An actor's approach to the character of Richard III

Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic)

Authors Kendrick, Henry Max, 1942-

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this materialis made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona.Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such aspublic display or performance) of protected items is prohibitedexcept with permission of the author.

Download date 19/05/2018 20:38:12

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/317940

AN ACTOR'S APPROACH TO THE

CHARACTER OF RICHARD III

by

Henry Max Kendrick

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the

DEPARTMENT OF DRAMA

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

In the Graduate College

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

1 9 7 2

STATEMENT BY AUTHOR

This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of re­quirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library.

Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judg­ment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholar­ship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.

APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTORS

This thesis has been approved on the date shown below:

PETER R. MARRONfiY Professor of Drama

ROSEM^Y P. GIPSONAssistant Professor of Drama*

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Space limitations forbid a complete list of persons to whom

the writer is indebted for their contributions to the production of

Richard III. Special thanks are extended to Rosemary P. Gipson, As­

sistant Professor of Drama, without whose scholarship, expertise, and

kindness this thesis would never have been written. Gratitude is also

expressed to Professor Peter R. Marroney, Head of the Department of

Drama, for his fine directoral hand. Thanks go to Miss Irene Comer,

Professor of Drama, for her invaluable advice. The writer is es­

pecially grateful for the friendship and artistic work of Helen W.

Currie, Associate Professor of Drama and Costume Director, for her work

on Richard III. An affectionate note of gratitude goes to Miss Bonni

Rae Haber for her make-up work and her kindness to the writer. An all-

encompassing thank you to the cast and crew who worked so long and hard

to accomplish such a good effect, with so good a will.

Finally, the writer acknowledges the love and faith of his wife

Kathryne, who, unlike Anne in the play, survived being the wife of

Richard III..

TABLE OF CONTENTS

, Page

A B S T R A C T ........... . . . , v

CHAPTER

I BACKGROUND OF THE TRAGEDY OF KING RICHARD III 1

England During the Time of the HistoricalRichard I I I ...................... ............... 1

Sources of the P l a y ................................ 5Stage History of the Play . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

II AN ACTOR'S ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF RICHARD III . . . . 18

The Multiple Personality of Richard ........... . 18Relationship with the Main Characters

in the P l a y ................................... 22Adapting Richard III to Today's Audience ......... 28

III THE ACTOR'S L O G ....................................... . 31

IV AN EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF RICHARD III .......... 52

LIST OF R E F E R E N C E S ........... 57

iv

c ABSTRACT

Throughout theatre history the usual portrayal of Richard III

has been that of a gloating archvillain or a colossal Satanic figure.

However, Richard III1s character contains a multiplicity of sides, each

of which manifests his central quality of villainy and it may be this

perfection which has blinded many to his true character.

In order to fully understand the many facets of Richard III,

an actor needs to investigate the life and times of the historical

Richard, to carefully analyze the character created by Shakespeare, and

to present Richard to the audience as a vital personality--one that can

be enjoyed, admired, and feared.

v

CHAPTER I

BACKGROUND OF THE TRAGEDY OF KING RICHARD III

Of all races and peoples, the British, perhaps, have the great­

est love for their history and their historical figures, both good and

bad and all shades in between. They have also had, in this writer's

opinion, the finest writers to give voice to this history. William

Shakespeare, in particular, brought to the stage and brought to life

English history in his chronicle plays. In The Living Shakespeare

Campbell (1958:118) says, MShakespeare1s audiences saw Richard III less

as a tragedy than as a dramatization of history teaching an important

political lesson.M Although the stage Richard does not always agree

with the historical Richard, Shakespeare created a character which all

audiences would watch with enjoyment: vital, intelligent, and stepping

from the pages of English history was Richard III, "Richard Crookback."

England During the Time of the Historical Richard III

The most tragic and bloody war is civil war and the civil

strife between the powerful houses of York and Lancaster in England

marked a period (1422-1485) of blood in the history of that.nation.

Historians have shrunk from the Wars of the Roses and most of those who

have written on them have left only a sad and confused picture. Winston

Churchill, in his History of the English Speaking Peoples (1956:1, 442),

states:.

2We are however in the presence of the, most ferocious and im­placable quarrel of which there is factual record. The indi­vidual actors were bred by generations of privilege and war, into which the feudal theme had brought its peculiar sense of honour, and to which the Papacy, contributed such spiritual sanction as emerged from its rivalries and intrigues. It was a conflict in which personal hatreds reached their maximum and from which mass effects were.happily excluded. There must have

. been many similar convulsions in the human story. None how­ever has been preserved with characters at once so worldly and expensively chiselled. The ups and downs of fortune were so numerous and startling, the family feuds so complicated, the impact of national feeling in moments of crisis so difficult to measure, that it has been the fashion to disparage this period.

In 1455, in St. Albans,the first shedding of blood took place.

The Yorkists gained possession of King Henry VI, but soon the inherent

power of Lancaster was seen. The Lancastrians had the majority of the

nobles on their side. Continual trials of strength between the rival

houses were made. There were dissensions in the country as the lesser

nobility and the common people took sides, grim assemblies in Parlia­

ment, and violent and bloody episodes in the hinterlands.

War began in earnest in July of 1460; "Pity was banished from

all hearts and death or vengeance was the cry" (Churchill 1956:1, 443).

After many bitter and bloody struggles, the climactic battle of Barnet

was fought on April 14, 1471; the Lancastrian Queen Margaret

tried to reach Wales but Edward IV intercepted her and brought her to

bay at Tewkesbury. The Lancastrians were scattered or destroyed, Mar­

garet was captured, and Margaret's son, Edward, the Prince of Wales,

was killed.

Churchill (1956:1, 473) describes the subsequent action in this

way:

3Richard of Gloucester hastened to London. He had a task to do at the Tower* As long as the Prince of Wales lived King HenryT s life had been safe, but with the death of the last hope of Lan­caster his fate was sealed. On the night of May 21 the Duke of Gloucester visited the Tower with full authority from the King, where he probably supervised the murder of the melancholy spec­tator who had been the centre of fifty years of cruel conten­tion.

i-//.

Edward IV set about getting his house in order. Clarence died

in the Tower of London, a grim stone edifice that had seen the impris­

onment and deaths of many nobles. Richard of Gloucester married Anne

Warwick, the King-maker1s daughter. Queen Elizabeth, the wife of

Edward IV, had two sons and the Crown seemed secure. King Edward IV

was only forty years old. In another ten years the Yorkist triumph

would have become permanent. But, suddenly, in April, 1483, Edward

died. Although not next in line for the throne, Edward*s faithful

brother, Richard, saw that with the proper machinations, his future

could be entirely different.

The reign of Richard III, formerly Duke of Gloucester, was a

short and stormy one. He was crowned on July 6, 1483, and died fight­

ing on Bosworth Field on August 22, 1485. It was.not a happy reign.

Charles Dickens in his A Child*s History of England (1894:207) says:

He was dreaded and hated by all classes of his subjects. His nobles deserted every day to Henry * s side; he denounced them, and, for want of money, he was obliged to get *benevolences* from the citizens, which exasperated them all against him.

However, Clements R. Markham in Richard III: His Life and Char­

acter states:

The king was a great builder and took great interest in the administration of justice.. There was nothing mean or sordid in his nature. He was liberal, open-handed and generous and his foreign policy, was wise and judicious (1950:130).

4Churchill (1956:1, 455) states, however:

From the moment of the coronation there began that marked dis­trust and hostility of all classes towards King Richard III which all his arts and competence could not allay. It is con­tended by the defenders of King Richard that the Tudor version of these events had prevailed. But the English people who lived at the time and learned of the events day by day formed their convictions two years before the Tudors gained power or were indeed a prominent factor. Richard III held the authority of government. He told his own story with what facilities were available, and he was spontaneously and almost universally dis­believed. Indeed, no fact stands forth more unchallengeable than that Richard had used his power as Protector to usurp the crown and that the princes had disappeared in the Tower.

So we are left with three different opinions from three emin­

ent writers as to the general English reaction to Richard III. This

writer supposes it is up to each individual reader or historian to make

up his own mind which side to choose in a dispute that is probably

doomed to insolubility.

In April, 1484, Richard's only son, the Prince of Wales,, died.

>Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond!, now biding his time in France, became

the obvious successor to the throne. Throughout the year of 1484,

Richmond was preparing for an invasion. Richard readied himself for it

although he felt surrounded by fear and resentment on every side.

Richmond set sail for England and on August 7 landed on Milford Haven.

The news traveled by "post-horse" and on the 17th of August Richard

went after him. x

On the 22nd of. August the two rivals clashed on Bosworth. Field.

Here, fighting for his life and crown, Richard was betrayed for the

last time. Lord Stanley threw his forces to Richmond while the Earl of

Northumberland stood idle. From an eyewitness, identified as "a soldier"

5comes this account of the final minutes of King Richard: "King Richard

hewed his way almost to where Richmond was standing by his standard but

was cut down short of his goal" (Matterson 1930:108). Dickens (1894:

208) completes the bloody end:

That night a horse was led up to the Church of the gray friars at Leicester, across whose back was tied, like some worthless sack, a naked body brought there for burial. . It was the body of the last of the Plantagenet line, King Richard the Third, usurper and murderer, slain at the battle of Bosworth Field in the thirty-second year of his age, after a reign of two years.

Dickens gives no source for this grim picture, so whether it comes from

a contemporary account, some obscure source known to Dickens, or

Dickens1s own imagination is open to conjecture.

Thus ended the short reign of Richard III. Thus ended the

splendid line of warrior-kings, the Plantagenets. One final note: on

the day after Richard's death, the following was printed in the City

Registry of York (1938:n.p.), "He was piteously slain and murdered to

the great heaviness of this city."

Sources of the Play

The principal source of the play is Raphael Holinshed, Chroni­

cles of England, Scotland, and Ireland (192 7), the general source for

all of Shakespeare's English history plays. In turn, Holinshed had

copied almost verbatim Sir Thomas More's History of King Richard the

Third, written about L513 and printed in 1557 (Eccles 1963, More 1883).

More's account provided Holinshed material up to Richard's coronation;

for the coronation Holinshed relied upon the histories of Edward Hall's,

The Union of the Two Noble and Tllustre Families of Lancaster and York

(1965), and Richard Graftonf s A Chronicle at Large and Mere History of

the Affairs of England.and Kings of the Same (1569) (Satin 1966:1).

