"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" ~ Dick the Butcher
There is a certain irony in the fact that one of Shakespeare’s best known lines is found in the middle play of a trilogy which is rarely performed. This might explain why the line is often misunderstood and taken out of context.
And there is a lot of context in the Henry VI plays.
As regular readers will know, I am doing my best to see all of Shakespeare’s plays live. Unfortunately, I thought I had lost my best chance to see the Henry VI plays. The Utah Shakespeare Festival did them back in 2018 and 2019 - my wife went to see them but I was unable to get free.
Thus, when I saw that The Old Globe in San Diego was going to do a version of the three plays over two nights, I knew I had to take my chance. This is the sort of trilogy that you can’t really split up. The three plays have a single narrative arc, and make less sense without the others. Combine this with a large cast requirement, an epic story, and the need to make careful cuts to the bloated scripts, and you have a recipe for a very expensive production. In addition to that, the plays are not as popular as others, so there is a financial risk as well. Hence, see it when you can.
The Henry VI plays were likely Shakespeare’s first, and show some rough edges. The three plays have roughly 170 named characters, the mood swings wildly from bawdy humor to over-the-top pathos. The subtlety Shakespeare would later develop hasn’t yet fully developed, leading to sections with clunky language and overly didactic points.
This isn’t to say that there aren’t glimmers of the genius to come: in fact, there are some incredible scenes and speeches and dialogues. It just isn’t consistent like it will be when Shakespeare is in his prime. To a degree, the fun of these plays is in seeing Shakespeare start to explore the ideas that will eventually form the basis of his masterpieces.
The challenge for any production of these plays is to figure out how much to cut, and how much to retain.
First of all, I think it is important to note that nobody actually does uncut Shakespeare. Not only are the plays incredibly long, but they are repetitive throughout - Shakespeare essentially recaps stuff all the time, so new arrivals or inattentive groundlings can catch up. This isn’t necessary for modern audiences, who take theater a bit more seriously, and expect to get a tauter narrative for their money.
For modern American audiences, the details of English history are both less familiar to us, and less personal. Shakespeare routinely included a plethora of historical figures since his wealthier patrons would likely be related to them, and would be disappointed if Uncle William, the 16th Duke of Earl didn’t get a line somewhere. Modern productions, therefore, combine characters.
Even with this, and with actors playing multiple characters, the cast for this production was still pretty large.
Likewise, the plot is typically simplified for these three plays. Some of the machinations and specific events in history get to be a bit too much. The main cut in this production, from what I can tell, is the second half of Part 3. We get nothing of Warwick’s defection to Henry VI - which was driven by Edward IV’s choice of a wife. That whole subplot is gone, and Warwick dies in battle without much to indicate who he is fighting for. Not that it really matters by the end. Everyone is in it for themselves by that point, and the country has descended into chaos.
This production also blew through the other historical stuff at the end of Part 3, with actors reciting some of the events and battles, rather than putting them all on. I think this was a good idea, as Shakespeare loaded up that final play with four on-stage battles plus more that were reported by messengers. It is…a bit much.
The other central decision to the production was to cut the plays so that it could be done in two nights, rather than three. This is common, although most combine Part 2 and Part 3 in a single night, like Utah did.
In this case, director Barry Edelstein made a more unusual choice and divided the three plays into four total acts.
The first act is essentially Part 1 of the trilogy. It ends with the deaths of Talbot and Joan of Arc, and the arranged marriage between Henry VI and Margaret.
After the intermission, the play resumes with the first part of Part 2. That play, generally considered the best of the three, is all about the court intrigue, rather than the battles that dominate the first and third parts. The first night ends at the midpoint of Part 2, with Suffolk banished (and then killed by pirates) for his murder of Gloucester, and Cardinal Beaufort’s madness and death.
The second night opens with Richard Plantagenet inciting Jack Cade to rebel. Cade is a typical populist demagogue, claiming royal birth (which few actually believe) and making promises that range from pandering (bread will be cheap!) to absurd (make it a felony to drink cheap beer!)
This is where Dick the Butcher’s famous line comes in. Dick doesn’t believe anything Cade is saying, but he is there to knock skulls anyway, and doesn’t really care who he does it for. More about this scene later.
This act ends with the country descending into chaos, and the king fleeing.
The final act is Part 3. Plantagenet forces the king to relinquish the crown after his death, allowing Plantagenet to rule, and his descendents thereafter. This incenses Queen Margaret, who leads the army to victory. Plantagenet is killed, but his sons, Edward and Richard take up his cause.
This is where there are a lot of cuts, because in life and in the play, there is a gap of over a dozen years, when Edward rules, before Henry VI briefly reclaims the throne. Much intrigue and drama even without getting into all this.
