Shakespeare Fans discussion

Discussion of Act 5 Richard II can happen here...

I did like the short, fast- moving scenes leading up to the grand finale. It built a lot of momentum on the page. I'm keen to check out how different directors have handled it on film and, when I next get the chance, on stage.

I've finished at last!
Jim, I agree, the last act is quick moving and so on. Somehow, I lost interest in the third and fourth act, and I can't exactly say why. I think because although we know that (according to the views of the time) the villain will be defeated and peace and justice resumed in the end, for much of the play there isn't a counterbalance of good opposing evil. There is just Richard III doing evil and those who oppose him being picked off or being ineffectual (like his mother). Queen Margaret shows up to say 'I told you so', but she does'n't even really need to lay it on so thick.
I suppose she is meant to be a terrible object lesson on what happens if you give way to bitterness, though given what has happened to her husband and son, it would need real Christian resignation not to.
I felt sorry for Richard in the last act, when he says that nobody will mourn his death. I felt vaguely sorry for everyone, but I didn't get the sense of cartharsis I do with 'King Lear' or even with 'Julius Ceasar.'
Maybe this is a play which is far better acted than read, and I haven't seen it acted.
Of course, this is meant to be a fairly early play, yet I found many parts of the three parts of Henry Vi more stirring.

Lucinda wrote: "I felt sorry for Richard in the last act, when he says that nobody will mourn his death. I felt vaguely sorry for everyone, but I didn't get the sense of cartharsis I do with 'King Lear' or even with 'Julius Ceasar.'"

Can't say I share the same feeling about Richard at this point in the play, Lucinda, though the speech you refer to does hint at some of the more impressive rhetorical flourishes in which Shakespeare indulged, not only in Lear and Caesar, but (especially) Hamlet and Macbeth. I'm surprised that no one's spoken of their impression of the dream sequence in Act 5. To my mind it's one of the two major events in the act and sets up the chance for the audience to witness whatever pangs of conscience Richard may be experiencing before he goes into battle. It's certainly the closest we ever get to in the play to anything resembling an inner emotional/psychological struggle within him:

Soft! I did but dream.
O coward conscience, how dost thou afflict me!
The lights burn blue. It is now dead midnight.
Cold fearful drops stand on my trembling flesh.
What do I fear? myself? there's none else by:
Richard loves Richard; that is, I am I.
Is there a murderer here? No. Yes, I am:
Then fly. What, from myself? Great reason why:
Lest I revenge. What, myself upon myself?
Alack. I love myself. Wherefore? for any good
That I myself have done unto myself?
O, no! alas, I rather hate myself
For hateful deeds committed by myself!
I am a villain: yet I lie. I am not.
Fool, of thyself speak well: fool, do not flatter.
My conscience hath a thousand several tongues,
And every tongue brings in a several tale,
And every tale condemns me for a villain.
Perjury, perjury, in the high'st degree
Murder, stem murder, in the direst degree;
All several sins, all used in each degree,
Throng to the bar, crying all, Guilty! guilty!
I shall despair. There is no creature loves me;
And if I die, no soul shall pity me:
Nay, wherefore should they, since that I myself
Find in myself no pity to myself?

It's something like a precursor to Macbeth's conscience soliloquy just before he murders King Duncan and, quite obviously, Hamlet's bout of existential crisis in his To be or not to be speech. It's plain evidence, at the very least, of a singular voice at the beginning of his creative potential. Who else was doing this sort of thing in the public theater?

I find the set up of the dream to be a bit clunky and simpleminded with (ostensibly) the virtuous and sleepy headed Richmond on one side of the stage and the startled Richard on the other whilst Richard's dead victims parry between the two, heaping well-wishes and curses on either. But as a set-up to the almost schizo soliloquy from Richard that follows it feels justified. It can't compare, of course, to the banquet/ghost scene in Macbeth or the great ghost-father appearance in Act 1 of Hamlet but for a first try (don't think there are any ghosts in the Henry VI plays) it ain't bad.
:D

You are so right, Marlin. What other playwriter in this era would have had the genius to use this approach? Would Marlowe have? Probably not, but I have only read a couple of his plays. I should have given more thought to this.
I think I was slightly eager to get away from the Oh So Virtuous future Henry Vii when I read this part - and that spoilt my appreciation.
The lines that made me pity King Richard are 'There is no creature loves me; And if I die, no soul shall pity me: Nay, wherefore should they, since that I myself Find in myself no pity to myself.'
I suppose, too, that Shakespeare would have been thinking about the religious context, about the New Testament message that you must have mercy on others to expect it from the Deity.
But it is interesting that Richard doesn't feel compassion for himself, and that makes him more sympathetic to me, because unfortunately most people who judge others harsly are lenient with themselves and often full of self pity. Richard seems incapable of pity for anyone, himself included.
But then, intriguingly, he doesn't exactly judge character or motive as such, he only assesses strength and weakness. Perhaps it is this which makes him such a stage villain type.