Then More1s incomplete work was used by Holinshed up to the falling out

between Richard and Buckingham. The remainder of Holinshed*s account

is taken from Hall (see above) who in turn based his history on Poly-

dore Vergil, Historia AngTica (1844). ,!0f all these Chronicles two

only, the compilations of Hall (or Grafton) and of Holinshed, were ac­

tually utilized for the drafting of the playM (Wilson 1954:xiii).

There were other histories of Richard III.available to Shake­

speare, three literary accounts, still extant and all probably composed

before Shakespeare wrote his play: MThe Tragedy of Clarence** in The

Mirror for Magistrates, a book published in 1559 and 1563 by William

Baldwin; The True Tragedy of Richard III, an anonymous play written in

1590 and first published in 1594; and Thomas Legge*s academic Latin

play, Richard Tertius, written about 1580. It is likely that Shake-

peare knew the plays and a few slight resemblances have been detected.

Bryan Field states:

The portion of the storys in which the plays make the nearest approach to each other, is just before the murder of the Princes, where Richard strangely takes a page into his con­fidence respecting the fittest agent for the purpose. This should hardly be called strange in our dramatist, since it is authorized in the history of Sir Thomas More (1844:53).

It seems only possible that there would be similarities in lit­

erary compositions which drew their material from the same chronicles.

But more important is the interpretation, attitude, and facts selected

for treatment from all the sources by Shakespeare in formulating his

play Richard III.

Stage History of the Play

On the basis of internal evidence Richard III is assigned to

1593 (Campbell 1958:119). The earliest dated reference to this is its

entry in the Stationersf Register on October 20, 1597, by the London

publisher, Andrew Wise, which was'succeeded in the same year by the is­

sue of the First Quarto edition under the following compendious title:

The Tragedy of King Richard the Third./Containing/His treacher­ous Plots against his brother Clarence:/the pittieful murther of his innocent nephewes:/his tyrannical vsurpation:with the whole course/of his detested life, and most deserued death./As it is hath beene lately Acted by the/Right Honourable the Lord Chamber-/laine his seruants (Wilson 1954:ix).

The words "lately Acted by the Right Honourable the Lord Cham-

berlaine his seruants" are repeated down to 1605, and "duly altered in

1612 and 1622 to * lately Acted by the Kings Maiesties seruantsT" (Wil­

son 1954:xlvi). On November 16, 1633, Richard III was performed "'by

the K. players' at Court before King Charles and the Queen" as recorded

by Sir Henry Herbert in his Office Book (Adams 1917:53). This is the

only recorded date of the play's performance before the closing of the

theatres in 1642. Yet the popularity of Richard III must have been

great in Shakespeare's time, judging from the repeated Quarto editions.

Furthermore, Francis Meres in his Palladis Tamia: Wit's Treasury (1938:

45) lists Richard III as one of the six plays proving Shakespeare to be

"most excellent'' in tragedy "among the English."

Richard III was evidently first made popular by the acting of

Shakespeare's companion, Richard Burbage, We have a rather flowery

record of the Burbage style, written as- late as 1664 by Richard Fleck-

noel:

8He was a delightful Proteus, so wholly transforming himself into his Part, and putting off himself with his Cloathes, as he never (not so much as in the Tyring-house) assum'd himself again until the play was done. . . He had all the parts of an excellent Orator (animating his words with speaking, and Speech with Action) his Auditors being never more delighted, than when he spoke, nor more sorry than when he held his peace; yet even then, he was an excellent Actor still, never falling in his Part when he had done speaking; but with his looks and gesture, maintaining it still unto the heighth, he imagining Age quod agis, onely spoke to him (Nagler 1952:128).

After the return of Charles II, in 1660, to the English throne,

a small number of history plays were written and played in the heroic

manner. Richard III himself was presented in several of these dramas

and the most successful was John Caryl's The English Princess or the

Death of Richard the Third (Granville-Barker 1933:225). The actor por­

traying this heroic Richard at Lincoln's Inn Fields, March 1667, was

Thomas Betterton (Wilson 1954:xlvii), the greatest actor of his age.

According to a cast list written on the verse of the title page of

Quarto 8, Betterton did perform in a 1690 production of Shakespeare's

Richard III, playing the role of Edward IV, while the role of Richard

III was. acted by Samuel Sanford (Wilson 1954:xlvii). Sanford was "a

crooked little man, obviously designed by nature for villain roles.

The audience had seen him so often in the black wig of villainy that.

they could not conceive of him as an honest man" (Wilson 1954:29).

In 1700 Shakespeare's Richard III was rewritten by the actor '

and playwright Colley Cibber. Many scenes and characters were totally

omitted; Clarence, Edward IV, Margaret, and Hastings disappeared. "The

cuts of whole scenes leaves Richard always in the centre of the action;

but he is a melodramatic.villain without the subtlety and wit of Shake­

speare T s murdererM (Young 1954:1). In Cibber's version, appeared the

greatest actors of England and America: Garrick, Kean, Kemble, Edwin

Forrest, and the Booths. Cibber played the title role until his re­

tirement in 1733; "but on 31 January 1739, Cibber returning to the

stage, again essayed the part, only to discover it to be too arduous

for his nearly seventy years" (Young 1954:1). "The Laureate," a con­

temporary critic, says of Cibber's Richard: "When he was kill'd by

Richmond, one might plainly perceive that the good people were not

better pleas'd that so execrable an actor was silent" (Wright 1960:

xxix).

Cibber's play was performed 87 times from 1701 until the advent

of Garrick in 1741. Fifty-two of these performances were at Drury Lane

where Cibber monopolized the role of Richard III; "but from 1721 Lin­

coln's Inn Fields became a serious competitor, with fifteen perform­

ances. Goodman's Fields showed the play nine times and Covent Garden

seven in the period" (Hogan 1952:378). At Lincoln's Inn Fields, James

Ryan, previously Richmond at Drury Lane, played the title role; and the

Goodman's Fields Richard was acted by T. R. Delane. Upon Cibber's re­

tirement, James Quin, who had acted the role of Buckingham in Lincoln's

Inn Fields and Covent Gardens, succeeded him as Richard at Drury Lane.

"Quin carried on the Betterton tradition of the chant-like delivery and

almost oppressive dignity" (Baker 1897:1).X

David Garrick made his debut in London at Goodman's Fields in

the title role of Richard III on October 19, 1741, and instantly took

10the town by storm. A, M, Nagler tells of Garrick's debut in this way:

[ He had an ] easy and familiar yet forcible style in speaking:: and acting.,.,0f the just modulation of the words and concur- . ring expression of the features, the audience had been strang­ers, at least for some time. . . . But after he had gone througha variety of scenes in which he gave evident proofs of consum- ate art, and perfect knowledge of character, their doubts were turned into surprise and reiterated applause (Nagler 1952:361).

Ida Perry Wood in her Stage History of Richard the Third says that Gar­

rick "freed the interpretation of Richard from the conventional deline­

ation of the wicked tyrant who was savage and furious, and nothing

else" (1909:104).

After Garrick, the next great actor to essay the role of Richard

was John Phillip Kemble. "Kemble put back some of Shakespeare's lan­

guage into Gibber's version and then acted Richard with great success,

although his impersonation was characterized by a subdued, almost re­

fined manner" (Campbell 1958:119). Kemble's "eminently fine face was

strangely incongruous with the resolve to descant on his own infirmity, "

observed Sir Walter Scott (Furness 1908l:I, 30). Kemble's "reception

was not too favourable; but he repeated the part for the Drury Lane

company more than twenty times from 1788, when he became manager, until

1801" (Young 1954:4). Kemble surrendered the part to George Frederick

Cooke who outdid Kemble in popularity. Charles Lamb (1912:214) con­

demned Cook for failing to dissemble his villainy:

Not one of the spectators who have witnessed Mr. Cooke's exer­tions in that part, but has come away with a proper conviction that Richard is a very wicked man and kills little children in their beds, with something like the pleasure which the giants and ogres in children's books are represented to have taken in that practice; moreover, that he is very close and shrewd and devilish cunning, for you could see that by his eyes . . . .A horror at his crimes blends with the effect that we feel,

11but how it is qualified, how it is carried off, by the rich in­tellect which he displays, his resources, his wit, his buoyant spirits, his vast knowledge and insight into characters, the poetry of his part--not an atom of which is made perceivable in Mr. Cooke's way of acting it. . . . The murderer stands out,but where is the lofty genius, the man of vast capacity--the profound, the witty, accomplished Richard?

When Cooke left for America in 1810, Kemble was without a rival

until Edmund Kean appeared four years later. Like Garrick before him,

Kean instantly leapt into permanent fame, and Richard III became the

most popular of his Shakespearian roles. Byron wrote of him, "Richard

is a man and Kean is Richard" (Baker 1897:VI, 155). Coleridge said,

"Watching Kean is like reading Shakespeare by flashes of lightning"

(Baker 1897:VI, 156). Kean's approach emphasized the subtler, more

complex sides of Richard's nature. Kean's principal rival, Junius

Brutus Booth, closely followed Kean's interpretation.

William Charles Macready played Richard in London at Covent

Garden in 1819 and was very successful although Kean was then at the

height of his powers, Macready tried to combine "the dignity of Kemble

with the vivacity of Kean, the deliberativeness and majesty of the one

with the animal spirits and rush of the other" (Wood 1909:123).

On March 13, 1821, Macready made the bold experiment of pre­senting a text in which he had restored most of Shakespeare's Richard III, but had prudently retained the most popular of Cibber's gags. Much to his disappointment, the critics and the public so definitely preferred Cibber's version that Macready was obliged to revert to it (Campbell 1958:120).

From about 1840, performances of Richard III became relatively

infrequent (Young 1954:18). In 1845, however, the first reinstatement

of Shakespeare's text was made by Samuel Phelps for a production at

Sadler's Wells. Phelps "got rid of all Cibber's alterations, and apart

12from some transpositions and omissions offered his audience the

original drama" (Young 1954:vii)„ However, "the play was not par­

ticularly successful„. When he revived Richard the Third seventeen

years later, he chose Cibber's version" (Wright 1960:xi),

In 1869 and again in 1876, Barry Sullivan played the title

role in Drury Lane0 George Bernard Shaw declared Sullivan to be the

one actor after 1845 who "kept Cibber on the stage, producing exactly

the effect Cibber had intended" (Shaw 1932:288).

