Review: Richard III by William Shakespeare

Richard III by William Shakespeare
Series: War of the Roses
Published: 1597
Publisher: Public Domain
Pages: 145

The dramatic concluding months of The Wars of the Roses provide the setting for Shakespeare’s incomparable saga of power and intrigue. 

This timeless tragedy follows the bloody path of the "rudely stamped" Richard, Duke of Gloucester, who uses his murderous guile to achieve the throne of England.

Unfortunately, this was literally the largest/shortest synopsis I could find. Most books that publish Shakespeare plays simply list the benefits of their commentary and introductions on the back now, instead of actually describing the play (probably because it's Shakespeare).

Richard III is actually the conclusion of the War of the Roses histories. It follows Richard, Duke of Gloucester, a cripple who ruthlessly fights his way to the throne. This is after Edward IV took it from Henry VI. Arguably, it is the only overthrow of power from within a house, since all other change in successions had been between Lancaster, York, and Richard II.
As with all Shakespeare, it is best seen than read. Although, this one is harder to read than others, so I definitely recommend viewing a live performance. As of now, there are not any good movie or television adaptations, or the good ones took quite a few liberties with the text. But, in 2016, BBC will launch part two of its Hollow Crown miniseries (you might remember me raving about part one awhile back). And here's the kicker. Benedict Cumberbatch will play Richard III.

Excuse me, I'm just fangirling here

But really, the perfection of Tom Hiddleston and Benedict Cumberbatch staring in separate movies for this miniseries. 

SO. A very good adaptation is on its way. Anticipate. Because, this is a good play, and if the team behind it pulls it off correctly...it could be just as great as Henry IV and V.

Here's the issue that they might encounter, though. Richard the III is one of the most interesting and fun characters to watch. But he's the only one. Henry IV has Falstaff, Hal, and Henry IV to make the dynamic interesting. Richard spends most of his time killing and manipulating everyone, while they just act on as pawns in his game. Now, it's not too big of a deal because, like I said, Richard is fantastic. In the creepy-I'll never trust you way. But if you get someone who know's what he's doing, then you're in for a real treat. I was lucky enough to see Michael Gotch perform the role Fall 2013. One of the best stage performances I've ever seen. He had me in awe the entire time because he did something so amazing with this character. Afterwards, this elderly couple we'd sat next to turned to us as everyone's applauding and proudly said, "That's my son." I must have congratulated them a dozen times cause, wow. 

That said, Gotch was the only actor pulled from outside the University community for this play - and all the other character performances...well, they weren't good, and while I don't want to say they were bad...they weren't good. So, potentially, good actors and actresses could turn those other, lesser roles into something more. But it's a toss up because the conventional interpretation doesn't lend itself to much. My biggest critique of Richard III is that is seems underdeveloped (which is saying something for Shakespeare's second longest play). We never really understand why Richard III views everything so cynically, and the lack of a solid supporting cast doesn't make up for it. Potentially, the right performance could fix all of this. But so much hinges on the right variables coming together, and the ability of people to attend these performances. So in the end, I'd say look out for the BBC series, and maybe skim over the play before watching it. In typical Shakespeare fashion, it has some amazing lines. But to read it all through by yourself won't be very satisfying.