Cute, right?
So...where was I?
Oh, blood on the threads.
Well, of course, Buckingham never actually kills the kids.
But, in my interpretation, he resolves himself to do so.
On one condition, of course.
That he gets the Earldom of Hereford that Richard promises him.
(& the movables, too - can't forget those movables.)
So, that is the result of the journey that my character takes & the extreme to which he will go to get what he wants - which is obviously status, power, advancement & the trappings that come with that.
& even though "Uncle Buck" (as I like to call him) never actually goes through with it, I have to recognize that he goes from being appauled by infanticide early in the play to being, himself, an infanticidal maniac.
This change of heart comes too late (& again, in my interpretation, only after he has hedged his bets & set up a potential alliance with Richmond, an erstwhile adversary, just in case) & Richard has already found a "discontented gentleman who's humble means match not his haughty spirit" to "dispatch" those "bastards in the Tower".
So, by the time Buckingham steels himself for the dirty deed, the job has been stolen & not only that, but Richard isn't "in the giving vein", so Buck can forget about the movables, too.
Dissed.
Bummer...but, hey, there's always Richmond & his "puissant navy", right?
Well, initially, sure, but Buckingham (or "Bucky" to his wife) is intercepted on his way to wage war & gets his comeuppance at the hands of Richard & his new posse (which includes an actual Sheriff) long before the Battle at Bosworth Field.
Y'know, the one where Richard keeps looking for a horse?
So, anyway, before Bucky can see if he finally backed the right guy, they take him to Salisbury, lead him off to the block & decapitate him!
On All Soul's Day, even, the very day he swore allegiance to the very people he very coldly, cruelly & calculatedly conned, compromised or killed.
Right before they drop the axe, Buckingham points out the irony of it all & tries to make a last ditch effort to atone for what he has done...
BUCKINGHAM
Why, then All-Souls' day is my body's doomsday.
This is the day that, in King Edward's time,
I wish't might fall on me, when I was found
False to his children or his wife's allies
This is the day wherein I wish'd to fall
By the false faith of him I trusted most;
This, this All-Souls' day to my fearful soul
Is the determined respite of my wrongs:
That high All-Seer that I dallied with
Hath turn'd my feigned prayer on my head
And given in earnest what I begg'd in jest.
Thus doth he force the swords of wicked men
To turn their own points on their masters' bosoms:
Now Margaret's curse is fallen upon my head;
'When he,' quoth she, 'shall split thy heart with sorrow,
Remember Margaret was a prophetess.'
Come, sirs, convey me to the block of shame;
Wrong hath but wrong, and blame the due of blame.
What poetic justice!
In every sense: just AND poetic at the same time.
But in our sexy, streamlined version of the play, this aforementioned scene is omitted & Buckingham makes it to Bosworth just in time for the battle...he actually fights alongside the young Lord Dorset (the queen's son from her marriage prior to Edward) & together they subdue Richard (who is a great warrior) & set him up for Richmond to kill.
Then Richmond takes the crown & the people scream, "Huzzah!"
But, wait a minute, this Richmond doesn't seem any cooler than Richard, really...in fact, he might be worse; we don't know this guy at all: at least we liked Richard.
Good old Richard, he was smart & everybody picked on him...he was the underdog, really, right?
Okay, you got your funny picture & I blurted out my random thoughts, so here comes my serious question.
Even though we are merely rearranging Shakespeare (as opposed to rewriting it), have we tampered with the text too much?
If yes, why?
If not, do you think that the concept of retribution is illustrated clearly enough?
Or even moreso?
Does seeing Buckingham lose his head for his actions onstage provide more satisfaction?
Or is it better to watch him squirm as the lights fade knowing that he will probably still lose his head?
I know what I think.
But I've already said too much.
Your turn.
2 comments:
Ah Jaz-
You stumbled upon one of my big questions about our production of Triumph. I believe that our production is true to the story of the play and the author's intent, but we are cutting and taking liberties in a way that I HOPE actually SUPPORTS the themes of the play, but until we get an audience in there of people who are fresh meat, with no song and dance explanation from yours truly, we just won't know if it is successful and clear or not. I HOPE it is. I BELIEVE it is, but I am only one person. And what if Richard III or Triumph DOES, in the cuts/editing/rearranging of text, create a piece that doesn't serve the original text as well as it could, but DOES serve a contemporary audience and this audience is moved, excited, stimulated by this "new" piece created from/inspired by the classic text. Does it matter that we are not serving the original play? I don't know. I honestly don't. I am very interested in the deconstruction of classical texts, but it gets very slippery. A very slippery slope. When do we go too far? OR when do we not go far enough?
Yeah...I dunno either.
But I can say that the point you raise about creating a piece that serves a contemporary audience is important enough to imagine that any deceased playwright (Marivaux or Shakespeare or Miller) would definitely want their play to be relatable in this day & age & would probably sit down with a group of artists to make it so.
At least that's what I tell myself when William's ghost haunts my dreams with perturbations every night.
Post a Comment