Sir Henry Irving successfully ousted the Cibber travesty of

Shakespeare with his Lyceum productions of 1877 and 1896-97. Irving

went back to Shakespeare's text from which by abridgment he made his

• version. Irving's "realistic Richard t impressed some as a colossal

.Satanic figure, to be rated with Mephistopheles; others found his humour

and enjoyment of villainy the salient feature" (Stoker 1906:125, 322-

325).

In the present century there have been but a few London produc­

tions, with the Old Vic Company maintaining a.virtual monopoly of the

play. Its most recent revivals have been in the 1944-45 and 1948-49

seasons, with Sir Laurence Olivier as Richard.

In the United States during the 18th and 19th centuries few

Shakespearian plays were more popular than Richard III. Cibber'.s al­

teration was the accepted acting script. The first recorded dramatic

performance in New York City was "that of Richard the Third on the

fifth of March 1750" (Dunn 1939:38). The first American actor to por­

tray Richard III was Thomas Kean; however we know very little about him.

13Prior to the Revolutionary War Richard the Third constantly

appeared on bills in Philadelphia, New York, Annapolis, and on De­

cember 5, 1766, was performed at the Southwark Theatre in Philadel­

phia. The part was played by Lewis Hallam, now the leading actor of

the country. The next year, when a permanent theatre was built-on

John Street in New York, Richard the Third was played on the 14th of

December following the theatre's opening on the 7th. In the audience

at that performance was a delegation of Cherokee Indians. The Penn­

sylvania Gazette^ of December 7th said, "The Indians regarded the play

. . . with seriousness and attention" (Wood 1909:129). Regarding

Hallam's acting, Alexander Graydon, who saw the American Company per­

form, wrote: "In tragedy, it cannot be denied, that his declamation

was either mouthing or ranting; yet [he was] a thorough master of all

the tricks and finesse of his trade" (Hewitt 1959:25). In 1778 Congress

passed a resolution calling for suspension of all amusements, and this

closed the colonial period of the American stages In the South, the

Continental Congress Resolution was not taken - seriously. In 1782 a

Baltimore company held a season from January to June. Richard the

Third was chosen to open their season -

After the Revolutionary War, Lewis Hallam, Jr., and the Ameri­

can Company who had weathered the hostilities in Jamaica, returned to

the United States. To appease the anti-theatre Quakers, Hallam pro­

duced Richard the Third in Philadelphia in 1788 under the guise of a

"moral dialogue" (Moses 1906:114). However, the prohibitions against

dramatic entertainments were repealed in 1789 and Richard III could

return to the boards as a play.v ■ '

14In the season of 1793-94 John Hodgkinson made his first ap^

pearance as Richard at the John Street Theatre. Hodgkinson was

brought over from England by the American Company and remained the

leading Richard during its remaining years at this theatre. Hodg­

kinson was called Mthe American Kemble” by most contemporary critics.

However, Irvingf s comments on Hodgkins on ,f s acting were not flattering,

but he paid the actor an indirect compliment, indicating that his style

was "quieter and more natural than that of some of his predecessors”

(Hewitt 1959:64).

In 1802 Hodgkinson was succeeded by Thomas Ae. Cooper who became

the leading tragedian in America. Cooper's acting is described in the

following: ,

He relied less on art than on impulse. His memory was treach­erous. Yet he possessed that fine heroic quality which enabled him to convey 1 a sense of superb passion and power' combined manly beauty, manners and a good voice. . . . Cooper, says Hackett,sometimes broke away from the trammels of his original schooling with f some very touching and effective bits of acting. Thus propriety and conventions began to melt in the fires of subjec­tive and romantic interpretation (Dunn 1939:38).

Cooper kept his position of leading tragedian even after George Freder­

ick Cooke arrived and until the appearance of Edmund Kean and Junius

Brutus Booth.

Richard III was a stock piece on the transatlantic, tours of

Cooke, Kean, Booth, and other conspicuous English tragedians who fol­

lowed the Cooke trail. Junius Brutus Booth started his career in the

States in 1821 as Richard but Edwin Forrest was the first great Ameri­

can tragedian in fhe part. Forrest's "Richard emphasized the darker,

more brutal aspects of the character. Forrest refused to play Richard

15as deformed and portrayed him closely to the line of thought later

adopted by Irving and Edwin Booth. The text he used was his,own ver­

sion of the Cibber text" (Wood 1909:121).

During the first fifty years of the 19th century, the role of

Richard was acted by the child tragediennes Kate and Ellen Bateman and

by the famous actress Charlotte Cushman. The play received unusual

theatrical treatment ranging from equestrian events, in which the play

was performed on horseback, to a rather strange production by Dr. Lan­

dis of Philadelphia and his imaginary company (Wood 1909:201). Richard

III, of course, was fair game for caricature, and all kinds of peculiar

representations. These were not confined to second class theatres but

' were rather widespread. It is a commentary on the times and signifies

• the popularity of the piece and the familiarity of audiences with it.

On January 7, 1878, Edwin Booth (who had first played Richard

in May 1857) broke with tradition by performing Shakespeare1s text,

a severely cut version prepared by William Winter (Young 1954:41).

William Winter, in his Life and Art of Edwin Booth, states:

According to Booth, Richard is a compound of fiend and man. . . Booth embodied his ideal with the fervent vitality of inspira­tion. Even when he used Cibber!s -form he acted Shakespearef s spirit. The cold malignity, the sardonic ease, the dreadful complacency and alertness of evil were, for a long time,blended into one unshaded current of light. ... .He was su­perb in the delirium of the ghost scene and he was marvelous in the energy of the final charge and the viper-like plunge of the headlong death. .. .. . The ambitious and wicked prince was made to appear, not as a raging ruffian, but as a wily and win-

. . ning diplomatist,.a blunt, frank soldier, and audacious man of action and, above all, a human being capable of remorse and re­deemed from hellish depravity by that capability of human na- ture (1893:208-209).

16Successors declined to follow Booth’s example and he too fell back on

Cibber in his last production in 1886 (Odell 1942:xiii, 28).,

According to Shakespeare in America by Esther Cloudman Dunn

(1939:223):

The Wallacks, Lawrence Barrett, John McCullough, J. W. Keene all rose to respectable eminence in the part but they used the Cibber text and traditional lines in interpretation seem to have been followed. Not until Richard Mansfield appeared did a new version appear, a compromise between Shakespeare and Cibber.

The Mansfield production was in March of 1899. Mansfield followed Cib­

ber in that he began the play with the scene in Henry VI, Part 2 (V,

vi) dealing with the murder of Henry VI. As late as 1920 John Barry­

more included much of the Cibber alteration in his performance of

Richard III. When asked how he was in the production Barrymore replied,

"Really, I can’t say. No actor can evaluate his own work properly. My

father thought highly of Mansfield in the part, although I heard Mr.

Jefferson say of Mansfield’s Richard III, ’it was not a performance .it

was an impertinence’” (Fowler 1944:194).

In August of 1929 John Barrymore made a technicolor sequence of

Richard the Third for Warner Brothers’ Show of Shows. It was the first

time that Shakespeare appeared on the sound screen. Sir John Gielgud

took to the screen with Richard the Third in 1960.

In the summer of 19 70, Joseph Papp and Stewart Vaughan produced

The Wars of the Roses, including Richard the Third at the Delacourt

Theatre, Central Park, New York, with Donald Madden as Richard. In its

review Madden was rated as "fair" but his support was terrible. Micro­

phones were used and not used well. The production "seemed to be

17staged for the high moments only and was not a unified whole" (Gild

1970:322-23).

In December, 1969, in Warsaw, Polish producer Jan Macejouski

felt the need to improve on Shakespeare and produced Richard the Third

expressionistically. His Richard, Jerzy Kammas, according to the re­

view, "gave a brief monologue as he slid, slowly headfirst on his back

down a flight of stairs" (Dukore 1970:323-24). Thus, it can be said

that Cibber!s version had been superseded.

The script used in The University of Arizona production was The

Kittredge Shakespeare!s Richard III, edited by George Lyman Kittredge,

revised by Irving Ribner, Blaisdell Publishing Company, Waltham, Mass.,

1968. All quotations from Richard III in this thesis are from that

source.

CHAPTER II

AN ACTOR’S ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF RICHARD III

The Multiple Personality of Richard

The fascination for actors over the centuries for the role of

Richard III can be accounted for, in part, by the multifarious person­

ality of the mane Careful study of the script reveals a character

which can be approached from many different directions. Whether the

actor chooses to portray him as a ranting, raving tyrant, or as a

slyer, more intellectual villain is dependent on the individual actor's

abilities and tastes, the director's approach, and the overall style of

the production.

The personality of Richard III is a convoluted one at best and

not, by any means, all bad. He has an overwhelming joy, albeit an evil

joy, when his plotting succeeds. After the wooing of Anne, in the midst

of a funeral procession, he tenderly sends her bn her way, then glee­

fully exclaims, "Was ever woman in this humour woo'd?/Was ever woman in

this humour won?" (I, ii).

Richard's sense of irony and his humor lift him out of the usual

mold of villainy. At the end of Act I, scene iii, he is about to leave

the stage when he turns and says, "Shine out, fair sun, till I have

bought a glass,/That I may see my shadow as I pass." In Act IV, scene

iii, in his soliloquy,.he enumerates what he has done; then recognizing

that Richmond will be planning to marry Edward's daughter and by that

18

' - / 19means gain the crown, Richard says happily, "To her go I, a jolly

thriving wooer."

When he is finished using a person, that person must be re-. .

moved. Richard preys on Buckingham!s hope for preferments and uses

Buckingham’s greed to help him to the crown. Buckingham sees himself,

with Richard’s help, as succeeding to Hereford’s estates and sitting in

a seat of high power. Buckingham paves the way for Richard’s receiving

the crown by wooing the townspeople and Lord Mayor (III, vii) and is

constantly by Richard’s side as his henchman. Yet, when Buckingham’s

usefulness is over, Richard turns against him (IV, ii).

Richard does not stop to think if an action is good or bad,

merely if it is helpful to his ends. He has an advantage in that he is

more intelligent and more ruthless than his adversaries. Richard ap­

preciates these qualities in himself as he says, ’’The secret mischiefs

that I set abroach/I lay unto the grievous charge of others” (l, iii).

When he woos Anne (l, ii), he takes no note of the rightness' or wrong­

ness of the situation, merely that it must be.done for his advancement.

