Spoilers?
In September or October 2009 one of our friends from the puzzle parties e-mailed us and the other puzzlers announcing the he would be in the play “Richard III” at the Stages OC Theatre in Fullerton in early November. He has been in several plays during the past couple of years. We saw one of them back in January 2008: “Rehearsal for Murder” at the La Habra Depot Theatre. We enjoyed it and I reviewed it in one of my earliest reviews. The two plays he was in since then, “Of Mice and Men” and “Prisoner of Second Avenue”, didn’t sound as interesting to us. But “Richard III” sounded interesting. I knew it was one of Shakespeare’s historical plays and that it also had many tragic elements. The story takes place around the time of the War of the Roses when the English royal house Plantagenet was split into the House of Lancaster represented by a red rose and the House of York represented by a white rose. In my sophomore year of high school I wrote a report on this war for my Western Civilization class. I wasn’t very familiar with Richard III’s story other than I believe he had a very troubled reign and he may have been one of those kings that went mad.
I was familiar with Shakespeare having studied many of his plays in high school including “Twelfth Night”, “Romeo and Juliet”, “Hamlet”, and “The Taming of the Shrew”. I had seen the films of some plays and/or community theater and college productions of “Macbeth”, “The Tempest”, and “Othello”. My wife had seen productions of “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”, and “A Comedy of Errors”. Something that I thought I knew about Richard III was that it had the famous line “Now is the winter of our discontent” with emphasis on the word “Now”. I wasn’t sure if this line might be from a different play such as “King Lear”. Another line I thought might be from Richard III was “A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!” I figured that Richard III was the main character and the focus of the play and all other characters were supporting roles including Lord Stanley played by our friend. I didn’t do any research before the play because I wanted to be surprised. I was surprised pleasantly, though now I don’t think anything could have ruined it for me.
After my wife e-mailed our friend back telling him we were going to see the play, he sent us a “twofer” coupon via snail mail so we would get two tickets for the price of one. It was a cardboard flyer for the play with a picture of an evil looking eye on the front and a tagline about how many lives stood between Richard III and his goal, the crown. Our friend’s written guarantee of the twofer was on the back. The show actually played between October 9 and November 15 but we were busy every weekend until November 14-15. There was actually a puzzle party that weekend but it was a very long drive from home. We figured it was shorter just to see one of our fellow puzzlers in a play.
On Saturday, November 14 we left our home at around 6:20 pm. We figured we could make it to the theater by the 7 pm start time because we had made it early to the Sunny Day Real Estate Concert at House of Blues Anaheim five weeks before. For that we had left at 6:25 pm and arrived not long after 7 pm and that was a farther drive than to the Stages OC Theatre. Unfortunately, we didn’t figure that the traffic might be different. It was smooth five weeks before. But this time traffic slowed considerably on the 57 south not long before it merged with the 60. It was slow for the entire way that it shared lanes with the 60. We thought there may have been an accident and we turned on KNX for a traffic report but they didn’t say anything about the 57 or the 60. The traffic cleared after the two freeways diverged but we had lost time and had to hope that the show didn’t start exactly on time. We drove the legal 3 miles per hour over the posted speed limit, exited at Nutwood/ Chapman, passed Cal State Fullerton on the right, turned left on State College Blvd and turned right on Commonwealth. I knew from MapQuest that the theatre was near the southeast corner of Commonwealth and Lawrence and that Harbor Blvd was too far. We crossed Lemon and Pomona and then saw Harbor. We had gone too far so I turned around. We found Lawrence that was a street without a traffic light at Commonwealth and saw what looked like a shopping center on the southwest corner.
