Richard II review by area High School student

Katherine Beydler
Performance Review: Richard II
11/16/06

Before I ever saw the Prenzie Players' version of Richard II my acting teacher informed me that it would be Shakespeare as I had never seen it put on before. Since I had seen many different renditions of Shakespearean plays, I scoffed internally at that promise, not expecting anything much different from what I had seen in the past. My surety of the commonness of the play was slightly shaken upon seeing the unusual setting; there were bits and pieces of the set strewn throughout the audience, with a large throne at the front of the room. For example, directly behind me were a bed and stereo (which began to play "Over My Head" by The Fray during the prelude; definitely not ordinary).

The prelude was probably the most original take on Shakespeare that I've ever seen. It involved King Richard waking up and dressing for a day at court; he awoke in bed with two of his courtiers, who then proceeded to engage in minor sexual activity. All of those roles were played by females, so I was somewhat surprised at their complete and total commitment to their characters. None of them even glanced at the audience, which impressed me, because I couldn't have resisted peeking if I had been so close.

That was one of the best things about the play: many characters wound their way through the audience while they delivered monologues or fought. My favorite scene of this nature involved two gardeners untying shoes, pretending that they were weeds. Even being that extremely up close and personal with an audience member didn't cause the gardeners to break character; even though I could see the shoelaces coming undone, I believed that there were a lot of weeds that needed to be pulled.

Though the dialogue in the play was very Shakespearean, I had no trouble understanding it. I might have if I had just read the play, but the actors had such a huge variety in rate and inflection that it would have been impossible to mistake their meaning even if the words had been in a foreign language. I had no idea what many of the words meant without the handy definition on the left page, but the emotions came through strong and clear.

Though all of the actors did a phenomenal job, I did have a favorite. Linnea Ridolfi in particular was exceptional. I didn't even recognize her at first, which is saying quite a lot, since I've known her since I was barely old enough to walk. There was no trace of funny, friendly Linnea in her voice onstage; she became her character completely. The woman who played Queen Isabella was also an incredible actress, as she had another difficult role in addition to Queen Isabella. Not only did she perform Isabella's accent flawlessly, but she did not balk at giving an extremely emotional monologue at the end of the play, and succeeded in making me feel (almost) sorry for Richard II.

My favorite scene, surprisingly, included neither of my favorite actors, but only Richard II himself (or, rather, herself, as the part was played by a woman). In any case, the scene was more or less Richard II talking to himself and listening to the music playing offstage. During most of the play, I never believed that I could have anything resembling pity for Richard II, as he was an insincere, wenching, mercurial king. However, despite all of his lacking qualities, the skill of the actress performing the monologue brought a surprising amount of sympathy to my heart.

The ending of the play disturbed me slightly. When the newly crowned King Henry finally managed to completely usurp his predecessor and be coroneted, he didn't act the same as he had earlier in the play; the seemingly warm-hearted man who had put up patiently with his over-zealous young helper disappeared. In his place was another version of Richard II, who cold-heartedly dismissed his most loyal helpers in place of others and bade his subjects to kiss his hands, all with a regal arrogance. It made my blood boil, honestly, and I didn't like the new king any better than the old one.

While the play revolves around a plot of royal intrigue, and eventually a usurpation and a murder, there were plenty of comic elements strewn throughout. The garden scene I mentioned earlier was one; another was the behavior of the certain older characters. It was good to have bits of comedy thrown in; if the entire play had been completely serious, I might have lost interest or become too depressed to watch the rest of it. The amount of funny things was just right, as too much would have made the play tacky, and too little put its watchers in a funk. Not only was the amount of amusement right, but the tone of it, also; it was never tasteless, but altogether perfect for Richard II, which could use a little comedy.

Obviously, that made me curious, which means that I have to see the continuation of The Henriad when the next installment (Henry IV) is put on next year. It's not often that I can say a Shakespeare piece left me on the edge of my seat, but Richard II truly did; there wasn't a single moment in the play where I found myself bored or my attention straying. The play was captivating, and every bit as steamy, violent, and inappropriate as any movie one could go and see in a movie theater today. Duels, rivalries, sex, and kingly mischief…Richard II lacked for nothing.