aviv_b_artwork | Richard III - At Chicago Shakespeare Theater (Reply)

Now is the winter of my discontent. Something didn't sit right with me about this performance. Everything seemed fine, acting good, Barbara Gaines minimalist sets fine, good use of music, but something didn't work.

I was bored, bored silly. I couldn't wait for it to be over. How can that be when Richard III is one of my favorite plays?

I'm going to see what the critics had to say and see if that helps.

*****

While many critics gave Richard III very positive reviews, two really nailed the problem cold:

From: The Chicago Tribune: http://leisureblogs.chicagotribune.com/the_theater_loop/2009/10/richard-iii-at-chicago-shakes-the-king-is-elusive-but-hes-never-dull-.html#

The gap between Acton, a formatively skilled classical actor with a long list of credits in Washington, D.C., and the rest of the company is indicative of a common problem on Navy Pier. The Chicago actors in the show operate in the kind of conversational, naturalistic style that Gaines, to her credit, has nurtured and supported. But the man in the title role is like an old-time English star doing Shakespeare in the colonies — his delivery is mid-Atlantic, his style theatricalized, his performance full of flourish. My beef is not so much with what Acton is doing here — he handles the poetry masterfully, rolling it around on his tongue and teasing out its meaning — but with its disconnect to the aesthetic of the rest of the company. At times, it feels like he’s not really looking at anyone else — or, for that matter, the audience. And we/they don’t really look back at him. Sure, Richard is an Other, as the theorists would say. But he also has to be connected. Otherwise, everyone would just laugh him out of court.

And from New City Stage: http://newcitystage.com/2009/10/05/review-richard-iiichicago-shakespeare-theater/
(though I strongly disagree with their take on the sets and music):

With Barbara Gaines’ Chicago Shakespeare Theater’s season-opening production, Washington D.C. actor Wallace Acton plays Richard with such affectations and disinterest that we don’t feel a thing. From the first moments of Richard’s soliloquy “Now is the winter of our discontent,” Acton is up there talking to himself, not us, refusing to connect either with the audience nor anyone else in the play. At one point after revealing his plans, he offers a brief, cursory faux smile to the thin air. His faux British accent is a cross between Charles Laughton and Roddy McDowall impressions and makes Richard into such a detached dandy that we cannot possibly accept that he would be able to sway anyone in the court into his confidence to do his bidding, let alone that he would be able to woo his way into the bedchamber of Lady Anne. Without a Richard that works, the play falls apart and much of the rest of the cast just falls into standby mode, the women most effectively able to get their characters across despite such a handicap.

Yep, that's it exactly. I was bored because I didn't care. Richard was a cartoon cutout compared to the other actors. Maybe my opening line should be: Now is the winter of my disconnect.
_______
An aside: The best Richard III I've ever seen was probably 15+ years ago at American Players Theater in Spring Green, Wisconsin. Richard was played with some pathos, which in no way diminished his evil. He was a fully realized person, not some Snidely Whiplash wanabee.