It turned out that the Stages OC Theatre was in that shopping center. It was about 7:05 pm when we parked. We didn’t want to miss the beginning and potentially miss the famous “Now . . .” line. We saw that there was a queue at the indoor box office, possibly a good sign, we thought, because they wouldn’t start the play while people were still queued up to get tickets, right? It sounded like most people were picking up tickets that they had reserved in advance. We could hear some music coming from down the hall and we were going to ask the cashier whether the show had already started but before we got the front of the queue we heard the cashier say to someone, “Tell them to wait five more minutes.” She told another patron that the show wouldn’t start without her saying so and “What are they gonna do? Fire me?” It sounded like she also said to another patron that she was related to or friends with one of the cast members. We made it to the front and gave the cashier our twofer coupon that she honored. It only cost of $18 for two tickets rather than $36. Our friend had told us that it would be cheaper to see that play than to go to a movie. The cashier seated us in the second row and gave us programs and notes with our seat rows and numbers.
We walked down the hall and they were selling drinks and snacks at a counter to our left. On our right was a display of Medieval-looking swords. Extra props, perhaps? We passed that and entered a door on our right. The theatre was already full. It was actually a very small theatre with around 60 seats. All but the front two rows of 10 chairs each were steep stadium seats. The people in the first row blocked our view, but not very much. The set, walls, and interior of the theater were all black. The “stage” if you could call it that was set at the same level as the front row. The set consisted of two curtained “doorways” on the left. No large curtain blocked our view as traditionally used at theatres. Two small staircases let to an upper level “loft” landing all along the back wall. In the background they played classical soundtrack-like music. From the right staircase hung a banner that said “1471” that we ascertained was the year of the first scene. There was an announcement telling us to turn off all cell phones and that there would be a short intermission. The voice sounded the same as the cashier’s.
The lights dimmed at 7:15 and the play did not begin with the “Now” line but with a battle. First, one of the curtain doorways ripped open to reveal the title character and then it was pandemonium, though choreographed very well. Swords clashed loudly on all sides. There were no blood special effects but the “kills” of stabbing to the far side behind characters started to seem real very quickly. There was a musical soundtrack to match the pace and the loud shouting and clashing of weapons. There were some interesting segments such as an unarmed combatant defeating an armed one with his fists. The fighting soon dissipated but the intensity remained and would pretty much be there for the entire play. It never got slow or boring and actually seemed shorter than the estimated two and a half hour running time including the intermission. The “Now” line was spoken by the title character after 3-4 scenes into the first act. It’s actually the beginning of a speech to the audience alone. The actor, who also directed the production, didn’t overemphasize the word “Now” that I’ve heard some actors do. He said it as part of a speech that sets the stage for the entire play. The full line is actually:
Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York;
And all the clouds that lour'd upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
The year is given on a banner at only one other point in the play. 1478 is shown on another banner several scenes into the first act. It’s hard to remember the exact order of events because there is so much going on and so many characters involved, not just the royal family but also the influential nobles and the deposed royal family (Lancaster) on the other side of the War of the Roses. But I was still able to follow everything that was happening and even understand their language. The Shakespearean dialogue and speeches aren’t the most concise but they still make for such rich expressions as the “Now . . .” line. There are many characters in addition to the title role and it is even more complicated in that some actors have multiple roles but this is well adjusted for with the changing of wigs and costumes. I didn’t even catch that the Duke of Buckingham and King Henry VI were played by the same actor until I looked at the program later.
The costumes were all from the period. Some characters such as Richard have few costume changes. A character in a white shirt indicated that he was imprisoned. Nearly all the gentlemen and even some of the ladies wore swords, usually in metal rings on the sides of their waists. Richard wore both a sword and a dagger and wouldn’t hesitate to use both of them. The costumes weren’t the only evidence of the time period. Other than the soldiers, murderers (Richard’s hired goons?), guards, and Tower of London officials, all the main characters were nobility or royalty. There were all the Duke, Earl, or Lord of something in addition to their given names and often they are referred to by what they were lord of rather than their names. For example, Richard’s brother was George, the Duke of Clarence and Richard referred to him as “Clarence” making some believe that his name was Clarence. I don’t think we ever learned the Duke of Buckingham’s real name. However, the convention wasn’t always consistent. Our friend’s character, Lord Stanley, the Earl of Derby, was referred to as “Stanley” rather than “Derby”. Before becoming king, Richard was the Duke of Gloucester but was still always called Richard. Another practice that was possibly from the period was that when some characters shook hands they held each other’s forearms nearly to the elbows.