When he sees his brother Clarence off to the Tower, with many protesta­

tions of good will, he has already hired the murderers (I, i). He

reaches for the crown and is quite willing to accept help from any

quarter to get it. He enlists the aid of Tyrrel to eliminate the

Princes (IV, ii), knowing that Tyrrel will do anything for gold.

Richard is first and foremost a dissembler; only in his asides

and soliloquies does he reveal his true nature. His hypocrisy is

further amplified in the many roles he plays: lover, warrior, friend,

grieving brother, and pious partisan. In his opening soliloquy Richard

says he plans "to set my brother Clarence and the King/In deadly hate

the one against the other" (l, i). Yet a moment later he played the

concerned brother to Clarence. When the King gathers all the nobles

together to make peace, Richard embraces each of them and swears his

undying affection for them all, saying, "I do not know that Englishman

alive/with whom my soul is any jot at odds/More than the infant that is

born tonight." Then Richard piously adds, "I thank my God for my hu­

mility" (II, i). His fellows on stage are completely taken in by him.

He enjoys his many and varied roles and should project this joy to the

audience.

' Richard III is a vital, physical man as well as an intellectual

plotter. He is crippled and has been since birth. Emphasis is given

in the play to the physical impairments of Richard, Margaret refers to

him as a "poisonous bunch-backed toad" (I, iii). Elizabeth calls him

"that bottled spider, that foul bunch-backf d toad" (IV, iv). It would

appear, then, that to play Richard without at least a suggestion of a

hunchback would be to give the lie to allusions in the script. Con­

versely, for the actor to play too heavily on the disabilities of the

hunch-back, limp,*- and withered hand would, in this writer's opinion, be

wrong. Richard is deformed, but not disabled in any sense. He is ca­

pable of matching blow for blow with the best. Richard states in Act

I, scene ii, "To royalize his blood I spent mine own." He is alluding

to the battles during the Wars of the Roses when he was Edward's strong

right arm while Edward was fighting to gain the crown. Richard's

21combat ability is brought home finally when he and Richmond meet on

Bosworth Field. Richard says, in fury at not having found Richmond,

"Five have I slain today instead of him" (V, v).

Sigmund Freud stated the following regarding Richard*s physical

disabilities: ffWe all think we have reason to reproach nature and our

destiny for congenital and infantile disadvantages; we all demand repa­

ration for early wounds . . . to our self-love" (1907:322-323). This

writer disagrees with Freud. There is nothing in the play that even

hints that Richard is the type of man he is because he is exacting rep­

arations for his deformities. He long ago stopped whining (if indeed

he ever whined) about these deformities, and now jokes with glee at

Anne * s finding him pleasing. He says*, "Upon my life, she finds (al­

though I cannot)/Myself to be a marv*llous proper man" (l, iii). This

soliloquy (I, ii), after the wooing of Anne, pokes fun at himself with

no inner bitterness apparent. He says, "I*11 be at charges for a look­

ing glass/And entertain a score or two of tailors/To study fashions to

adorn my body./Since I am crept in favour with myself,/! will maintain,

it with some little cost" (I, iii).

The writer intends to make Richard only slightly deformed. The

hunchback will be there but not grotesquely so. This hunchback is re­

quired because of the allusion to "bunch-back1d toad" (l, iii; IV, iv).

There will be a very slight limp, on the same side, the left, as the

hunch. The withered hand, also the left, will be covered by a black

glove.

22None of these deformities will be pronounced and will be prac­

ticed until they are ignored by the actor and accepted as natural by

the audience.

Relationship with the Main Characters in the Play

Richard was a strong right arm during the Wars of the Roses to.

King Edward IV, Richard*s older brother. Now Edward is dying, having

proven himself to be strong in war but weak in peace. Richard * s

strongest feeling about him when he faces him in Act II, scene ii, is

one of contempt. Richard is contemptuous of the King * s weakness and is

anxious for the King to get his dying over with so that he, Richard,

might move one step closer to the crown. However, always the dissembler,

the face Richard turns to the King is one of piety and solicitude.

Richard is angered by Edward*s raising the Woodevilles to the peerage

and misses no opportunity in reminding them of the fact that they are

1,made gentlefolk’* (l, i), but Richard masks this enmity in the King * s

presence.

Richard * s other brother, George, Duke of Clarence, is a traitor

twice over. He betrayed Edward when he went to Warwick * s camp during

the Wars of the Roses, then betrayed Warwick by returning to Edward

when it became plain.that Edward would be victorious. George believes

strongly in Richard * s~love for him. Richard paints a picture for him

of a concerned, loving brother and then sends two murderers to dispatch

him (I, iii). Richard * s feeling toward Clarence can be summed up in

Richard * s line, ’’simple, plain Clarence” (I, ii).

23The only other member of RichardT s family blood is Edward,

Prince of Wales, the twelve-year-old son of Edward IV, nephew of Rich­

ard, and next in line to inherit the throne. The only time we see

Richard with the Prince is when the Prince is coming into London to

take the throne (ill, i). Richard is very solicitous of the boy, but

in reality, has him marked for death. Because the Prince is heir to

the crown, he must be eliminated. Indeed, the fact that he, the

Prince, is still alive in the Tower prompts Richard to the bitter out­

burst, Tt0 bitter consequence,/That Edward still should live true noble

prince*" (IV, ii)„ The Prince is very trusting of his uncle and is

sure that his uncle will do everything possible for his welfare, but

Richard has him and his younger brother kept under house-arrest in the

Tower and sends two murderers to snuff out their lives.

Several cohorts carry out Richard*s bidding, complementing his

villainy. Their feeling for him, and his for them, cannot be called

friendship. They follow him out of hope of power and prestige. He, on

the other hand, uses them to gain his own end, the end being the crown.

Richard*s chief henchman is the Duke of Buckingham. Richard uses him

as front man and chief instigator in this drive to the crown. Bucking­

ham looks for many preferments from Richard, but when Richard says,

**. . . claim thou of me The earledom of Hereford" (ill, ii), he already

has in mind to rid himself of Buckingham. When Buckingham refuses to

fall into the plot to kill the two young Princes in the Tower, his doom

is sealed; Richard knows then that Buckingham*s usefulness is at an end.

24

When Buckingham is overtaken while attempting to rebel, Richard will

not even see him. .

Another close henchman is Sir William Catesby. Catesby is the

third part of the triumvirate whose avowed purpose is to put Richard on

the throne. He looks for preferments but dies fighting on Bosworth

Field. He is used by Richard to sound out Hastings to find if Hastings

will support Richard*s bid for the crown (ill, ii).

The other followers of Richard are Sir Richard Ratcliff and

Lord Lovel. They are loyal because they wish to rise to power with

Richard and also because they respect Richardfs superiority. Lovel re­

acts like a well-trained dog to the commands of his master. Ratcliff

is the other half of this well-trained pair of killer dogs. Ratcliff

also remains loyal to his "master." Richard responds to this loyalty

by extending to Lovel and Ratcliff a sly friendship and uses them at

every opportunity.

Richard also has powerful allies in the army: the Duke of Nor­

folk and the Earl of Surrey. The Duke of Norfolk, a companion at arms

of Richard's, is a thoroughly loyal man. Norfolk has fought faithfully

alongside Richard and owes his allegiance to the crown. Richard re­

sponds to the loyalty by trusting him on the battlefield and his trust

is repaid by the Duke's death in battle fighting for Richard. The Earl

of Surrey, Norfolk's son, is another of Richard's battlefield command­

ers and he also is loyal to the crown.

As might be expected, Richard collects a long list of enemies.

Chief among them is Henry, Earl of Richmond, later King Henry VII.

25

Richard meets Richmond only in combat. When Ratcliff reports that

Northumberland spoke of Richmond as never being trained in arms,

Richard says, contemptuously, "He said the truth" (V, iii). Richard

does not hold Richmond in high regard as is indicated in his oration

to his troops when Richard refers to Richmond as "a milk--sop, one that

never in his life/Relt so much cold as over shoes in snow" (V, iii).

The family of the Woodevilles are naturally Richard's enemies

because of their having been raised from obscurity to the peerage and

the threat they present by being in favor of the King. The Earl of

Rivers, Queen Elizabeth's brother, is one of this hated family, Richard

lets no chance go by to scorn him until the reconciliation with the

•King (II, i)„ For example, Richard spits his denunciation of the Queen

into River's face, daring him to take up the challenge (l, iii).

The Marquess of Dorset is a son of Queen Elizabeth. Dorset is

not too terribly bright and is a bit of a fop. Richard holds him in

great contempt as when Dorset is berated by the acid-tongued Margaret,

Richard contemptuously says, ". . . good counsel, marry.' Learn it,

learn it, Marquess" (I, iii). Dorset and Lord Grey, the eldest son of

Queen Elizabeth, are prominent members* of the Woodeville family which

Richard is intent'on wiping out. Richard indicates such a plan in his

soliloquy in Act I, scene iii.

Apart from the Woodeville family, there were other people hos­

tile to Richard's plans. Lord Hastings, intended by Richard to be used

as a lever to get the crown, remains loyal to young Edward (ill, Li).

26

Therefore, Richard utilizes Hasting1s indiscretion with Mistress Shore

to instigate Easting's executione

Richard's instrument for the murders of the Prince of Wales and

his younger brother in the Tower is Sir James Tyrrel. Tyrrel is a man

who will do anything for gold. Richard is willing to use Tyrrel, as he

is willing to use anyone, but Richard has no liking or respect for him.

The Keeper of the Tower, Sir Robert Brakenbury, does what he is

ordered to do. Richard knows that Brakenbury hates him but also knows

that Brakenbury can do nothing about it because of his subservient posi­

tion. Richard's feeling toward him is one of complete indifference as

long as Brakenbury does his job.

The women in Richard's life have powerful personalities. They

are outspoken, courageous, and resourceful. Elizabeth, Edward IV1s

Queen, is repelled by Richard. She cannot understand his hatred for

her. Richard has her house marked for destruction and she knows it.

She yields to his importuning for her daughter's hand when he calmly

informs her that, unless she does, he will plunder the land (IV, iv).