Lucinda wrote: "intriguingly, he doesn't exactly judge character or motive as such, he only assesses strength and weakness. Perhaps it is this which makes him such a stage villain type."

Quite. It works well for Richard as a kind of stock character for mass entertainment and a convenient ploy for Shakespeare, the dramatist, in development.

Not that any of it was easy or any of his writing "pat". Most of the play is in verse and, looking back over some of the language, some of it seemingly awkward. Although, sometimes I think the awkward sentence structure is humorously deliberate, particularly in the interplay of Buckingham and Richard with "the citizens"; it's certainly the case with lower-born characters. After all, when Shakespeare wants to be direct few writers can be more emphatic ("My kingdom for a horse!"). There's no question that, as Virginia Woolf put it, "the language flows out of him, free and unimpeded." So it was hardly a lack of talent that kept the portrait of Richard to something of a caricature but a merely a matter of doing something entertaining with the form. And I don't think Shakespeare was particularly interested in being novel or original but mostly in keeping people in the theater - and having them come back (hence, the serial history play cycle).

Marlin - you say you don't think there are any ghosts in the Henry VI plays. It's easy to miss as it's a relatively small episode but in II Henry VI 3:iii Cardinal Beaufort, who has arranged the murder of Duke Humphrey, sees and talks to some sort of ghost or an embodiment of death just before he himself dies. We don't see the figure he is talking to, so it is clear he is imagining it, and that it embodies his conscience. Like much in Henry VI part II this seems like a sketch of things that were done more fully later. Maybe after depicting someone seeming to see a ghost, Shakespeare decided it would be more dramatic to embody the vision on stage. But I agree that it's done rather clunkily in Richard III. Much more evocatively in Hamlet, Macbeth and Julius Caesar,

Gabriel wrote: "Marlin - you say you don't think there are any ghosts in the Henry VI plays. It's easy to miss as it's a relatively small episode but in II Henry VI 3:iii Cardinal Beaufort, who has arranged the murder of Duke Humphrey, sees and talks to some sort of ghost or an embodiment of death just before he himself dies. We don't see the figure he is talking to, so it is clear he is imagining it, and that it embodies his conscience. Like much in Henry VI part II this seems like a sketch of things that were done more fully later. "

Ha. I was hoping someone would check me on this, though I think Shakespeare is up to something a bit different here, Gabriel:

CARDINAL
If thou be'st death, I'll give thee England's treasure,
Enough to purchase such another island,
So thou wilt let me live, and feel no pain.
KING HENRY VI
Ah, what a sign it is of evil life,
Where death's approach is seen so terrible!
WARWICK
Beaufort, it is thy sovereign speaks to thee.
CARDINAL
Bring me unto my trial when you will.
Died he not in his bed? where should he die?
Can I make men live, whether they will or no?
O, torture me no more! I will confess.
Alive again? then show me where he is:
I'll give a thousand pound to look upon him.
He hath no eyes, the dust hath blinded them.
Comb down his hair; look, look! it stands upright,
Like lime-twigs set to catch my winged soul.
Give me some drink; and bid the apothecary
Bring the strong poison that I bought of him.

Beaufort mistakes Henry for Death, itself. He's clearly delirious and though it's reminiscent of Macbeth, for instance, mistaking a stool for the dead King Duncan or Banquo; or Richard being visited by his dead victims, Beaufort is seeking a kind of redemption in the figure of Henry and with this hallucination provides a foreboding of what is to happen to Henry (and his reign) by seeing death in his figure. It serves a slightly different function than the two kings who are hallucinating apparitions, if not from guilty consciences than from a kind of cosmic justice. Beaufort is seeking a trial while the two kings are succumbing mentally to their own treachery. Indeed, as you suggest, the ghosts are active apparitions in Hamlet, Macbeth and Richard III and have a direct affect on the main protagonists (and mood of the scenes) but "the ghost" is passive and more of suggestion with Beaufort, whose mind was already altered by the time King Henry enters his bedroom unwillingly (and almost comically) cast as The Grim Reaper. At least, that's how I read it. But, agreed; it was an initial stab at the whole ghost/apparition/death figure with respect to the main character in all the plays we've considered. Great point.

These posts are so wonderful. I am having to read them twice as they are so meaningful and insightful. Thank you both.

I am going to watch Act 5 again....back in a bit...

And good gosh where are James and Tom?!

What's the next Group Read play?

Well...I don't know?

I wonder if anyone is up to another? Joseph...I'll start a thread to inquire...

The insights here are just marvelous. Gabriel, Lucinda and Marlin...youve roundedoff so many of my feelings.

I am having a hard time to feel too much sympathy for Richard. I do feel compassion for the childhoods of bad people. I do. However once they become bad and adult...it's not easy.

I feel fascination with this R3. He may not be the real person...as I had always believed. But in this play...my fascination is a sort of compassion. Like watching true crime series and documentaries. How did this happen? How did this person come out so rotten...and others did not?

As for whether its a good play or strong play? I see the issue as it being one of the best portrayals of badness. And that makes it amazing for me.