple of productions that present him as actively evil and that sort of leaves a bad taste. I feel like the prevailing mood at the end of the play should be a great big "okay, NOW WHAT."

[angevin2.livejournal.com]

YES. In some ways I liked the idea of what the ESC was trying to do, with Richmond on TV, but I'm not sure the execution was 100% effective -- I think if it had looked more like a press conference than Richmond being a newsreader it would have worked. As it is, I keep expecting him to end the play by showing the weather forecast and a public information film. ;)

I do love Richmond addressing the camera in the '83 Beeb version though!

[angevin2.livejournal.com]

He was not!Somerset. BUT YES. BEEB DOUBLING FTW.

//WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO TAKE THAT SERIOUSLY AGAIN

It was closing with "God Save the $MONARCH" that did it.

I MEAN.

[gileonnen.livejournal.com]

AFFECTIONATE LOOK AT THE BADGER, YOU SAY, MR NEWSCASTER.

I don't have a facebadger icon

[angevin2.livejournal.com]

I KNOW
I KNOW

I CAUGHT THAT AND IT MADE ME HAPPY.

[gileonnen.livejournal.com]

IT IS ALL RIGHT; PINK!AUMERLE WILL DO JUST AS WELL.

[angevin2.livejournal.com]

GOOD. THIS IS THE ONLY OTHER AUMERLE ICON I HAVE AND YOU CAN'T EVEN TELL IT'S HIM UNLESS YOU HAVE SEEN THE WHOLE PICTURE.

[angevin2.livejournal.com]

I AM LOOKING FOR IT

I KNOW I SCANNED IT AT SOME POINT -- I HAVE IT IN A BOOK -- BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S ON THIS COMPUTER AND I DON'T THINK IT IS

[angevin2.livejournal.com]

I WANT TO GO SEE YOUR PRODUCTION.

- Richard and Queenie should hold hands a lot

Also, when York says "But when he frowned it was against the French" Richard should move protectively towards her.

And Queenie should not be required to have a French accent unless the actress is actually French (or a native French-speaker). Fake French accents are nearly always painful (SIAN THOMAS, I AM LOOKING IN YOUR DIRECTION), and since it is medieval England we can pretend they are "really" speaking French anyway. (Which is problematic in re: Mowbray's exit speech, but who's going to notice?)

[angevin2.livejournal.com]

I think the RSC did the heads in sacks (someone who has seen it will be along to correct me, I'm sure, if I am wrong, but the description I recall was that they got piled up at Henry's feet). I am all about onstage severed heads, at any rate.

Also I think if the gardener does patronize Queenie she should grab the nearest pair of hedge clippers and threaten him with them. BECAUSE. AWESOME.

Slashy bloody productions of RII are the best. I feel that the language, in production, should offset the potential for brutality, not (pace Meredith Skura) sublimate it.

[angevin2.livejournal.com]

Angry!Queenie is AWESOME. She should also completely lose her shit at "he is a flatterer, / a parasite, a keeper-back of Death" when she is talking to the minions in Act II. I mean, yes, she doesn't have a lot of lines and she is frequently concerned and sad, but she doesn't have to be a damn dishrag.

(and neither was Anne, you're right, although her manner of resistance I totally picture as smiling, nodding, and doing her thing anyway.)

And the dep scene should hurt. The one I think does it best in many ways is Fiona Shaw's, although it's founded on a conception of Richard and Henry's relationship that doesn't quite work for me.

(OMG HOW MUCH DO I WANT TO SEE MCKELLEN'S. A LOT.)

[lareinenoire.livejournal.com]

Yes, the RSC did heads in sacks. There was a small mountain by the time Richard's body turned up.

(ALSO OMG THIS IS AWESOME TO READ EVEN IF I HAVE NO TIME TO CONTRIBUTE UNTIL TOMORROW.)

[speak-me-fair.livejournal.com]

YES TO ALL OF THIS.

PARTICULARLY THE MIRROR.

AND THE PATRONIZING.

AND GAUNT. (That is done wrong so often.)

[speak-me-fair.livejournal.com]

I have lost count of the number of times I have needed to explain this - also that none of it makes sense if he IS.

[highfantastical.livejournal.com]

I agree SO MUCH. And I, like everyone else, would TOTALLY go and see your production... *imagines*