At the end, Shakespeare sets up the character of Richard III as the most Machiavellian of them all - he would end up writing that play soon thereafter, arguably his first smash hit.
While I haven’t seen this play before, and therefore have no comparison, I will say that I think Edelstein created a compelling narrative arc and theme for the plays. The tempo never dragged, and everything worked to further the narrative and the theme.
Shakespeare was a monarchist - he didn’t particularly trust the common people - and believed in the rule of law. I am not much of the former, but definitely a fan of the latter. In these plays (as in his later ones), Shakespeare is concerned with an unfortunate reality of politics.
Whatever the form of government, politicians who are only in it for themselves end up destroying stability, decency, the nation, and eventually themselves in the process.
Henry VI is flawed because he is weak and unable to unite the country, and I sympathize with his general personality - I too would prefer everyone get along. But it is the others who do the greater damage, and they put themselves and their own power and ambition above the good of England, heedless of what they break in the process.
In turn, character after character chases power and fortune, only to be cut down and replaced by another. With every rise and fall, every death, every murder, every intrigue, England suffers. Public confidence is shattered, and demagogues and opportunists exploit the people. Like so much of Shakespeare, this seems all too relevant today.
In fact, Edelstein very much made some nods to our current time and place in the sequence involving Jack Cade. When we first meet him - at Cade’s rally - he is dressed like QAnon Shaman, and his supporters are waving giant flags that look suspiciously like Trump flags - just with “Cade” and “1450” on it.
Cade’s handwaving to reduce inflation sounds darn familiar, as does his cavalier approach to women. (Cut from this version, but on point is a scene where Dick the Butcher rapes the wife of another supporter. Cade responds that all women are fair game in his kingdom.)
Edelstein also changes around some characters, from what I can tell, in order to make a closer parallel to the January 6 coup attempt. Rather than the historical William Crowmer, this version uses the name Michael Spence - so that the crowd can chant “Hang Mike Spence.” Although fictionalized, Cade did end up murdering four members of the aristocracy, with the help of his rioting followers.
As Utah apparently did in its production, this one started with historical costumes, but moved to modern ones as the play progressed. For the director, he indicated that he felt that with the death of the old guard, England went from medieval to modern - from an arguably more honorable and mutual view of power and responsibility to a more Machiavellian view, with individual power taking precedence over the common good.
Whether this is actually true is debatable, of course. It certainly seems as if personal power has always motivated certain kinds of humans, and this occurs in all places and times. Perhaps what has changed is whether those conscience-free sorts gain power or are marginalized.
Part of the difficulty with Shakespeare, in this case, is that he, for political reasons, decided to make Richard III into a villain. As in the case of Macbeth, this turns out to be a slander. The historical Richard III was actually a fairly effective leader, died honorably in battle, and was likely not responsible for the deaths of the princes in the tower. And he wasn’t a hunchback either.
But, because Queen Elizabeth I was a Tudor, Richard became the villain, and her grandfather Henry VII the hero.
Where Shakespeare did get it right, however, was the truth that when men who are only in it for themselves come to power, everyone suffers.
I wanted to mention some things I particularly loved about this production. Overall, I thought that it did a great job of storytelling. The end was a little less compelling - but considering Shakespeare’s seemingly anticlimactic original, with act after act of wrapup, I think Edelstein did a fantastic job. His choice to end with Henry VI’s death rather than spend the end setting up Richard III was particularly effective. The plays then become about Henry, rather than veering from him to Richard completely.
I also thought the way the acts were cut was effective. Each of the four acts over two nights had its own story, its own arc, and its own message. Again, great storytelling.
Shakespeare wrote song lyrics for his plays, but otherwise, there is nothing to go on for what music should be included. Thus, I have seen everything from local college productions that lean on current pop songs to professional productions using Elizabethan era music. There is no wrong way to do this, just as there is no right or wrong when it comes to background music and incidental music. (Years ago, I got to play in a combined orchestra and local actor production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream using Mendelssohn’s effervescent score.)
For this production, The Old Globe commissioned new music by Julian Mesri, performed live at each show by guitarist Martin Martiarena and percussionist Nathan Hubbard. And it was phenomenal. Ranging from period style tunes at the beginning to hard rock, blues, and movie music style scoring, it truly felt like it supported every emotion, every plot turn, every beat of the choreography. And believe me, live music sounds different than pre-recorded. It just does. Serious brownie points for the live music.
