At the end of Richard III, Henry Tudor of the house of Lancaster marries Elizabeth of York, creating the Tudor dynasty and ending the War of the Roses. This isn't just an important moment in the play, it's also a pretty vital part of English history. Shakespeare would eventually write a total of eight plays leading up to this very moment. But it's not a moment that we see onstage- Richmond just sums up his plans to marry Elizabeth after defeating Richard in battle. It made me wonder- in a play that is chock-full of dramatic action, what is it important for the audience to see, and what can we just hear about?
Because after all, the wedding isn't the only thing we don't see in this play. It's not as though Shakespeare shied away from showing violence onstage (Titus Andronicus, anyone?) but maybe there was something about the fact that these were real people, and royals, that made it important to keep their deaths left to the audience's imagination. If I were to produce this play, I'd want to take a look at all the deaths that happen offstage- the King's, the young princes', the numerous beheadings, Lady Anne's. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the only deaths we actually see are Clarence's and Richard's. Why is this? What is important about these deaths- the first and the last in the play- that we need to see them dramatized, and what is less important about the other deaths in the middle that we can pass them by?
Side note- Who, besides me, would absolutely kill to read a scene that takes place in the Tower of London (I'm thinking something akin to the Lady Macduff scene in Macbeth, I don't actually need to watch children being smothered, but come on! Two little boys in the Tower of London! That scene is just begging to be written!) Alright, end of side note.
So Elizabeth of York is a pretty important character in the story. But she's not a character in the play. I think she should be! Richard schemes to marry her to secure his position, but instead of going to her- either because of her age, her rank, or because she just wasn't around at the time- he runs his proposal by her mother. But there's no reason Elizabeth can't be there, too, somewhere in the background. We can see the person whose future hangs in the balance, and how her mother will fight tooth and nail to protect her. Elizabeth the Elder, we know, was never Richard's biggest fan, and is at this moment reeling over the deaths of her husband, brother, and sons, all at Richard's hand. A conversation that was never going to go well.
In the Ian McKellan film, the queen- played by Annette Bening- hears Richard's proposal, and seems to be coming around to the idea. But the next time we see her, she's attending her daughter's last-minute wedding to Richmond. She hears Richard's argument, as well as his threats to her and her daughter's safety, and takes a calculated risk, deciding that the safest place for her daughter is at the side of Richard's enemy. In a play that seems to be all about using women as pawns, this is a lovely moment in which a female character exerts control.
But this isn't one of Shakespeare's comedies- the play doesn't have to end with a wedding. Richard III is ridiculously symmetrical, and it begins with a coronation- the production this weekend decided to stage the coronation, which I enjoyed, but even if we don't see it, we know that it's recently taken place. Why not end with another coronation? The white rose and the red, combined at last, forming an unshakeable Tudor dynasty- why don't we see it, not just hear about it?
For this to work, obviously, Elizabeth of York has to be a character in the play. She doesn't necessarily have to have any lines- she didn't in the film- but I think it would helpful for the play as a whole to see her at court, to connect her to her mother- so that when we hear that Ricard is trying to marry Elizabeth the Elder's daughter, our first response will be something other than "She has a daughter? Huh."
No comments:
Post a Comment