Richard III Casebook (Courtney)

 Inspired by the Ian McKellen version of Richard III that we watched portions of and discussed in class I wanted to focus specifically on Act 3, Scene 7, in which Richard is convinced to accept the crown. Because this scene is so rich I want to hone in even further and consider, quite specifically, the primary prop of the scene, the prayer book. Additionally, I’d like to assume that I’m compiling this dramaturgical casebook for a contemporized production of the play. If the play were to be set in the twenty-first century, would maintaining the presence of the prayer book as the primary prop of this scene be readable to audiences? Would a prayer book have the same power as it would have at the time of the original productions, or even at the time in which the McKellen version is set, a fictional 1930s?

            These questions rely on the larger question of what role the prayer book plays in the scene. What is the audience meant to understand by the presence of the prayer book? Buckingham calls the prayer book a “true ornament to know a holy man” and uses it as a token by which to inform the participants in the scene of Richard’s “devotion and right Christian zeal.” Yet, while the book may function as a symbol of this in the context of the other players in the scene, it has an entirely different function for the audience. The prayer book is, for them, a signal of the hypocrisy and dishonesty of Richard, and his manipulation of the symbolism of virtue seems to be a further indication of his moral depravity.

            Thus, for a contemporized version of the play the prop of the scene would need to be able to stand both for honesty and virtue, and, by Richards manipulation of it, vice and hypocrisy. Does the prayer book have the same power in a contemporized version that it once did? No. I would argue that in a contemporary context a prayer book seems too fully linked to ideas of hypocrisy and not well linked enough to ideas of virtue. I believe that using a prayer book in a contemporary version would have neither the ability to convince the players of Richard’s innocence or naiveté nor the ability to convince the audience (with the full power of the contradiction) of Richard’s manipulation in the scene. Audience members, viewing a contemporary scene, would come into the scene already too suspicious of the idea of a prayer book.

            And so the question, what can a production replace the prayer book with? In a contemporary context, which lacks the religious homogeneity of the fifteenth century, the use of a religious icon seems problematic. Yet what to use other than a religious icon? A production needs a symbol of political purity, that would indicate to the other characters in the scene that Richard had no ulterior motives and that Richard did not intend to manipulate others for his own political gain. I would propose that in this scene Richard instead hold documents relating to a charitable foundation of which he is the head. Instead of being flanked by priests, he can be flanked by members of the board of this charitable foundation. This alteration of the script would hit all the necessary points. It would imply his humility and apolitical nature to the other characters of the play. It would also fit well into the storyline of the well-to-do heir to fortune. Concurrently, it would read to the audience as the utmost level of hypocrisy and political manipulation.