The acting was very good by a very large cast that was more than just Richard and a bunch of supporting roles. Many characters carved out their own individual major roles. No one was just a caricature of the “good guy” or “bad guy”, completely innocent or evil. They all had complexity to varying degrees. Our friend’s character, Lord Stanley, seemed to be in the background in the first act. I wasn’t even sure whose side he was on or if he just followed bandwagons. But in the second act he played a crucial role. I wonder how he got used to Richard shouting in his face during one scene. We also noticed that he didn’t get to participate in the battle scenes until the end. The female actors had major roles playing princesses and queens, all acted well. I think one woman got to spit in Richard’s face twice, very impressively both times. They showed strength but also succumbed to Richard’s manipulation just like many of the male characters. I think a female child actor played one of the young princes. That prince was very vocal and cunning showing some resemblance to his uncle, Richard. I think that prince’s name was also Richard.
I mentioned them distinguishing two roles played by one actor with different costumes but the acting also distinguished. The bitter king Henry VI was clearly different from the smooth-talking Duke of Buckingham despite being played by the same actor. The foppish and subservient Lord Mayor of London was clearly different from bold, strong, and (somewhat overly) heroic Earl of Richmond played by the same actor. The minor characters’ complexity and some humor were portrayed in the scene with the Duke of Clarence and Richard’s hired murderers in the Tower of London. “Bring me some wine,” said Clarence and a murderer answered, “Oh, you’ll have plenty of wine where you’re going (i.e. Heaven).” But the murderers hesitated and Clarence almost convinced them not to do it.
The best acting was done by the actor playing the title character. As I mentioned, he also directed the production. Richard III was probably one of the most evil characters I’ve seen in a play or movie (or the one that did the most evil for those who believe that “evil” cannot be used to describe a person, only an action.) The actor/director portrayed such a determination of purpose that he was almost charismatic despite the path his character took to reach that purpose. He was cunning and put on different faces to suit his purpose such as emphasizing with his brother in one scene and ordering him killed in the next. He manipulated others to help him either through his sheer determination or even more subtly such as when he convinced the widow of someone he killed to marry him. I think it helped his cause that no other characters were completely infallible. The War of the Roses had many conflicting allegiances and adversities that Richard exploited. He could be humorous, almost charming but then turn callous and ruthless the next moment. He seemed to get more ruthless over the course of the play along with his accomplices. He used each one for his purposes and then discarded them once he reached the limit of their loyalty. There are times when he talked to the audience, sort of breaking the “fourth wall” and he seemed to be address one of us specifically, perhaps the person behind me who couldn’t help speaking her comments out loud.
The overall plot didn’t surprise me: Richard eliminated a bunch of lives to get the crown, became king, and got his comeuppance in the end. But how everything unfolded in detail was very interesting. We learned from the program that the production actually included some ending scenes from Shakespeare’s play “Henry VI Part 3”. “Richard III” as written actually begins with the “Now . . .” speech. The production worked out well, I think, providing more background and setting and putting the relationships between the characters in context for the rest of the play. There was also more symmetry since the play began with a battle and ended with a battle. The body count was high. I lost count of how many lives Richard “moved out of the way” or had “moved” by his goons. By the intermission I don’t think he had quite made it to king yet. A few more lives were in the way. By the end many of them came back to haunt him quite literally in a nearly over-the-top scene as he tried to sleep. The line “Despair and die!” might have been a bit overused, but it was well deserved.
After the play ended we exited theatre room having been entertained and a bit exhausted by all the intensity. We weren’t sure if our friend saw us so we waited in the lobby off to the side where the queue had been. We saw him just a bit later and he thanked us for coming. We returned the way we had come and there was hardly any traffic this time. “Richard III” was an exciting, intense, and deceptively complex play, a history lesson and tale of political intrigue. Now that’s what I call the winter of discontent.
