Before
I go any further, I'd like to point out here that reading
Shakespeare, or indeed any text, with an eye for queer or alternative
sexuality is not something that I'm against in general. Sometimes it
can be fruitful. For an example, it's worked so well with Romeo
and Juliet that most people
these days seem to have forgotten that Shakespeare never actually
wrote Mercutio as gay. This is fine (though it would be nice now and
then to see a version which doesn't depict him as such, just for the
sake of balance). With Richard II,
though, this was an unhelpful addition which detracted from the main
point of the play, transforming what was originally a well balanced,
poignant and potentially still relevant piece of writing about power,
recklessness and the problems innate in the political system, into
the story of a one-sided struggle on the part of a slightly
bewildered, wouldn't-be king and the martrydom of a weirdly
masochistic reincarnation of, at once, Christ, St. Sebastian, and
Lawrence of Arabia.
Let's be very clear: if there's one
thing that Richard II is very
definitely not about,
it's self-sacrifice. On the contrary, Shakespeare goes to great
lengths to show us just how self-serving, in their different ways,
his principal characters are. It's already been said somewhere on
Twitter that this version of the play is great apart from having
missed out all the politics of the original, and I think that's a fair assessment. As I watched, I became
increasingly annoyed at the almost wilful inattention to the
subtleties of Shakespeare's political analysis. This film has
moved, I feel, drastically away from its source text, a play which is
about the deposition of immaturity, arrogance and naïve belief in
the divine right to rule in favour of something smoother and more
calculating, but nevertheless more competent – a kind of real
politik, as Mark Thomas put it. Instead, we have a Henry who is
fiercely loyal, if proud, who breaks his banishment only to reclaim
the power and goods he has been robbed and cheated out of by the
king. This is a Henry who is in no way crafty enough to attempt to
take over the kingdom, and accordingly, his accession just “happens”
by accident. When Henry finally reaches and makes his petition to the
king, Richard, to his utter astonishment, not only grants his request, but also almost immediately proceeds to offer up the whole kingdom, entirely unprovoked and unpersuaded.
I still can't really tell if the director consciously intended to present Richard as quite so ridiculous and unsympathetic as he came across. My belief, based on all the saintly and Christ-like imagery attached to the character throughout, is that it probably was not. Nonetheless, as far as I was concerned, all that this imagery served to do was to suggest that Richard was suffering from a kind of Messiah complex, and I found it very unclear why this should be so. In all honesty, I think by this point I was just about as baffled as poor old Henry, who apparently hadn't a clue what had just happened or what on earth he was supposed to do next. In fairness to Goold's reading, Shakespeare undoubtedly presents Richard as highly delusional. For much of the play, Richard's silly, youthful little head is full of his supposed omnipotence, the almost magical power surrounding kings, rendering them uniquely infallible. More than anything else, in my opinion, the play is the story of Richard growing up, awakening to the fact that he is, after all, human, and this goes to the very essence of what his “hollow crown” line is all about. At the point at which he hands over the crown, he has learned the lesson of his own vulnerability. The crown (or his role as king) has no power to protect him when his kingdom turns against him. Not only has he failed to gather the man-power to fight against his rival's troops, he is also completely lacking in the intelligence, eloquence and quick wit needed to win people over with words. Talking his way out of a sticky situation is a skill that he has never learned, because he has never felt the need to, happily relying on his subjects' ingrained reverence for their “rightful” king with not an inkling of the precarious and dependent position this puts him in.
Though not
necessarily a dislikeable character, Henry is Richard's polar
opposite in this. Despite being a banished man, he manages to rally
together support from a whole host of noblemen with talk of justice
and the false promise that he has no intention of deposing the king.
Of course then when he breaks this promise, no one really minds,
because he has already succeeded in making everybody like him. The
scene in which Henry's ruthless, calculating nature is typically made
most clear is in the execution of Richard's remaining supporters, under the
pretence that they have led the poor, trusting, unknowing king
astray. Usually, it's quite clear that this is a ruse: Henry needs to
make sure that no one will stand in the way of his path to the crown,
so he invents an excuse to dispose of his opponents while still
managing to appear like he has the king's best interests at heart.
Unfortunately, the context of this adaptation lends an ulterior
meaning to the accusations. The sometimes muted, sometimes rather
heavy-handed homoerotic subtext seems to be stretched to the point of
implying that these men are Richard's (not so) secret lovers. More
problematic than this, however, is the fact that Goold clearly takes
Harry at his own word. This means that even as he butchers innocent
men, we still seem to be encouraged to sympathise with him.
