I love Marks tremolo and halting delivery because every halt sends another charge of meaning into the word halted on and the next word. Its particularly good with Richard because he is as weak a king as he is powerful in poetry, and in the end his rhetoric is is his only weapon.
To those who think this performance is lacking in anyway are just lost on the world of cinema, thos is how it was written to be performed live to a limited audience, no camera, no lights, no edits just raw words written by a man for the time in which he lived.
Mark Rylance baffles me.. He has an utterly unique break down for the text.. He yields completely to the Shakespearean text, yet he makes it entirely his own and makes it sound entirely extemporaneous.. The only thing about which I am a bit ambivalent in his take on the major Shakespearean roles, is that they are so rudimentary that they might be a bit similar.. I mean they are not as different from each other as how Laurence Olivier's Lear and Othello are different from each other, which is absolutely two different people.. But.. the man is ,notwithstanding, sufficient as Shylock says.. He is not trying to make them externally different, he is trying something else, something vital, and stunningly succeeding in doing so
"Might be a bit similar". Well , I think you are right , if more diplomatic than myself perhaps. I find him monotonous predictable and very tiring. I know he is revered and maybe it is personal taste but I would not go out of my way to see him. Ben Wishaw's Richard II had a life and energy that was so beyond this portrayal it was a different league.
I agree with the last line, he is expressing the soul of the character, or maybe another part of himself if he lived in a different world. Very influenced by the Stanislavsky learned American interest in character first.
I saw parts of Mark Rylance playing Henry V at the Globe... it was strange, since he took a very different line. The Warlike Harry sounded more like a tragic figure, more like Richard II. I hope I can find this version of R2 in full. He has a different take on the major roles. In a sense, closer to modern theater in dramatic choices, though his delivery is "classic" of course. But he tries to insert a psychological depth in the performance in the historical plays, always modeled on tragedy.
He's falling the fuck apart, and chooses comedy to keep it together. I get it, man, I do exactly this. Come, sit: let's tell sad stories of the death of kings.
Why is Richard ll always portrayed as an effeminate weeklong? Is there anything in the play itself that suggests he was either weak or effeminate? Nothing that I can find. A greedy tyrant, yes, but a weakling? Effeminate? I just don't get it. Why isn't he played with the same virility expressed by any of the other of Shakespeare's kings? Can someone explain this to me? I'm serious!
First of all, more than anything he’s just unstable and emotional which doesn’t necessarily conflate with femininity or weakness, though various productions lean into those on their own/in combination with it differently Second of all, historically speaking, that’s basically just how Richard II was, and is most of why his reign was such a shitshow. Not only did his actual advisors suck, but he was far more interested in hanging out (and by hanging out I mean extravagant feasts and parties followed by doing things described in an account from the time as “obscene, and not without a degree of improper intimacy”) with his young male courtiers and taking advice from them rather than actually paying attention to people with actual political and life experience or learning how to rule for himself when he was of age. He loved his extravagant clothing (he had a particular love of velvet), spent more money than England had beautifying Westminster Abbey with a fancy new ceiling, hell the man literally invented the handkerchief. He was literally basically your stereotypical flamboyant gay guy and did not give two shits about ruling. Combine this with also very strongly believing in the divine right of kings and having absolutely no doubt that this was where he was meant to be and he could do no wrong regardless of how much of a shitshow the country was, you wind up with a pretty shit ruler who also happens to be quite effeminate. And then we come to Shakespeare’s play which is basically a drawn out existential crisis over suddenly realizing perhaps this whole “above all other mortals because of my god given right to rule” stuff isn’t true which just further sparks the instability, emotionality, and lack of ability or will to rule. Of course most of that isn’t directly in the text, but given the emotional state of the character as he’s written in the play and the fact that historically he was extremely stereotypically feminine and gave zero shits about being in control of the people the effeminate, emotionally unstable portrayal is what links the two together and keeps it true to history as well as the text. Thanks for coming to my TED talk
Tl;dr there isn’t loads in the play besides the fact that it’s basically a drawn out mental breakdown so he’s not exactly at his strongest but people portray him similarly to how the real person was which includes femininity, emotional instability, and weak will when it comes to ruling
MaxieSmith479 I repeat my question? Does anything in the play itself suggest he was effeminate? And what in the play indicates any weakness of character or mental instability? Please be specific. I think that nothing in the play itself supports this traditional portrayal.
You realise that actors interpret things in their own way and that Mark Rylance is far more versed in the character intentions than you are, lending to the fact he actually played the character
Ca Fa That’s not a good reason to accept his interpretation as accurate. And it does not respond to my first inquiry: why is Richard 2 played as if he was gay and a wreaking to boot? Answer me this question with reference to the text, if you can?
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
I love Marks tremolo and halting delivery because every halt sends another charge of meaning into the word halted on and the next word. Its particularly good with Richard because he is as weak a king as he is powerful in poetry, and in the end his rhetoric is is his only weapon.
Wonderful Richard! I would love to have seen this. The poet wears authority and becomes a king . . .
To those who think this performance is lacking in anyway are just lost on the world of cinema, thos is how it was written to be performed live to a limited audience, no camera, no lights, no edits just raw words written by a man for the time in which he lived.