There were also some set pieces
that I greatly enjoyed. I already mentioned the January 6 Cade riot. I also
liked the Roaring 20s style French party, with Margaret as a chanteuse. (I hope
I am getting the era right - if not, my wife will let me know…) [Update: 1940s]
There is also the scene where Richard Plantagenet explains his ancestry in order to convince Warwick and others to support his bid for the crown. He brings out a vintage slide projector, and goes through a presentation, complete with thoroughly cheesy illustrations to aid with memory. My 13 year old laughed through this entire section.
Jack Cade’s death was also played for laughs. In real life, Cade was indeed starving and in flight across England after his fickle supporters deserted him. And he was killed by minor gentry Alexander Iden, after breaking into Iden’s garden and threatening him.
In real life, however, Iden was youngish to middle aged, and went on to serve with distinction in the wars.
In this production, Iden is an ancient and tottering yet determined man. As happens often in Shakespeare, a death is accompanied by much speechifying, and this is no exception. So, we have Iden in very slow motion, totter over to stab Cade, who is so busy blithering on at length that he forgets to dodge the very slow dagger. It is pretty hilarious, as is Iden getting honored later - he takes so long to kneel and then to rise. (Great physical acting by Mahira Kakkar, by the way.)
I also want to mention some outstanding acting performances. Since this is a professional production, the acting was excellent across the board, so no shade on anyone omitted. There were some that I really loved, however.
Keshav Moodliar as Henry VI was impressive. He had the fun job of changing in age across the three plays - starting more or less at age 8. Rather than change his appearance significantly, he did it all with physical acting, and with voice pitch. He was thoroughly convincing as an impulsive child, and at the end as an introspective yet broken man. The price of tickets would have been worth it for his performance alone.
The two most important female roles were top notch as well. Cassia Thompson handled two roles: prince Edward in the second play, and Joan of Arc in the first. (And, I believe, a few minor roles - everyone had to pitch in for the riot and battles.) As Joan, she utterly commanded the stage. Edelstein intentionally took the edge off some of the xenophobic and sexist bile Shakespeare directed at poor Joan, but it is still clear how much contempt most of the men had for women in general. Joan spit it right back at them. Great acting, and I hope to see more of Thompson in the future.
Elizabeth Davis carried the role of Margaret, which is one of Shakespeare’s greatest female characters. She is every bit as designing as any of the men, and has more huevos than most of them combined. One could ask whether she is a villain or a tragic hero - and both could be correct. Davis had the presence, the dignity, the gravitas, and the ruthlessness needed for this character. Riveting whenever she was on stage.
William DeMeritt was likewise perfectly cast as Richard Plantagenet. His range of moods, his intelligence, and endless ambition made him another contender for the hero of this play. “Villain” seems too simple for a man who would have made a better ruler than Henry VI, and who fails mostly because Margaret has a bigger army. But for her, he would have pulled off a largely bloodless coup.
As far as true villains, Suffolk in the first play, and Richard III in the second, both played by Gregg Mozgala, were thoroughly loathsome and scheming. It took me a minute to realize that they were the same actor, because of the different wigs and facial hair, but his unique stage presence (in part because of cerebral palsy) gave it away. I do not know how he is in real life, but he is so damn intense on stage. You could believe either character would cut your throat without a second thought.
Ian Lassiter also made an incredible transformation between the two plays. As the old sage Gloucester in the first, he had long hair and a goatee. In the second, he had curls and a shaved face for Edward IV. The voice alone gave away the reality. His acting styles were totally different for the two characters as well.
I also wanted to note Sofia Jean Gomez as Warwick for another intense, riveting performance. She lists herself on her website as “gender fluid,” and I believe it. Her physical machismo in this play matched that of the most macho characters. Another actor I would love to see in any role. Literally.
I know I am missing a bunch of roles - it is always difficult trying to keep two entire plays in one’s head well enough to write about it afterward. Suffice it to say that this was an outstanding performance all around, and I highly recommend seeing it before it closes next month.
***
So, which Shakespeare plays have I seen live? Well, maybe it is easier to list the ones I have NOT seen live at least once.
Titus Andronicus - I just missed seeing our friend Marina in this. The dates didn’t work out. My wife got to see it.
Antony and Cleopatra - USF is doing this next season, so I am hoping to check it off my list.
Troilus and Cressida - This one is very rarely done, and might be the most difficult to add, unless it is:
King John - I missed seeing this one at USF a number of years ago - they did the history plays in chronological order, and my wife saw most of them, but I believe not this one or Richard II, which we both saw at the Old Globe. I only saw Richard III and Henry VIII at USF. Another one that is rarely performed, so I will definitely try to see it wherever it is done next.
The Two Noble Kinsmen - I did see the Covid pre-recorded version from the London Globe, but that isn’t quite a live performance. Not everyone counts this, as it was co-written. But so was Henry VIII and Pericles, so?
No comments:
Post a Comment