She lets her humanitarian instincts govern her and feigns acquiescence

to the marriage. *

The dowager Queen, Margaret, widow of Henry VI, is representa­

tive of the furies of Greek mythology, Campbell in The Living Shake­

speare states: "Indeed she [Margaret] seems not so much a woman as

the direct descendant of the Furies - hellish creatures who appear on

earth in order to stimulate and superintend the vengeance to be exacted

for ancient crime" (1958:117-118). She hates and curses Richard and he

27returns her hatred in kind. She says, MThis sorrow that I have, by

right is yours,/And all the pleasures you usurp are .mine." He replies,

"His curses then, from bitterness of soul/Denounc1d against thee, are

all fallen upon thee" (l, ii). She is feared by the court but not by

Richard. He grudgingly pays obeisance to her but reminds her of her

banishment (l, iii).

After having killed Edward, Prince of Wales, at the battle of

Tewkesbury, Richard woos Anne, EdwardT s widow in one of the boldest

scenes in the play. She is, at first, repelled by him, but he over­

powers her by his strength of personality and cunning. He uses the

greatest charm and flattery at his command to win her and is overjoyed

when he does so (l, ii). However, when the time comes to be crowned

(IV, i), she is disenchanted but it is too late by then. Having se­

cured her and the crown, Richard does not need her anymore and, it is

assumed, does away with her. She would only be an encumbrance.'

To all of the characters on stage, and to the audience* Richard

is a man of many moods and faces with one driving aim and desire--the

crown. In order to show the multidimensional nature of this character,

the writer intends to keep three thing's uppermost in mind: Richard is

a dissembler; Richard is an opportunist; Richard is a killer .

The writer feels it would be a mistake to portray Richard as a

sneering prototype villain. Richard is plausible to everyone he meets.

Only in his soliloquies, when he muses and plots to himself, with the

audience listening in, does he reveal his true thoughts and true char­

acter. He should be portrayed as an emotional, swashbuckling figure

28who is completely ruthless in his drive to the crown. His movements

should be quick, his vengeance quicker. By his cold-bloodedness he

should chill the audience, and yet his actions should appear completely

logical when viewed from his standpoint. Thus, the writer intends to

portray a slightly deformed, ruthless, cunning, vital, and brilliant

villain who single-mindedly pursues his own desire--the crown.

Adapting Richard III to Today1s Audience

The audience should enjoy not RichardT s cruelty or evilness but

his dissembling, adroit manipulation of the other characters and his

tenacious pursuit of his goal--the crown.

The writer has always enjoyed playing villains because, gener-% *

ally speaking, the villain role is more interesting and more challeng­

ing to an actor's talent. He has found that a well-played villain will

cause an audience to listen to what he says and watch what he does with

interest and attention. This appears to have been the case, even in

the medieval liturgical drama with its many saints and devils. Irving

Ribner (1968:xvi), in his "Introduction" to The Kittredge Shakespeare's

Richard III, says:

Shakespeare drew upon a long tradition . . . which had been em­bodied in the Vice of the medieval morality drama. The Vice was always the masquer or dissimulator, moving easily from one assumed role to the next, pretending always to be the friend of his victims, and exulting gleefully at the ease with which he was able to mislead and betray them. All of these traits Shake- , speare's audience could easily recognize in his Richard of Gloucester.

Richard is referred to as a devil by Queen Margaret when she calls him

"hell's black intelligencer" (IV, iv). Also, in liturgical drama, the

29devil1s'masks invariably had warts on them (Nicoll 1963:191); toads are

supposed to cause warts and Richard is referred to as a "poisonous

bunch-backed toad" (I, iii) and "that foul bunch-back!d toad"(IV, iv)0

Richard is a villain because villainy is something he under­

stands, enjoys, and realizes is the shortest distance to the goal which

he wants above all other things--the crown. The writer must bring out

the enjoyment of villainy as well as the villainy itself. He can do

this by line readings and facial expression and by externalizing his

emotion when he is alone on stage.

Campbell makes a case for Richard as a Machiavellian character:

'When Richard III in Henry VI, Part 2 announces that he will 1 set the

murderous Machiavel to school,T he is warning the audience . . . [that]

he is going to act the part of . . . a Machiavellian villian" (1958:

117). Campbell goes on to bring Richard even closer to home:

With the impressive eloquence of the stage [Richard III] cries,"0 men of England, avoid strife over the succession to the throne that is now plaguing our country or you will soon be at the mercy of a despot as ruthless as Richard himself." This lesson designed as a very present warning to Elizabethans is almost equally impressive to every generation of free men, as events in our contemporary world amply prove (118-119).

The writer agrees with Campbell. The situation which we in the United

States now, face with false prophets on every side is one in which a

Richard III could easily come to power.

The ability of Richard to dissemble and to flim-flam the other

characters and his love of play acting must be plain to the audience.

They should see through his dissembling and realize the great joy he

takes in getting his own way through this means, no matter how serious

30is the objective. His sense of humor and his ironic outlook can lend

depth and variation to his villainous nature.

Much is made in the play of the physical impairments of Richard.

However, to overdo the physical deformities would harm the characteri­

zation. . Richard is a warrior, and a competent one. He should be por­

trayed as a lively, alert, energetic, vital man who has risen above his

infirmities.

Here is a man, albeit an evil one. He is a swashbuckler, given

to many moods. He embraces life, even as he spreads death. The char­

acter must be energetic and forceful, always in command of every situ­

ation. The ̂ audience should never be in doubt as to who is in charge

when Richard is on the stage. The acting style should be big so that

the audience will know they are watching a man of great force, but not

exaggerated so as to make the audience unable to understand and appre­

ciate the man. The actor should be conscious of Richard as a charac­

ter; as a human being; as a man. Thus by realizing that Shakespeare

expects us at once to enjoy and to detest the monstrous Richard can an

audience fully appreciate the play Shakespeare wrote about him.

CHAPTER III

THE ACTOR’S LOG

This log, a day by day record of the writer's activities, covers

the audition period from December I to December 3, 1970; the rehearsal

period from December 8 to February 7, 1971; and the performances from

February 8 through February 14, 1971.

DECEMBER 1, 1970

Today was the first audition, 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. Peter R. Mar-

roney, the director, held individual auditions, by appointment, in the

Park Theatre. Eighteen auditioned today and there were some knowledge­

able readers.

DECEMBER 2, 1970 '

Eighteen auditioned. We moved to Room 6 in the basement of the

Drama Department for the final forty-five minutes. I believe this move

restrained those reading, because of the room1s small size and echo.

Tomorrow is the final day for auditions and, because of the large num­

ber of those auditioning, the session is expected to be long.

DECEMBER 3, 1970

I met this morning with Mr. Marroney and Miss Irene Comer, the

associate director. Because of the ability shown during the auditions,

31

32it appears that the cast will be a strong one. The first read-through

will be held on Tuesday evening, the 8th.

DECEMBER 8, 1970

This evening was the first gathering of the company. We lis­

tened to the first three acts of a British Recording Company1s Richard

III. It gave the less experienced members of the cast an idea of the

flow of the language. I spoke briefly on my ideas' of Richard. Michael

Finnerty, the literary adviser, gave the company an idea of the lineage

of the British kings. Miss Comer took the rehearsal because of Mr.

Marroney1s absence.

DECEMBER 9, 1970

Before rehearsal began, I explained to the company the extent

of Richard's crippledness. I told them I was going to play him with a

slight limp, an obviously humped back, and a withered hand. I would

not make him too crippled, however, because if I did, the audience

would never believe that he was the warrior that the script claims him

to be. Mr. Marroney told the company that we would be using a modified

Elizabethan multiple stage. We began the play read-through and pro­

ceeded as far as Act IV.

DECEMBER 10, 1970

We had the final read-through tonight. The director made many

dialogue cuts which tightened the production considerably. There was a

33little complaining because some players felt their parts were being

shortened too much but the complaining will cease when they see how much

quicker the play moves along. It is still very lengthy.

DECEMBER 11, 1970

This rehearsal was cancelled because the Music Department used

the stage. We will not work again until Monday when we will begin

blocking,

DECEMBER 14, 1970

We blocked Acts I, II, and up to scene iii in Act III. We are

using an open stage with a smooth sweep from the back wall to beyond

the apron. I feel, however, the need for levels to add dramatic inter­

est. Also, the fact that the.actors are performing on the same level

and entering from the same place might tend to create a sameness thati ■

our lengthy show can do without. The acting area consists of one level

with one entrance through the inner below at the rear of the stage and

an entrance on stage right and stage left. An inner above (balcony

over the inner below) is also used as an acting area. The set is

painted dark grey to black which absorbs light and, I am afraid, will

have a dulling effect.

DECEMBER 15, 1970

We blocked Acts II and IV. No conflicts have shown up as far

as the cast is concerned. They are working very well together. My

interpretation of Richard is following the plan that I had in mind. I

see him as an. energetic, plotting warrior whose eye is on the throne,

toward which he drives with singleminded purpose.

DECEMBER 16, 1970

Completed blocking today. We just sketched the outlines of the

final scene because we will need the soldiers in order to complete the

stage picture. The director will decide tonight whether he will hold

rehearsals tomorrow and Friday, as the Christmas vacation absenteeism

is expected to run very high.

DECEMBER 17, 1970.

We had an evening rehearsal of Acts I, II, and part of III,

setting blocking and getting the feel of the stage. The director

pointed out that I am playing Richard too old and must play him as a

hero-villain and not as a character villain. I accomplished this by

keeping my voice out of the very low register and making his movements

quicker, brighter, and livelier. The director suggested that I give

Richard less of a limp. The bodily deformities will have to be per­

fected.

DECEMBER 18, 1970 -

Last rehearsal before the holiday break. We worked Acts III,

IV, and V. Some of the scenes particularly with Elizabeth and the test

soliloquy began to jell as far as line readings and stage business is

35concernede Mr. Marroney said I should be careful to make the lineage

clear when I speak of members of the warring houses. I can do this by

pause, inflection, or indication if that character happens to be on

stage. The scene with the bishops and Lord Mayor when Richard accepts

the crown is still muddy in my mind and my speeches are masterpieces of

dullness. Too many of the lines are given in a monotone and I am hit­

ting some words too hard and others not hard enough.

JANUARY 4, 1971 «

We reviewed Acts I and II tonight. They were awful. It was

the first rehearsal after the holiday break and looked it. I was tense,

giving poor line readings, and missing some blocking. I feel very

stiff, particularly in the soliloquies. Act I, scene ii, between Anne

and Richard did not play. The lines were choppy but really it was a

feeling an experienced actor gets when he knows a piece of work is not

going well. Mr. Marroney spoke to me again about making the character

too old.

