I spent a lot of time on this one and I’m glad I did. In addition to reading it, I also watched a recent adaptation, watched a documentary on the making of said adaptation, and then watched the Richard II installment in the PBS series Shakespeare Uncovered. As a result, I feel like I know this play well and really get what Shakespeare was trying to do here (or not…but indulge me nonetheless). A really quick synopsis: King Richard II is a bad king. Vain, out of touch, and completely empty of empathy, he alienates the powerful nobleman Henry Bolingbroke by taking his inheritance upon the death of Bolingbroke’s father (he takes the guy’s inheritance only seconds after his father dies…see what I mean about the bad king part?!). Bolingbroke won’t have it of course and begins a revolt, at first to get his stuff back, and then to take the crown.
As you may have guessed, this play is about power, specifically what is means to be granted power, what it means to hold power, and what it means to lose it. Shakespeare explores questions about what makes a king, who makes a king (The Gentry? The Common People? God?), and what keeps a king, a king. I found it interesting to follow the arguments around these themes, and Shakespeare, as usual, does it just right, using some of the most lyrical and beautiful language I have yet seen (this play is one of his few plays written entirely in verse and includes some really famous speeches, including the great “sceptred isle” soliloquy and the equally great “hollow crown” lament). It’s really, really good stuff and it makes you think about current day politics and how some things never change. People in power get crazy and do crazy stuff, and often end up in a bad way. Clearly, the ideas around power and politics are pretty much ageless. I wonder why?
No comments:
Post a Comment