Mark Rylance baffles me.. He has an utterly unique break down for the text.. He yields completely to the Shakespearean text, yet he makes it entirely his own and makes it sound entirely extemporaneous.. The only thing about which I am a bit ambivalent in his take on the major Shakespearean roles, is that they are so rudimentary that they might be a bit similar.. I mean they are not as different from each other as how Laurence Olivier's Lear and Othello are different from each other, which is absolutely two different people.. But.. the man is ,notwithstanding, sufficient as Shylock says.. He is not trying to make them externally different, he is trying something else, something vital, and stunningly succeeding in doing so
"Might be a bit similar".
Well , I think you are right , if more diplomatic than myself perhaps.
I find him monotonous predictable and very tiring.
I know he is revered and maybe it is personal taste but I would not go out of my way to see him.
Ben Wishaw's Richard II had a life and energy that was so beyond this portrayal it was a different league.
I agree with the last line, he is expressing the soul of the character, or maybe another part of himself if he lived in a different world.
Very influenced by the Stanislavsky learned American interest in character first.
I saw parts of Mark Rylance playing Henry V at the Globe... it was strange, since he took a very different line. The Warlike Harry sounded more like a tragic figure, more like Richard II. I hope I can find this version of R2 in full. He has a different take on the major roles. In a sense, closer to modern theater in dramatic choices, though his delivery is "classic" of course. But he tries to insert a psychological depth in the performance in the historical plays, always modeled on tragedy.
Well said sir..
Is that the sounds of airplanes flying over head?
Always. Its part of the deal at the Globe. Actors often just stop and wait.
The theatre has no roof in the centre and under one of the flight paths of London Heathrow Airport.
He's falling the fuck apart, and chooses comedy to keep it together. I get it, man, I do exactly this. Come, sit: let's tell sad stories of the death of kings.
me too, its great, like most peformences in Globe.
is there anywhere to buy a full video of this performance...? Or download it??
He forgot a line in the beginning haha, still awesome though!
+Andy Allen: Yes. "And if we be how dare thy joints forget
To pay their awful duty to our presence?"
Yep exactly! It was a great performance though. I am actually doing this monologue at school, I really like it.
Um...maybe it was a cut?
+James Spencer Every performance I've seen is like that. I think you're right.
Did they not include the "I must nothing be" speech in this production?
No my friend.. The speech to which you are referring is in act 4 scene 1.. When Richard is deposed by Bolingbroke
Ryelace , Ry-No-Chance more like !
Why is Richard ll always portrayed as an effeminate weeklong? Is there anything in the play itself that suggests he was either weak or effeminate? Nothing that I can find. A greedy tyrant, yes, but a weakling? Effeminate? I just don't get it. Why isn't he played with the same virility expressed by any of the other of Shakespeare's kings? Can someone explain this to me? I'm serious!
First of all, more than anything he’s just unstable and emotional which doesn’t necessarily conflate with femininity or weakness, though various productions lean into those on their own/in combination with it differently
Second of all, historically speaking, that’s basically just how Richard II was, and is most of why his reign was such a shitshow. Not only did his actual advisors suck, but he was far more interested in hanging out (and by hanging out I mean extravagant feasts and parties followed by doing things described in an account from the time as “obscene, and not without a degree of improper intimacy”) with his young male courtiers and taking advice from them rather than actually paying attention to people with actual political and life experience or learning how to rule for himself when he was of age. He loved his extravagant clothing (he had a particular love of velvet), spent more money than England had beautifying Westminster Abbey with a fancy new ceiling, hell the man literally invented the handkerchief. He was literally basically your stereotypical flamboyant gay guy and did not give two shits about ruling. Combine this with also very strongly believing in the divine right of kings and having absolutely no doubt that this was where he was meant to be and he could do no wrong regardless of how much of a shitshow the country was, you wind up with a pretty shit ruler who also happens to be quite effeminate. And then we come to Shakespeare’s play which is basically a drawn out existential crisis over suddenly realizing perhaps this whole “above all other mortals because of my god given right to rule” stuff isn’t true which just further sparks the instability, emotionality, and lack of ability or will to rule. Of course most of that isn’t directly in the text, but given the emotional state of the character as he’s written in the play and the fact that historically he was extremely stereotypically feminine and gave zero shits about being in control of the people the effeminate, emotionally unstable portrayal is what links the two together and keeps it true to history as well as the text.
Thanks for coming to my TED talk
Tl;dr there isn’t loads in the play besides the fact that it’s basically a drawn out mental breakdown so he’s not exactly at his strongest but people portray him similarly to how the real person was which includes femininity, emotional instability, and weak will when it comes to ruling
MaxieSmith479 I repeat my question? Does anything in the play itself suggest he was effeminate? And what in the play indicates any weakness of character or mental instability? Please be specific. I think that nothing in the play itself supports this traditional portrayal.
You realise that actors interpret things in their own way and that Mark Rylance is far more versed in the character intentions than you are, lending to the fact he actually played the character
Ca Fa That’s not a good reason to accept his interpretation as accurate. And it does not respond to my first inquiry: why is Richard 2 played as if he was gay and a wreaking to boot? Answer me this question with reference to the text, if you can?
This is like a school play. Terrible !