JANUARY 5, .1971 . •

We worked Act II and part of IV. The rehearsal was better to­

night but there is still a long way to go. Mr. Marroney had some fine

ideas for business in the scene where Richard is offered the crown.

Richard is preceded by standard bearers when he comes to the Lord

Mayor. Also, a "Hmm?M was added to the dialogue when Buckingham at­

tracts Richard's attention while Richard is on the balcony with his

bishops. I felt a little more relaxed tonight.

. 36

JANUARY 6, 1971 '

We ran Acts IV and V. I was tense and my readings were off.

We got the battle scenes straightened out, however, and there was a

spark of feeling in my army. They are beginning to believe they are

Richard1s soldiers and will be fighting to the death. That is all to

the good. The director seems pleased with the cast and so am I.

JANUARY 7, 1971

Acts I and II tonight. I worked Act I without script. The

first two scenes were fairly good; the last scenes of Act I were abom­

inable. I am beginning to loosen up in the scene with Anne. Some

comedy is showing up in the show. I must be careful to control myself

as I am showing an indication to scream a little too much. I went a

bit far in villainy, such as sneering too much. The company is begin­

ning to come together as indicated by a camaraderie offstage and help­

fulness to each other on stage.

JANUARY 8, 1971

I forgot quite a bit of blocking, particularly in the scene

with Elizabeth. The scenes on the balcony must be played carefully

because of the height but I understand there will be a railing. My

blocking is still not-solid and that distresses me.

37JANUARY 9, 1971

This was a very poor rehearsale I. went without script on Act V

but my work was terrible. I felt that I was portraying Mary Poppins

instead of RichardJ Everything--lines, blocking, characterization— .

went down the drain. I am extremely depressed about the work tonight.

Perhaps I am pressing too hard. I will try to relax a little. The

director is very patient as are the rest of the cast members.

JANUARY 11, 1971 .

We worked Acts I, II, and the first three scenes of Act III. I

felt much better. The lines are ragged but coming. The director ad­

vised me to let out the stops in the "bold" scene with Anne. I will do

so but I must keep good taste in mind. Anne is a real pleasure to work

with as is Buckingham. All the rest of the cast are developing well as

is indicated by their willingness to work and their sharply delineated

characterizations. The director seemed pleased with the work tonight.

So was I.

JANUARY 12, 1971

Acts IV, V, and part of II were worked tonight; Absences are

becoming a factor but as we come closer to production they will prob­

ably cease. Some of these absences are due to illness but some are due

to the less experienced members of the cast becoming weary of the long

drive to production. Richmond and I were blocked in the last part of

the fight and it feels good. However, the whole fight will have to be

38choreographed and worked on. The scene with Elizabeth did not play at

all and Mr, Marroney is not satisfied nor am I, However, Elizabeth and

I are still on script,

JANUARY 13, 1971

This was a good rehearsal. The lines are coming. Scene ii,

Act I began to play. I feel very easy in the scene with Anne and the

flow of action and speeches are beginning to peak and dip in the right

places„ The director advised me to be more presentational with my

soliloquies, I will do it but it might smack too much of melodrama.

From the beginning of rehearsals I have had to guard against overdoing

the villainy.

JANUARY 14, 1971

The rehearsal was not so good tonight. I was blowing a lot of

lines but the blocking appears to be solid. The scene with Elizabeth

is not good but then we are still on script. Elizabeth wanders a good

bit, but then I have been wandering also. The director is still pick­

ing up small points of blocking and each time he does, a scene looks

better.

JANUARY 15, 1971

We attempted our first run-through but there were so many cast

members missing, due to illness or indolence, that we only went through

Act IV.. My lines are beginning to tighten up, but my blocking in the

39soliloquies bothers me. It seems I am wandering. The director had

told me that my speech was not clear, but tonight he said the clarity

was improved. The director said to point up "determined to prove a

villain11 (I, i) and "prophecy which says that G" (l, i) in the first

soliloquy since these further the plot. He also said to change the

line in the Buckingham denunciation scene (IV, ii). to read "Richmond

is your wife1s son." This will clarify the relationship for the audi­

ence. I must begin appraising Buckingham and make it plain that I am

using him. .

JANUARY 19, 1971

We held combat blocking and a run-through tonight. The impor­

tant thing is for Richmond and me to become so sure in the fight move­

ments that there is no chance for an error. I hope the fight looks

good from the house.

JANUARY 20, 1971

The lines were not coming tonight and I had a great deal of dif­

ficulty getting anything out of Richard. We went through II, iii. The

director advised that the pace must be extremely rapid or the audience .

will expire from dullness. He advised me not to play the soliloquies

so much to the audience but keep them more talking and musing to myself.

I agree. Keeping them more private will clarify the fact that these

are the innermost thoughts and feelings of the man. Miss Comer showed

me where my bows were wrong and also said that I should loosen up my

40jaw more. She meant that my articulation was muddy but did not say so,

Mr, Marroney said that in the scene with the princes- we should regard

the Prince of Wales1 discourse on Caesar with condescension because he

is merely an adolescent showing off a bit of new found knowledge,

JANUARY 22, 1971

The rehearsal went a trifle better tonight, particularly in the

last scene, Mr, Marroney reblocked the Mayor’s scene (ill, v). We

were on the upper, level and it was simply too crowded to get anything

done. He transferred the scene to the stage floor and forestage and I

think we will be able to do something with it. He also reblocked the

messenger scene (IV, iv) so that they are not all running in from the

same side which was comical. The director advised that the Elizabeth-

Richard scene should be a real dog fight, I have been missing many

points and transitions in this scene. I feel uncomfortable and not easy,

and it is not just a matter of lines. I am not sure of my blocking and

that is the main source of my uneasiness.

Another thing I must work on is the handling of Buckingham.

Richard must be in command at all times in order to make the audience

believe that he is the master manipulator the script'makes him out to

be. He must appraise Buckingham up to the moment he discards him.

JANUARY 23, 1971

The play is beginning to take shape. The cast members are be­

ginning to believe in themselves as the characters they are portraying.

41Mro Marroney advised the company that the words are of paramount im­

portance. He also advised all of the company to watch the play in

order to sense their own involvement. He brought up a valid point in

my final soliloquy in I, i, to become deadly grim on Mtake King Edward

to his mercy11 instead of playing it lightly as I had been. This would

indicate the bloody actions to.come and the complete earnestness of

Richardfs purpose. I tried it and the scene played. He said my solil­

oquies were playing better, I seemed more at ease and the lines were

tightening up. After Margaret?s scene (I, iii) we met with the assist­

ant director downstairs and ran it a few times. It seemed to improve.

I gave a tip to Elizabeth today about her posture in a scene.

I am sure that will be regarded as meddling. I must be careful of

that.

JANUARY 24, 1971

This was another good rehearsal. More scenes are beginning to

play each time we meet. We started with Act V which was not too suc­

cessful because of missed blocking and bad timing. The director ad­

vised me to give the ghosts in V, iii", time to fade before giving my

lines. Also, he advised me to draw out the word f,Jesu.,1 He said we

should be like leashed dogs in V, iii, just prior to the oration to

the troops. The battle needs much work but then the whole of Act V

does.

Act I went well. I am becoming easier in it. Margaret was re-

blocked in I, iii, and I shifted my blocking in a couple of places. I

42am moving closer to Stanley and Buckingham in the scene with the Queen

and her brother to give more playing area.

The mayor's scene (ill, v) plays well and should be fun because

of the play-acting of Richard and the obvious hoodwinking of the mayor.

JANUARY 25, 1971 . >

The first scene began to play in Act I. Mr. Marroney changed

the blocking on my soliloquy in scene iii, Act V. Mr. Marroney advised

me to speed up both the coronation scene (IV, ii) and IV, iv, as they

are dragging. The "Was ever woman . . . won" soliloquy (l, ii) must be

worked on. Both my blocking and my lines are weak. I changed my

blocking after Edwardfs exit on the reconciliation scene (II, ii). In

the soliloquy after the brawl (l, iii) Mr. Marroney advised me to point

up "Queen and her allies." Mr. Marroney also advised me to make off­

stage illusions believable. This can be done by placing in my mind the

location of places offstage and mentally placing myself in the correct

space and time.

JANUARY 26, 19 71 -

The improvement of the play seems to be at a standstill. I was

very tired tonight and my work was shoddy. I was also short-tempered.

The sound crew fouled up the tapes and we were getting some strange

sounds including a freight train, Big Ben, and a rooster right after my

line, "It is now dead midnight." The last is apparently a legitimate

cue. I hope not.

43

We straightened out some blocking in the Elizabeth scene (IV,-

iv)» Mr„ Marroney told me I am overacting and appearing demented in

the messenger scene (IV, iv).

JANUARY 27, 1971

We ran completely through the show and it went well. I am

still blowing lines, particularly with Elizabeth and in the final act.

The extra business of going to the throne after Edward leaves will work

because it adds movement to the stage picture and sets the audience for

the change of mood coming up. Mr. Marroney told me that the volume of

the. soliloquies must be brought up. He told me that I should be overly

cheerful with Elizabeth in her mourning scene (II, ii). I am not sure

that I agree with this as I think Richard would go overboard in helping

her to mourn, but we will see. He said that I should keep more center

during Margaret? s cursing scene (IV, iy) and that I should taunt Mar­

garet more. He said that I should pick up.the scene with Catesby and

Buckingham (III, ii). I felt that the tempo was lost in the crown-

refusal scene (ill, vii). This was my fault since I was dragging the

lines. I must take a moment before each scene to set the place and ac­

tion in my mind. •

JANUARY 28, 1971

I.paraphrased my way through most scenes but still had to call

for lines. The character is very ragged and not true. I come in and

go out and he is not believable. I think this is mostly lack of intense

44concentration. Mr. Marroney said to be careful of the tempo and attack

on the Anne scene (I, ii). He told me that I am still roaring with

anger and must keep it down to crafty. I am still feeling out Richard

and must consolidate him over the weekend. Richard must concentrate on

the crown and drive to that goal.

JANUARY 29, 1971

The show ran fairly well until the mayor's scene (ill, v) and

really went downhill from that time on. I was into Richard until that

time. After that, Richard disappeared. I believe it again was lack of

concentration and not keeping alert. I had a lot of line trouble. I

meddled with Elizabeth's blocking again and this I must not do.' Mr.

Marroney was pleased with the scenes between Elizabeth and the Duchess

of York, less so with the Margaret and Anne scenes, and wants more work

done on them. I must do more work on relationships and begin to pull

the show together. Sunday must be the last day for experimentation. I

must start the drive toward performance level beginning Monday.

