Richard II

Richard II is one of Shakespeare's most lyrical plays, containing less psychological complexity than the tragedies which followed it, but overflowing with an unexcelled richness of language and imagery. It is the work of a young genius who knew his power with words and liked to exhibit it. The Eliot Drama Group apparently knows it, too, for the greatest virtue of their production, which is successful on almost every count, lies in their ability to speak with clarity and precision. Their presentation is a fine tribute to Shakespeare, the poet.

Shakespeare's powers as a dramatist are, however, less apparent in the production. The fault here is in part due to the play itself, since Richard II lacks a great deal of motion and excitement. Director Glenn Goldburg does not quite manage to surmount this shortcoming. His blocking takes good advantage of the arena stage, but it tends to be rather static, especially in the long first act. Nevertheless, his staging is always visually interesting, and it is questionable whether any director can inject motion into a play that often does not move.

If the play lacks excitement, it does, on the other hand, contain a huge and difficult role--that of King Richard II himself. Shakespeare presented Richard as a man with considerable personal charm and as a monarch more interested in the trappings of kingship than in its responsibilities. Yet after his deposition by Bolingbroke he achieves tragic stature. D.J. Sullivan's interpretation of Richard captures the weaknesses of the man but does not sufficiently emphasize his final strength. His impression of the king is correctly fickle and full of self-pity, yet at the end Richard emerges more intense and nervous than heroic.

In contrast, Herb Adams's Bolingbroke is a character of much power and just though not vengeful anger. His portrayal of the usurper is not the only possible one, but Adams has developed it with assurance and consistency. Equally consistent and even more convincing is Harold R. Scott's portrayal of the Duke of York. His acting is the best in the entire production, and he makes the agony of York's divided loyalty to both Richard and Bolingbroke clear in every line and even the dejected shuffle of his steps. Scott proves that a comparatively minor part can assume major importance in the hands of a skilled performer.

Scott's excellence does not overshadow the other players, though--they are almost all too good for that. The cast is large, and each one cannot be singled out for his deserved praise. Several of the actors do, however, stand out; particularly John Fenn as an impassioned Mowbray, Glen Bowersock in the role of Aumerle, Johanna Linch, who played a very majestic Queen and Andre Gregory as the aging and prophet-like Gaunt. And in the tiny part of a gardener, Charles Sifton gave a really remarkable performance.

The technical aspects of the production are at least on the same level as the acting. The costumes, designed by Leslie Van Zandt, are strikingly varied and little short of beautiful. John Ratte's setting is simple but well adapted to the various places it represents, while the original music by Stephen Addiss acts as an effective bridge between scenes.

The overall excellence of the Eliot Drama Group production of Richard II proves that amateur theatres need not be frightened away from large and technically demanding plays. That the Eliot group's efforts are a success is the most telling compliment to its ambition.