The
gay subtext crops up again uncomfortably at another important moment
that really ought to be poignant, but in this case isn't. On his way
to the Tower, Richard encounters his wife. Usually, this is Richard's
chance to demonstrate a bit of humanity, and the audience's chance to
really, truly feel for him. Though the rest of the play has shown him
up as petulant, selfish and careless, at this point we clearly see
his love for another person, and it is touching. It is a moment full
of remorse and regret, a recognition of the wider repercussions of
his own failure to be a good king. In The Hollow Crown,
however, it is (perhaps aptly) a rather hollow and anti-climactic scene.
Richard is cold and unfeeling with his wife, just as he has been cold
and unfeeling throughout. He can't love her, apparently, because he
doesn't swing that way.
I
imagine the excuse for this “take” on the play is Richard's
vanity, his love of fashion and excess and his melodramatic
tendencies. Perhaps it also partly stems from his weakness and
passivity in comparison with other more “manly”, soldierly men. I
have two major problems with this. The first is simply the blatant
disregard of historical context. Anyone who has any sense of the look
and feel of the period will know that Shakespeare lived in the golden
age of the peacock. Any man who could afford it was expected
to dress richly and
dramatically, to ornately and often gaudily adorn both his residence
and his person. Attention to fashion and costly ornamentation were
not unusual traits in men. This was so much the case that Queen
Elizabeth I, anxious about the newly wealthy merchant classes
becoming confused with real nobility, felt the need to draw up an incredibly detailed statute concerning what particular classes of people could and
couldn't wear. Yes, that's right. People so badly wanted to dress up,
often beyond their means, that it was made (at least in some cases)
illegal. Though Richard II is
set some time earlier, Richard's interests and expenditures would
certainly not have been looked upon as unusual. My second problem,
from a more modern point of view, is that such a reading is
potentially offensive to actual homosexuals. You can't just deduce
that, because a guy likes dressing up fancy and is generally passive
rather than aggressive, he must be gay. I mean, come on. We're past
that, aren't we? That's logic about as flawed and immature as
Richard's own.
Quite
apart from all that though, I
actually really, really enjoyed the film. The acting was phenomenal. Never
mind Shakespearean adaptations – there are few TV productions of
anything that I've
seen where every single actor involved does such a fantastic job. The
one performance I would say I had some issues with was actually the
one I least expected to find problematic. To be completely fair
though, I don't really think it was the actor's fault. I usually find
Ben Whishaw the most compelling thing about anything he's in (and
that's really saying something when you've been in all-round
fabulous, star-studded productions like The Hour),
generally because he's doing the exact opposite of what he did in
Richard II. What
Whishaw does magnificently and almost, it seems, instinctively, is to
powerfully convey a sense of interiority. When you watch him, you
feel like there's a whole world of stuff going on inside his head
that you don't know about. It's a skill that some actors never
achieve in their whole lifetimes, let alone in relative youth, and it's
always what really brings his characters to life. It makes them
three-dimensional, intelligent, individual. Funnily enough, as soon
as I heard that he was playing Richard II, I was thrilled: I couldn't
imagine anyone more perfect for the role. But unfortunately, the
camp, melodramatic, stagey style he adopted in The Hollow
Crown was a pretty far cry from
his usual performances, and the only reason for this that I could see
was that something went badly wrong with the direction. Whishaw
probably made the best of the interpretation of the character he had
to work with, which wasn't a very good one. He still had some
stand-out moments in the film, but overall, it was undeniable that,
just like his character, he was utterly outstripped by Rory Kinnear,
whose performance as Henry was dazzling from start to finish.
Elsewhere, Patrick Stewart was, as usual, spectacular. More broadly,
I couldn't pick out any serious faults with a single member of the
cast.
I'd
have to be fair to everyone involved: despite the director having, I think, completely missed the point of the story, I think this is a fantastic production
and well worth a watch, if you haven't seen it already. The whole thing looked fantastic and, in Rupert Goold's defence, he did come up with some brilliantly innovative ways of livening up scenes with lots of standing around and talking – I'm thinking particularly of the handing over of the crown here. For all my
problems with it, it's slick, beautiful and compelling, and certainly
more than enough to make me excited about this weekend's instalment.
Expect to hear more from me on that.
No comments:
Post a Comment