On Sunday, September 18, I attended a performance of William Shakespeare’s Richard IIIfeaturing veteran Hollywood star Kevin Spacey in the lead-role and film maker Sam Mendes as director. The performance was well-received by the full house audience which gave Spacey a standing ovation for his strong performance of a challenging role. Ironically, it was Spacey’s stand-out performance that exposed the lack of support in the rest of this ensemble. Also, Mendes’ direction seemed a little too filmic in style and theatrically underdeveloped at times.
(Photo: Kevin Spacey[left] and Sam Mendes enjoyed earlier film success with ‘American Beauty’)
Richard III was presented in a somewhat post-modern style. Filmic elements were interspersed among the scenes which were introduced with huge projected titles for the central character there-in. These titles become quite mechanical after the first half dozen times or so and their effectiveness quickly diminished to the point of annoyance. They did nothing to enhance the scene – other than to remind everyone that the story had an episodic structure. Over-use of such devices had the effect of alienating much of the audience. Also, mechanical transitions between scenes tended to slow the action to a mechanical walk which seemed to undermine Shakespeare’s original well-paced script. If Mendes wanted to present the story in such a filmic way, then perhaps he should have made the movie of Richard III instead of the drama because the play suffered from his almost schizophrenic confusion. Many of the scenes fell a bit short of the mark – especially those where Spacey’s energetic delivery was not involved and the lesser members of the cast were seriously exposed at times. Perhaps weakest among them were the female characters, which seemed uninvolved emotionally. The idea of the older Margaret wandering around the stage like a cross between a homeless woman and a tired hippy didn’t work at all. She lacked any real edge in her delivery and no sense of threat in her presence. Her drab earthy garb didn’t convey anything other than a wasted opportunity to showcase one of Shakespeare’s strongest women characters. She could have had a greater, more striking presence had she worn a sharp black mourning dress, together with hat/veil and of course, matching stilettos. Nobody felt threatened – especially Richard III – by the old bag-lady who wandered aimlessly about the stage.
(Photo: Margaret confronts Richard in a scene from the play)
This was not an ensemble performance in the true sense of the word because Spacey’s performance and delivery was simply so much superior to those of his colleagues. This production of Richard III seems more a vehicle aimed at taking advantage of Kevin Spacey’s appeal to popular audiences. Overall, Spacey demonstrated his professionalism and mastery and had some fine moments in this piece. None was better than his mocking tone as he lectured his wife and prepared for war in the second half. His ability to switch from comic mockery, to anger, to childlike playfulness was compelling and reminded one of Steven Berkoff. No doubt Spacey is an admirer of Berkoff because the homage was so well-crafted. He also managed the heat associated with wearing all that restrictive and constrictive clothing designed to bring Richard’s physically deformities to the fore as best he could, but nevertheless found it necessary to continually wipe his brow and eyes and head. If anything the audience felt compassion for the actor’s struggle with his costuming. Could it have been done simpler to allow Spacey’s movement fuller flight? We’ll never know.
(Photo: Spacey negotiated leg braces, walking sticks and a hunched back masterfully throughout)
The direction of Richard III, as mentioned earlier, suggested a heavy-handed filmic influence at times, but there were nevertheless some strong scenes where the dramatic elements such as ritual and tableau were brought to the fore. It’s a pity these powerful and resonant elements were not utilized and explored to a greater extent. For example, the use of percussion and chorus drumming was strong and the tableau featuring the train-travelling public was interesting and amusing, albeit still theatrically underdone. It is almost as though this production was put together in a rush and ideas didn’t develop fully in the workshop process. One also gets the impression from watching Richard III that Sam Mendes is a frustrated film-maker who cannot step completely into the dramatic realm. Perhaps it is further evidence that it is impossible to do both extremely well. The surtitles above the scenes and the slow scene transitions suggested someone more at home in the world of cinema.
(Photo: The use of ritual elements such as ensemble drumming were powerful dramatic weight to the action)
The set design of Richard III was simple and effective at times, but at others made one question why elements that were not utilized were necessary in the first place. For example, the array of doors surrounding the action suggested the deceptive nature of the halls of power, but only the obvious doorways were functional to the action. Why not surprise us with more play of entrances and exits from different doors to enhance the original intention? Margaret’s marking of crosses upon the doors was too faint to add dramatic interest. Perhaps a stronger, thicker line made by a wide brush would have had more impact. The set idea lacked originality as it also echoed ideas used in similar plot circumstance in films like Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet, where the royal court was surrounded by mirrors and doors and this environment was key to the climactic scenes, heightening the sense of rumour and intrigue that surrounded the royal court.
(Photo: The set design wasn’t fully utilised, but still had a strong symbolic resonance)
The slightly raked stage was very effective in creating the depth of field that is not uncommon in Shakespearean play performances. There were some excellent theatrical elements in this play, but not enough to raise the overall quality of presentation to the sublime. The strongest moments were those embedded in the ritual elements mentioned earlier.
In conclusion, Richard III was a performance centred on the abundant talent of its leading actor, Kevin Spacey. The polished and professional support Spacey received from the director, Sam Mendes and fellow actors were sufficient to impress popular audiences in Hong Kong and elsewhere. However there were opportunities lost along the way in terms of maximising the brilliant writing of Shakespeare’s play. Most notable among these were the set design and timing of transitions between scenes, but also the lack of ensemble support among the less-experienced actors contributed to feelings of disappointment that this was still a work-in-progress, or worse still, a play that was hurriedly put together for financial reasons rather than artistic ones.
End of Review.
teachinginhongkong.com 