In September or October 2009 one of our friends from the puzzle parties e-mailed us and the other puzzlers announcing the he would be in the play “Richard III” at the Stages OC Theatre in Fullerton in early November. He has been in several plays during the past couple of years. We saw one of them back in January 2008: “Rehearsal for Murder” at the La Habra Depot Theatre. We enjoyed it and I reviewed it in one of my earliest reviews. The two plays he was in since then, “Of Mice and Men” and “Prisoner of Second Avenue”, didn’t sound as interesting to us. But “Richard III” sounded interesting. I knew it was one of Shakespeare’s historical plays and that it also had many tragic elements. The story takes place around the time of the War of the Roses when the English royal house Plantagenet was split into the House of Lancaster represented by a red rose and the House of York represented by a white rose. In my sophomore year of high school I wrote a report on this war for my Western Civilization class. I wasn’t very familiar with Richard III’s story other than I believe he had a very troubled reign and he may have been one of those kings that went mad.
I was familiar with Shakespeare having studied many of his plays in high school including “Twelfth Night”, “Romeo and Juliet”, “Hamlet”, and “The Taming of the Shrew”. I had seen the films of some plays and/or community theater and college productions of “Macbeth”, “The Tempest”, and “Othello”. My wife had seen productions of “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”, and “A Comedy of Errors”. Something that I thought I knew about Richard III was that it had the famous line “Now is the winter of our discontent” with emphasis on the word “Now”. I wasn’t sure if this line might be from a different play such as “King Lear”. Another line I thought might be from Richard III was “A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!” I figured that Richard III was the main character and the focus of the play and all other characters were supporting roles including Lord Stanley played by our friend. I didn’t do any research before the play because I wanted to be surprised. I was surprised pleasantly, though now I don’t think anything could have ruined it for me.
After my wife e-mailed our friend back telling him we were going to see the play, he sent us a “twofer” coupon via snail mail so we would get two tickets for the price of one. It was a cardboard flyer for the play with a picture of an evil looking eye on the front and a tagline about how many lives stood between Richard III and his goal, the crown. Our friend’s written guarantee of the twofer was on the back. The show actually played between October 9 and November 15 but we were busy every weekend until November 14-15. There was actually a puzzle party that weekend but it was a very long drive from home. We figured it was shorter just to see one of our fellow puzzlers in a play.
On Saturday, November 14 we left our home at around 6:20 pm. We figured we could make it to the theater by the 7 pm start time because we had made it early to the Sunny Day Real Estate Concert at House of Blues Anaheim five weeks before. For that we had left at 6:25 pm and arrived not long after 7 pm and that was a farther drive than to the Stages OC Theatre. Unfortunately, we didn’t figure that the traffic might be different. It was smooth five weeks before. But this time traffic slowed considerably on the 57 south not long before it merged with the 60. It was slow for the entire way that it shared lanes with the 60. We thought there may have been an accident and we turned on KNX for a traffic report but they didn’t say anything about the 57 or the 60. The traffic cleared after the two freeways diverged but we had lost time and had to hope that the show didn’t start exactly on time. We drove the legal 3 miles per hour over the posted speed limit, exited at Nutwood/ Chapman, passed Cal State Fullerton on the right, turned left on State College Blvd and turned right on Commonwealth. I knew from MapQuest that the theatre was near the southeast corner of Commonwealth and Lawrence and that Harbor Blvd was too far. We crossed Lemon and Pomona and then saw Harbor. We had gone too far so I turned around. We found Lawrence that was a street without a traffic light at Commonwealth and saw what looked like a shopping center on the southwest corner.
