By Kellie Houx, Editor of KC Studio
Heart of America
Shakespeare Festival’s “King Richard III” is the examination of a malevolent
king and the horrific decisions he makes to assume the mantle of power,
including having two young nephews killed. Let’s put it another way — it’s
not a comedy and it’s not for the faint of heart. The show runs through July 3
at Southmoreland Park, across from the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art.
Prepare to devote about three hours of time to the show. It’s worth it. I’m not complaining by any stretch. I will forever embrace the notion that people need to see William Shakespeare’s works performed live. I want people to dismiss their time in high school when they had to read “Romeo and Juliet” or “Hamlet” or “Macbeth.” Now let me spell out a caveat here. I enjoyed English literature in high school because I had a great teacher who created the right atmosphere and the right lessons to learn and understand Shakespeare. Having talked with several friends whose education in this was lacking, their time with Shakespeare is unfortunate and they have erected a wall that keeps them from even trying Shakespeare again.
“Richard III” might be the one to try again, if you understand that this play is the second longest in Shakespeare’s canon with “Hamlet” being the longest. However, Richard is a character that resonates with those who cheer for the villain. My husband tends to be one of these folks. Richard comes across like many movie villains – think Khan Noonien Singh in “Wrath of Khan” or Hans Gruber in “Die Hard” – bright, articulate, scary and oozing a sadistic charm. Bruce Roach, the actor who takes on the thousands of words written by Shakespeare, proves enjoyably evil. He is the sort of role that makes this audience-goer wonder if the character is the sort of man who has an “if-then evil flow chart” in his bedroom. Here are our thoughts (my husband Aaron and me): “So if I get rid of my brother today, then I move up the rung, one step closer to the throne.” I really did feel that Richard had those sorts of machinations. He makes no bones about it — “…since I cannot prove a lover/To entertain these fair well-spoken days,/ I am determined to prove a villain/ And hate the idle pleasures of these days.” Roach spoke these lines with the sweet venom I wanted to hear.
When I saw Roach walk on stage, I immediately noticed how he took on Richard’s alleged deformities. It looked like his left side was shriveled and almost useless. The one deformity I missed was the hump. According to some historians, and of course history is written by the winners, Richard may have had a hump or crooked back, withered arm and a limp. Historian Thomas More described Richard as such and since More was employed by the Tudors, the royal family that beat Richard at the Battle of Bosworth (thus ending the War of the Roses), it’s easy to see how Shakespeare used the history written on behalf of the Tudors (Queen Elizabeth I was ruler during the time he wrote) to craft Richard as a hideous monster with the blackest of hearts.
I adored Roach as that sort of self-confident heavy. He is bad and knows it. He takes the audience along for the ride and talks to us, encouraging us to see what evil he can do to improve his state and rise to the throne. As for the asides (the dramatic device in which it appears a character is speaking his or her thoughts away from the others on stage), Richard’s rank up there, in my book. The blood shed starts pretty quickly. Through some devious schemes, Richard has his brother Clarence killed in the Tower. His oldest brother King Edward’s health is hanging by a thread. When he learns of Clarence’s death, King Edward dies. That’s two down for Richard.
When I first read “Richard III” in high school and then again in college, I didn’t care for the women in the play. I thought they were weepy and given to hysterics. They are mourning the loss of husbands, sons and countrymen, but I just didn’t care for them. The actresses on stage for the Heart of America Shakespeare Festival have restored these women in my eyes. Queen Margaret, played by Kathleen Warfel, spat her curses to everyone with equal disdain. Cinnamon Schultz captured Lady Anne well. It’s not the most significant role, but she clearly understands that she is more than likely entering into a toxic relationship with Richard. His brother’s wife, Queen Elizabeth, played by Carla Noack, and Richard’s, Edward’s and Clarence’s mother, the Duchess of York, played by Merle Moores, seemed suited for their grief and direct that angry sorrow appropriately at Richard.
Like my husband, I am beginning to enjoy the “baddies” in a play or movie. Those noblemen in allegiance to Richard are far more interesting than the good guys. Scott Cordes as Sir Richard Brakenbury and Alexander Salamat as Sir Richard Ratcliff were decidedly fun in their wickedness. The two historic figures might have had a hand in making Queen Elizabeth’s two young sons, the Duke of York and Prince Edward, disappear. While the body count is not as high as it could be, the deaths happen mostly off stage. However, there is one scene in particular where all the dead decide to pay a visit. I won’t give much away, but it’s a cool scene.
Of course, the play isn’t perfect. There were lines flubbed, but the recoveries were valiant. If Roach missed any lines, he did a marvelous job of glossing over the missteps so quickly, I couldn’t tell. I have a soft spot for Shakespeare and for the actors who attempt the parts. It’s not easy, but with the right thespians delivering the lines, an audience can understand the language just fine. I spoke with Producing Artistic Director Sidonie Garrett after the show and we talked briefly about how things went. She was glad to get the opening night under her belt. Sure, the summer winds blew the scenery doors open at the wrong times and a couple tapestries just didn’t want to stay up, but Garrett understands the trials and tribulations of summer outdoor theater. All in all, it’s good, free summer fun where the awful toad of a king gets his comeuppance in the end.
