2 PM Richard II
3:35 PM INTERMISSION
3:55 PM Henry IV, Part I
5:25 PM INTERMISSION
6:10 PM Henry IV, Part II
7:10 PM INTERMISSION
7:30 PM Henry V
8:55 PM END
Sooooooo HERE’S THE CRAIC:
Clear plastic ponchos are optional in the ‘splash zone’ of the Gerald W. Lynch Theatre in New York City. The location of DruidShakespeare Company’s adaptation and amalgamation of the plays Richard II, Henry IV: Part I, Henry the IV: Part II and Henry V as part of the Lincoln Center Festival 2015. Mark O’Rowe was the writer and Garry Hynes the director.
I wore said poncho and shared a few chuckles over it with the other poncho bearers. I am sure I looked HILARIOUS. However, it did shield my wardrobe from the blood, dirt and rain that risked falling off that stage during fight sequences. Nothing fell off the stage onto me except sound (although the stage floor was lined with dirt, there was a lot of blood and fighting, and some puking). I felt very ‘considered’ by the theatre though!
O’Rowe was capturing a “play about fathers and sons… leadership, honor, the question of which elements contribute most to greatness – birth or environment or both. It’s about class… affections a leader must quell or kill in himself… to be a leader – which relationships he must terminate, which to nourish. It’s about war – it’s origins, its workings, its consequences.” (Lincoln Center Festival 2015 Program)
An interesting thing to notice was the choice to gravitate towards the performers’ native Irish dialects rather than towards a more English sound or classical stage speech. I sadly did not attend the talkback, but just finished a rehearsal with a friend who DID attend and she TOLD me (*tisk*tisk* on the hearsay here…) that the company’s voice coach, Andrew Wade, encouraged this move. Two things to point out here regardless of debates over how to ‘speak Shakespeare’: 1. The actors felt very grounded and connected to each other while in their Irish dialects; 2. You can tell that Andrew still worked on making the language and sound production clear and consistent so it carried in the theatre. In this way I always ‘heard’ the story due to a clever use of consonant and vowel stress choices on the actors’ parts.
ACTOR LESSON for me was that whatever the dialect happens to be an actor’s muscularity of speech is an asset.
Another most interesting thing to notice (and I’d be a fool to not talk about) is Haynes’ gender blind casting. I LOVE IT! IT’S NICE TO SEE MORE OF IT. I ALSO WANT TO BE PART OF IT AS AN ACTOR.
The company of thirteen actors played over a hundred characters with some female actors playing men. King Henry IV (Derbhle Crotty), King Henry V (Aisling O’Sullivan), Lord Chief Justice (Marie Mullen) and others. Why am I so intrigued? I think it has to do with the human spirit, regardless of gender, and the getting to know what identity is all about including both the dark/bright, high/low, masculine and feminine parts of it.
As actors we are trained to use our bodies and voices as vessels to transform into another identity – that of another human being. It is so exciting to see where an actor is different and where an actor is similar to a character – and sometimes this can be scary. By shifting a center of energy from the head to the heart or even the hips in an actor’s body the character’s perspective can change. Moving through space differently can change the point of view of a human being. Moving through space in a traditionally ‘masculine’ way seems to afford O’Sullivan more freedoms as King Henry V. Even in the very simple manner of speaking louder and more boldly than if he were bound to the movements of a female, in high status, of the era. The transformation of an actor into a character is fascinating. More importantly the shifts in identity that a character makes on stage is the character’s story. If the character’s story is being told physically, psychologically, emotionally, vocally… then what difference does the gender of the actor make?
On the flip side a male actor has often been known to play a character that is a woman (original Shakespearean actors)… and up until present continues to embody effeminate male characters with often traditionally ‘feminine’ traits. I really enjoyed watching Marty Rae’s character (Richard II) transform from a fragile, emotionally stunted King into a bold, rascal of a usurped ‘cousin’ to Henry IV. A really interesting metaphor is used, a looking glass, when he is finally usurped by King Henry IV. Richard II opens the play in a more ‘feminine’, ethereal, goddess like state that is slowly stripped away with his power. As he ‘looks through the looking glass’ he finally transforms his identity towards a singular, more human, angry ‘masculine’ presence.
“One thing that binds all my work and continues to interest me in performing… is this question of identity and the question of transformation and I am genuinely moved by the way in which all of us are… society circumscribes us and we play into this feeling that we have to pick one identity and stick with it and any natural transformation within our spirit is to be resisted at all costs and if there is some great shift in one’s life one’s to feel nothing but shame and failure. That’s the thing I’m constantly drawn back to.” – Tilda Swinton
Swinton’s statement is certainly relevant when examining the transformation of the identities of Richard II and Henry IV and V. What circumscribes their greatness? How does that change as their identities are challenged and shifted? As ‘greatness’ is taken away symbolically by crown and duty – what characteristics and events cause a remembrance of ‘greatness’?
In the minds and hearts of the people at the end of the play – most of the other characters on stage had known King Henry V as friend, comrade soldier, family member as opposed to Richard II whose choices reflected a more distant, shiny, hovering spectacle. This rendition of Shakespeare’s plays suggests that an indulgent, reckless youth can shift and grow into an adult, may become a leader, and it is what a leader does on behalf of the people (s)he leads that causes a remembrance of ‘greatness’ or of ‘honor’. Not only that… it seems to inflate a sort of self-esteem in a leader to also be considered a human being among people, not alone, regardless of symbolic duty and crown.
ACTOR LESSON for me was that I can initially look globally at a play and figure out who my character foils, if anyone, because it can give me clues on what the growth of my character could be, and the purpose it has to carry out themes… and to tell the story.