It turned out that the Stages OC Theatre was in that shopping center. It was about 7:05 pm when we parked. We didn’t want to miss the beginning and potentially miss the famous “Now . . .” line. We saw that there was a queue at the indoor box office, possibly a good sign, we thought, because they wouldn’t start the play while people were still queued up to get tickets, right? It sounded like most people were picking up tickets that they had reserved in advance. We could hear some music coming from down the hall and we were going to ask the cashier whether the show had already started but before we got the front of the queue we heard the cashier say to someone, “Tell them to wait five more minutes.” She told another patron that the show wouldn’t start without her saying so and “What are they gonna do? Fire me?” It sounded like she also said to another patron that she was related to or friends with one of the cast members. We made it to the front and gave the cashier our twofer coupon that she honored. It only cost of $18 for two tickets rather than $36. Our friend had told us that it would be cheaper to see that play than to go to a movie. The cashier seated us in the second row and gave us programs and notes with our seat rows and numbers.
We walked down the hall and they were selling drinks and snacks at a counter to our left. On our right was a display of Medieval-looking swords. Extra props, perhaps? We passed that and entered a door on our right. The theatre was already full. It was actually a very small theatre with around 60 seats. All but the front two rows of 10 chairs each were steep stadium seats. The people in the first row blocked our view, but not very much. The set, walls, and interior of the theater were all black. The “stage” if you could call it that was set at the same level as the front row. The set consisted of two curtained “doorways” on the left. No large curtain blocked our view as traditionally used at theatres. Two small staircases let to an upper level “loft” landing all along the back wall. In the background they played classical soundtrack-like music. From the right staircase hung a banner that said “1471” that we ascertained was the year of the first scene. There was an announcement telling us to turn off all cell phones and that there would be a short intermission. The voice sounded the same as the cashier’s.
The lights dimmed at 7:15 and the play did not begin with the “Now” line but with a battle. First, one of the curtain doorways ripped open to reveal the title character and then it was pandemonium, though choreographed very well. Swords clashed loudly on all sides. There were no blood special effects but the “kills” of stabbing to the far side behind characters started to seem real very quickly. There was a musical soundtrack to match the pace and the loud shouting and clashing of weapons. There were some interesting segments such as an unarmed combatant defeating an armed one with his fists. The fighting soon dissipated but the intensity remained and would pretty much be there for the entire play. It never got slow or boring and actually seemed shorter than the estimated two and a half hour running time including the intermission. The “Now” line was spoken by the title character after 3-4 scenes into the first act. It’s actually the beginning of a speech to the audience alone. The actor, who also directed the production, didn’t overemphasize the word “Now” that I’ve heard some actors do. He said it as part of a speech that sets the stage for the entire play. The full line is actually:
Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York;
And all the clouds that lour'd upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
The year is given on a banner at only one other point in the play. 1478 is shown on another banner several scenes into the first act. It’s hard to remember the exact order of events because there is so much going on and so many characters involved, not just the royal family but also the influential nobles and the deposed royal family (Lancaster) on the other side of the War of the Roses. But I was still able to follow everything that was happening and even understand their language. The Shakespearean dialogue and speeches aren’t the most concise but they still make for such rich expressions as the “Now . . .” line. There are many characters in addition to the title role and it is even more complicated in that some actors have multiple roles but this is well adjusted for with the changing of wigs and costumes. I didn’t even catch that the Duke of Buckingham and King Henry VI were played by the same actor until I looked at the program later.
The costumes were all from the period. Some characters such as Richard have few costume changes. A character in a white shirt indicated that he was imprisoned. Nearly all the gentlemen and even some of the ladies wore swords, usually in metal rings on the sides of their waists. Richard wore both a sword and a dagger and wouldn’t hesitate to use both of them. The costumes weren’t the only evidence of the time period. Other than the soldiers, murderers (Richard’s hired goons?), guards, and Tower of London officials, all the main characters were nobility or royalty. There were all the Duke, Earl, or Lord of something in addition to their given names and often they are referred to by what they were lord of rather than their names. For example, Richard’s brother was George, the Duke of Clarence and Richard referred to him as “Clarence” making some believe that his name was Clarence. I don’t think we ever learned the Duke of Buckingham’s real name. However, the convention wasn’t always consistent. Our friend’s character, Lord Stanley, the Earl of Derby, was referred to as “Stanley” rather than “Derby”. Before becoming king, Richard was the Duke of Gloucester but was still always called Richard. Another practice that was possibly from the period was that when some characters shook hands they held each other’s forearms nearly to the elbows.