JANUARY 31, 1971

Again we had a rehearsal that went nowhere. Mr, Marroney ad­

vised that my character did not move this past week. Beginning tomor­

row I must take a moment before each scene to set myself in time and

space and just rush through without calling for a line. Tomorrow I

start driving for opening. Mr. Marroney said that he is going to have

Miss Comer check the breaks in the iambic pentameter. We also have

45Bill McLaughlin, Dave Zarko, Michael Finnerty and anybody else who

wants to put his oar in as director. This is becoming ridiculous. I

must stop directing too. This show had better start to moveI

FEBRUARY 1, 1971

We are still bogged down. I experimented with the reading and

blocking of my soliloquies and they felt good, particularly in "Was

ever woman in this humour won?" (I, ii). The Elizabeth scene (IV, iv)

still isnit as I want it. Neither is the Anne scene (I, ii). Mr. Mar-

roney adjusted some blocking. I am to meet with Mr. Marroney tomorrow

and he will give me a critique then. I hope something happens to get

me out of this slump.

FEBRUARY 2, 19 71

Richard III began to pull together tonight. I felt good all

the way through and the character felt right. There was some minor

trouble with the fight (V, v). Mr. Marroney seemed pleased but advised

me to speak louder in the first soliloquy and not to pause before tell­

ing Clarence, "This it is when men . .* ." (I, i). The pause is point­

less and drags out the scene. I must continually review my lines.

Catesby and the murderers want me to help them with their scenes. I

must not meddle. A move was missed in the fight and I suffered a bad

cut and bruises on my right hand. This fight was before the rehearsal

proper.

FEBRUARY 3, 19 71

The gods are still frowning on the fight] This time a move was

missed and I kicked Richmond in the face. No serious injury resulted,

thank God] We must go over the fight several times tomorrow. I can

still control the stage business, including the fight, with my hand al­

though there is quite a bit of pain. I will just have to overlook it.

I had an X-ray taken today and two fingers have hairline fractures and

a knuckle is broken. The cut cannot be closed except by clamps and I

cannot be immobilized so I will just have to wrap it tightly and hope

it does not jar open. I have found the glove and dagger I want so I am

set for props. Mr. Marroney advised me not to move so close to Clar­

ence so soon in the opening scene as the distance between us gives a

greater dramatic effect. Mr. Marroney1s critiques are serving me well.

FEBRUARY 4, 19 71

This was the first dress rehearsal. There were some difficul­

ties. The "A horse" scene (V, iv) drew a laugh. I do not know why.

The fight scene (V, v) worked. I was unsteady in my lines and must re­

view tomorrow. Mr. Marroney had no specific criticism for me except

that I must quicken the tempo. We are running over three and one-half

hours and that is much too long.

FEBRUARY 5, 1971

This was the second dress rehearsal. It ran better although

just as long. By "better," I mean it was tighter and smoother. They

47are making me a new wig and working on my costumes tomorrow. Our tech­

nical crews are getting smoother.. Miss Comer had a couple of points

for me just before curtain. One was to look at different points in the

house during the soliloquies; the other was to hit "plots have I laid"

(I, i). Mr. Marroney advised me that I bungled the opening, soliloquy.

He also said that I rushed the Lord Mayor's speech (ill, v). I will

check both of these tomorrow. The.fight went bad again but neither

Richmond nor I was at fault. I think everything will come together

soon. I feel good about it. I found why I get a laugh on the "A

horse" scene (V, iv) last night. I am carrying a weapon which looks

like a cardboard hatchet cut out by a third grader. I must figure a

way to get rid of it early in the scene.

FEBRUARY 6, 1971

This was the third dress rehearsal. My performance felt good

this afternoon. I had some good moments and it seemed to play. The

show is very long so I must be sure to keep it moving at all times.

However, I must be careful not to sacrifice clarity for rapidity. Mr.

Marroney said that I was garbling my words during the Elizabeth scene

(IV, iv) because of this. He also said to meet with him tomorrow and

we would decide what to cut out of the "Have mercy, Jesu" soliloquy (V,

iii). Miss Comer says that it drags and it probably does. Mr. Mar­

roney advised me to be sure to get "killed her husband and his father"

(I, ii) right. The fight was sloppy, but we are getting tempered steel

blades so that should cut some of the comedy out of this scene. We had

48a few audience members but got little reaction. I am ready to open and

should be on performance level on opening night.

FEBRUARY 7, 1971

This was the final dress rehearsal. It ran smoothly with a few

technical problems, such as slow light cues and slow shifting of scenery

between scenes. We still need to cut off some time. Mr. Marroney told

me that I should speed up the first soliloquy and he is right. I was

unsteady in my lines and slowed the show down. My dream soliloquy (V,

iii) was cut. I must wear my own hairpiece under the chain mail be-

cause the wig slips and makes me look apish. We had a good-sized in­

vited audience and they seemed to enjoy the show. They were predomin­

antly a young group. A couple of people remarked that I was at

performance level today, but I did not feel it particularly.

FEBRUARY 8, 1971

Opening went well tonight. I hobbled a few lines but nothing

serious. Everyone was at performance level. Anne was great as was. x

Elizabeth. The auditorium had a - few empty seats but the people seemed

to be listening intently. However, the running time was long and the

theatre was cold. We lost a lot of people during the intermissions. I

hope it was not out of boredom. The light cues were slow, causing a

dragging effect.

FEBRUARY 9, 1971

There was a sizable audience tonight, but again we lost people

after the second intermission. I would be in favor of dropping that

intermission, but I am afraid that the audience members might walk out

anyway. I was tired tonight and my voice was lacking in depth. My

characterization held up. Richard is now what I had planned: vigor­

ous, crafty, sly, and tough. The whole show seemed to go well, and

there was no second-night slump that productions sometimes suffer.

FEBRUARY 10, 1971

At curtain-time there were approximately twenty people sitting

on the auditorium steps, as there was* nowhere else to seat them.

Everything went well with the exception of one light cue mistake and

one minor costume difficulty. The women were high tonight and received

exit applause for the first time. My characterization was good. We

must hold this level and I think we will.

FEBRUARY 11, 1971

My throat was very bad tonight but my characterization and work

held up. I got to the proper level of playing. There were people sit­

ting in the aisles and the audience was responsive.

FEBRUARY 12, 1971

My throat was better. I was slow in the first soliloquy, and

the first act dragged, but we picked up as the show progressed. It

50seems that the first soliloquy sets the pace for the rest of the show.

I must keep that firmly in mind and start fast. The fight scene (V, v)

was a shambles but we* got through it. We did not get tempered steel

weapons and the ones we have tend to bend. This causes laughter,.

understandably. There were people on the stairs and the audience

seemed to enjoy the play.

FEBRUARY 13, 1971

We had an afternoon and an evening performance today. I have

always enjoyed two-a-day performances although many actors detest them.

My * throat felt good and I was at performance level. We built the im­

petus and kept it going. The Duchess*was too high in our scene (TV,

iv), but she is a sensitive actress and sometimes it.is hard for her

to control her work. My opening soliloquy is the key to the perform­

ance level and pace.

We took a forty-five minute break and then went to work again.

The impetus was there and the show built to the end. All of the cast

stayed with me. I was at performance level. There was one slight

hitch: Ratcliff missed an entrance cue and I had to ad lib a bit but

nobody noticed. There was a full house with seating in the aisle.

FEBRUARY 14, 1971

Today was another afternoon matinee-evening performance. I de­

livered the first soliloquy at a fast pace and the tempo held all the

way through the performance. I broke one of my own cardinal rules and

51

stuck my cigarettes in my sword belt during intermission. Then I got a

panic call and forgot the cigarettes were there. They dropped out when

I was greeting the young king (ill, i), and it took us the whole scene

to get the audience back to paying attention.

We closed on a high note. The impetus was still there and we

sailed through the play. The props were wearing out. My. sword came

apart just prior to my oration to the troops (V, iii) so I had to fake

my way through it. The cast gave me a hand at curtain call. I am very

sorry to close.

CHAPTER IV

AN EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF RICHARD III

Two weeks before opening night, Dan Pavillard, the Tucson Daily

Citizen magazine editor, interviewed the writer for a feature to be

published on February 6, two days before opening. In this article,

"VII Minutes with Richard III,M Pavillard quotes the writer as saying,

,!My approach is intellectual. Ifm not playing up Richard's physical

deformity. He has grown so far above the deformity, he can laugh at

it" (1971:4). Pavillard, describing the rehearsal after the interview

wrote: "Kendrick stepped forward, splashing the light on his royal

trappings, and once again was the malevolent, ambitious, cruel and

shrewd Richard III" (1971:5).

As the writer indicated in the interview and also in Chapter

II, his intention was not to characterize a deformed, melodramatic vil­

lain, but rather to shape a character of intellect, drive, gusto, and

ambition: a man of consummate skill and daring; a cynical man who

played many roles and enjoyed them all; a man with one overriding am-

bition--to attain the throne. Frank Rizzo, Arizona Daily Wildcat Arts

Editor, reviewed the opening night production. Rizzo stated: "Kendrick

played with a beautiful touch of sardonic cynicism, giving this villain

the perfect glean to his razor1s edge--here was no deformed Quasimoto,

but a plotting killer, full of majesty and vice" (1971:10).

52

53That the character’s attributes of ambition and cynicisms were

apparent is revealed by the comment of David Nix, drama critic for the

Arizona Daily Star. Nix wrote: f’Kendrick is everything a Shakespear­

ian Richard should be: „ „ „ ambitious, and consummately cynical11

(1971:sec B-3). These were aims of the writer. Malevolence is men­

tioned in a review by Joseph N. Crystall over Radio Station KOPO on

February 9: "Kendrick’s performance which is technically perfect pre­

sents a most evil and malevolent man” (1971:n.p.). This malevolence is

a natural outgrowth of the fierce feelings that rise up in Richard as

he drives for the supreme seat of power. That he is clever, ambitious,

and cynical is, to the writer’s mind, the only way Richard could be.

The writer played Richard with a slight hunchback and withered

left hand. Nix, in his review, stated: "The body is only slightly

twisted" (1971:sec B-3). The writer feels that by making Richard less

deformed it would lend believability to Richard’s vital movements on

stage. The withered hand was covered by a black glove which, the

writer feels, lent an air of menace to that particular defect. When

Richard ripped the glove off and struck Hastings across the face (ill,

iv), the audience gasped. The writer gave Richard a slight limp which

was only noticeable during moments of extreme agitation.