The acting was very good by a very large cast that was more than just Richard and a bunch of supporting roles. Many characters carved out their own individual major roles. No one was just a caricature of the “good guy” or “bad guy”, completely innocent or evil. They all had complexity to varying degrees. Our friend’s character, Lord Stanley, seemed to be in the background in the first act. I wasn’t even sure whose side he was on or if he just followed bandwagons. But in the second act he played a crucial role. I wonder how he got used to Richard shouting in his face during one scene. We also noticed that he didn’t get to participate in the battle scenes until the end. The female actors had major roles playing princesses and queens, all acted well. I think one woman got to spit in Richard’s face twice, very impressively both times. They showed strength but also succumbed to Richard’s manipulation just like many of the male characters. I think a female child actor played one of the young princes. That prince was very vocal and cunning showing some resemblance to his uncle, Richard. I think that prince’s name was also Richard.
I mentioned them distinguishing two roles played by one actor with different costumes but the acting also distinguished. The bitter king Henry VI was clearly different from the smooth-talking Duke of Buckingham despite being played by the same actor. The foppish and subservient Lord Mayor of London was clearly different from bold, strong, and (somewhat overly) heroic Earl of Richmond played by the same actor. The minor characters’ complexity and some humor were portrayed in the scene with the Duke of Clarence and Richard’s hired murderers in the Tower of London. “Bring me some wine,” said Clarence and a murderer answered, “Oh, you’ll have plenty of wine where you’re going (i.e. Heaven).” But the murderers hesitated and Clarence almost convinced them not to do it.
The best acting was done by the actor playing the title character. As I mentioned, he also directed the production. Richard III was probably one of the most evil characters I’ve seen in a play or movie (or the one that did the most evil for those who believe that “evil” cannot be used to describe a person, only an action.) The actor/director portrayed such a determination of purpose that he was almost charismatic despite the path his character took to reach that purpose. He was cunning and put on different faces to suit his purpose such as emphasizing with his brother in one scene and ordering him killed in the next. He manipulated others to help him either through his sheer determination or even more subtly such as when he convinced the widow of someone he killed to marry him. I think it helped his cause that no other characters were completely infallible. The War of the Roses had many conflicting allegiances and adversities that Richard exploited. He could be humorous, almost charming but then turn callous and ruthless the next moment. He seemed to get more ruthless over the course of the play along with his accomplices. He used each one for his purposes and then discarded them once he reached the limit of their loyalty. There are times when he talked to the audience, sort of breaking the “fourth wall” and he seemed to be address one of us specifically, perhaps the person behind me who couldn’t help speaking her comments out loud.
The overall plot didn’t surprise me: Richard eliminated a bunch of lives to get the crown, became king, and got his comeuppance in the end. But how everything unfolded in detail was very interesting. We learned from the program that the production actually included some ending scenes from Shakespeare’s play “Henry VI Part 3”. “Richard III” as written actually begins with the “Now . . .” speech. The production worked out well, I think, providing more background and setting and putting the relationships between the characters in context for the rest of the play. There was also more symmetry since the play began with a battle and ended with a battle. The body count was high. I lost count of how many lives Richard “moved out of the way” or had “moved” by his goons. By the intermission I don’t think he had quite made it to king yet. A few more lives were in the way. By the end many of them came back to haunt him quite literally in a nearly over-the-top scene as he tried to sleep. The line “Despair and die!” might have been a bit overused, but it was well deserved.
After the play ended we exited theatre room having been entertained and a bit exhausted by all the intensity. We weren’t sure if our friend saw us so we waited in the lobby off to the side where the queue had been. We saw him just a bit later and he thanked us for coming. We returned the way we had come and there was hardly any traffic this time. “Richard III” was an exciting, intense, and deceptively complex play, a history lesson and tale of political intrigue. Now that’s what I call the winter of discontent.
RSS Feed