Rizzo stated: "Kendrick played the role of Richard with hurl­

ing perfection and driving virility" (1971:10). The writer feels that

the virility and vitality were essential in order to give a fast pace

and interesting, attention-getting movements on the part of Richard.

The style of playing for which the writer was striving was a

54swashbuckling style, a little larger than life. Miss Irene Comer, Pro­

fessor of Drama, said in an interview, "The handling of the performance

was precise and the style was very understandable. It was a most be­

lievable theatrical performance" (1971:n.pe).

Richard was first and foremost a dissembler. He acted parts

before his enemies and his friends and he enjoyed every role. In an

interview with William Lang, Assistant Professor of Drama, Lang said:

There was humor, variety, and complexity in the character, also a subtlety not normally found in actors working this role. The style was consistent, which is quite an accomplishment consid­ering the four-hour length of the production. Here was no psy­chotic, but an emotional, intellectual, sardonic .leader. He was full of the magnetism that attracts the audience's atten-

• tion; barely contained, explosive, emotional, qualities which well-suit Richard (1971:n.p.);

However, Micheline Keating, drama critic for the Tucson Daily

Citizen, said in her review of the production's opening night: "Ken­

drick's Richard, is all one color--the character seemed one-dimensional"

(1971:21). The writer disagrees with this criticism. With the charac­

ter's ranging from blunt villainous plotting to smooth seduction, to

rage, to wheedling, to solemn piety, to ferocity, to joy, the writer

finds it difficult to feel that his characterization was one dimen­

sional. Blanche Rubin, an audience member on opening night, said in

an interview with the writer: "The character had many dimensions and

much complexity. The inner drive and power of the man was evident at

all times but his moods changed from scene to scene" (1971:n.p.). The

character's dimensional quality was discussed in the interview with

Lang who said: "The style was consistent. It was sustained, interest­

ing and complex. The reflections of the character fit. I liked the

55range from the smiles, to the explosive outbursts to the smooth seduc­

tion. Richard showed a turbulence that the skin could barely contain"

(1971:ne p.). *

There are improvements which the writer would undertake if he

were to perform the role again. A smoother handling of the soliloquies

would help to achieve a happy medium between racing through the lines

and the long pauses. Lang said, "There were points, such as the solil­

oquy at the opening, which could have been slowed down. I realize that

the length of the production was a problem which could account for some

racing through the lines" (1971:n.p.).

The writer feels that the scenes when Richard is alone, such as

IV, iii, when he resolves to go to Elizabeth to ask for her daughter's

hand, should have been introspective rather than played out to the

audience. Lang agreed when he said, "The scenes of Richard musing

should have been less presentational" (1971:n.p.).

The handling of the age of Richard presented a slight problem.

The director several times admonished the writer to. "make him younger."

Comer agreed with this criticism when she said in her interview, "I

felt there should have been more youthful charm"; however she went on

to say, "but the way it was played, with mature political and worldly

knowledge, was a most acceptable characterization" (1971:n.p.).

The writer feels that his approach to the character was sound.

The portrayal was one of overpowering ruthlessness with one goal in

mind--the crown. Richard could see the irony in his lines and situa­

tions and could deliver some of his lines with humor. He could laugh

f 56at himself and his infirmities. The infirmities were kept at a mini­

mum, enough for the audience to be aware that they were there, but not

enough to interfere with Richard's maneuvering about the stage. Richard

could be all things to all men, a master dissembler. The one person

he never attempted to fool was himself. He knew what he was; he knew

who he was; he knew what he wanted. His intellect was sharp and his

mental processes were adroit. He feared no one and died fighting to

keep what he had murdered to gain. He cold-bloodedly set about to de­

stroy the house of Woodeville and oversaw the deaths of his brother

Clarence and his nephews. Yet, when all had turned against him except

his army,he could quietly say, "There is no creature loves me;/And if

I die, no soul will pity me./Nay, wherefore should they, since that I

myself/Find in myself no pity to myself?" (V, iii). This was the

Richard that the writer envisioned. This was the Richard the writer

portrayed. This is why the writer believes his work resulted in a

successful interpretation of the role.

LIST OF REFERENCES

Adams, John Quincy„ Shakespearean Playhouses: A History of EnglishTheatres from the Beginnings to the Restoration. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1917.

Baker, Henry B. English Actors. 2 vols. London: Henry Holt and Co1897.

Baldwin, William. The Mirror for Magistrates. Ed. Lily B. Campbell. Cambridge, England: The University Press, 1938..

Campbell, Oscar James. The Living Shakespeare. New York: MacmillanCo., 1958.

Chambers, Edmund K. William Shakespeare. 2 vols. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1930.

Churchill, Winston S. History of the English Speaking Peoples. 4 vols. New York: Dodd, Mead and Co., 1956.

City Registry of York (1485). New York: Scholars Facsimiles and Re­prints, 1938.

Comer, Irene F. Professor of Drama. Interview with the writer. Tucson, November 15, 1971.

Crystall, Joseph N. Critic, "Tucson Dimension." KOPO-Radio, Tucson, February 9, 1971.

Dickens, Charles. A Child's History of England. London: Selford, Clark and Co., 1894.

Dukore, Bernard F. "Richard III," ETJ (October 1970), 323-324.

Dunn, Esther Cloudman. Shakespeare in America. New York: MacmillanCo., 1939..

Eccles, Mard, ed. The Signet Classic Shakespeare Richard III. New York: New.American Library, 1963.

Field, Bryan. , "Introduction and Notes," The True Tragedy of Richard the Third, Anonymous, to which is appended the Latin play Richardus Tertius, Thomas Legge. 46 vols. London: Shakespear ean Society, 1844.

Fowler, Gene. Good Night, Sweet Prince. New York: Viking Press,1944. (Reprinted in 1953.)

58Freud, Sigmund. The Collected,Papers of Sigmund Freud. Trans. Joan

Rivere. 5 vols. New York: Basic Books, 1959.

Furness, H. H., ed. A New Variorum Edition of Shakespeare. 1833-1912ed. 26 vols. The Tragedy of Richard III. Vol. 16. Philadel­phia: J. P. Lippincott and Co., 1908.

Gild, David C. "The Wars of the Roses," ETJ (October 1970), 322-323.

Grafton, Richard. A Chronicle at Large and Mere History of the Affairsof England and Kings of the Same. ■ 2 vols. London: RichardTottie, Humffrey Toye, 1569.

Granvilie-Barker, Harley. Prefaces to Shakespeare. London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1933.

Hall, Edward. The Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Families ofLancaster and York. 3 vols. London: Richard Grafton, 1548.Printed for J. Johnson etc. New York: A.M.S. Press, 1965.

Hewitt, Barnard. Theatre U.S.A.: 1665 to 1957. New York: McGraw-HillBook Co., 1959.

Hogan, Charles B. Shakespeare in the Theatre., 1701-1800. 2 vols.Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952. (Reprinted 1957).

Holinshed, Raphael. Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland. 2nded. 1587. Ed. Allardyce and Josephine Nicoll. London: J. M.Dent and Sons, 1927.

Keating, Micheline. "U A Drama Department1s Richard III Impressive," Tucson Daily Citizen, February 9, 19 71, p. 21.

Kittredge, George Lyman, ed. The Kittredge ShakespeareTs, Richard III. Rev. Irving Ribner. Waltham, Mass.: Blaisdell Publishing Co., 1968.

Lamb, Charles. The Works of Charles Lamb. Ed. E. V. Lucas. New York: J. M. Dent, 1912.

Lang, William A. Assistant Professor of Drama. Interview with the writer. Tucson, November 17, 1971.

Legge, Thomas. Richardus Tertius, in New Variorum Edition. Ed. H. H. Furness. 26 vols. Philadelphia: J. P. Lippincott and Co.,1908.

Markham, Sir Clements R. Richard III: His Life and Character.Chicago: Simon and Schuster, 1950.

59Matterson, Te M., ed. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. New

York: World Syndicate. Publishing Co., 1930.

Meres, Francis. Palladis Tamis: Witls Treasury. New York: Scholar'sFacsimiles and Reprints, 1938.

More, Thomas. History of King Richard the Third. Ed. J. R. Lumby. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1883.

Moses, Montrose J. Famous Actor Families in America. New York: T. Y. Carwell and Co., 1906.

Nagler, Alois M. A Source Book of Theatrical History. New York: Dover Publications, 1952.

Nicoll, Allardyce. The English Theatre: A Short History. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1936.

Masks, Mimes and Miracles. New York: Square Publishers,Inc., 1963.

Nix, David. nU A Does Epic Play Superbly,,f Arizona Daily Star, Febru­ary 10, 1971, Section B, p. 3. >

Odell, George C. D. Shakespeare from Betterton to Irving. New York: Columbia University Press, 1921. .

Pavillard, Dan. "VII Minutes with Richard III," Tucson Daily Citizen, February 6, 1971, pp. 4-5.

Ribner, Irving. . "Introduction," to The Kittredge Shakespeare's Richard III. Ed, George Lyman Kittredge. Waltham, Mass.: Blaisdell Pub­lishing Co., 1968.

Rizzo, Frank. "Richard III Towering but Tiring Epic," Arizona DailyWildcat, February 9, 19 71, p. 10.

Rubin, Blanche. Member of audience. Interview with the writer.Tucson, November 11, 1971.

Satin, Joseph. Shakespeare and his Sources. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1966,

Shaw, George Bernard. Our Theatres in the Nineties. 3 vols. • London: Constable Publishers, 1932.

Stoker, Bram. Personal Reminiscences of Henry Irving. New York:Macmillan and Co., 1906.

60Vergil, Polydore. Historica Anglica. Ed. Sir Henry Ellis. London:

Jo B. Nichols and Sons, 1844.

Wilson, John Dover. introduction,,f to Richard III, by William Shake­speare. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1954.

Winter, William. Life and Art of Edwin Booth. New York: GreenwoodPress, 1893.

Wood, Ida Perry. Stage History of Richard the Third. New York: Columbia University Press, 1909.

Wright, Louis B., ed. The Folger Library General Reader's Shakespeare Richard the Third. New York: Washington Square.Press, 1960.

Young, Stark. Immortal Shadows: A Book of Dramatic Criticism. New York: C. Scribner1s Sons, 1954.