RICHARD III : Alternative Play?

Was looking at a quote from Shakespeare's Richard III and couldn't help but think of an alternative in the light of recent events. So instead of

"Why, I can smile and murder whiles I smile,
And cry 'content' to that which grieves my heart,
And wet my cheeks with artificial tears,
And frame my face for all occasions."

why not have

"Why, I can smile and ponder whiles I smile,
And cry 'content' knowing when I'm found,
My face will once again look upon the world,
And those good people will overturn the lies."

A bit daft I know but folks out there with far more talent than me may have their own ideas??

David Nix

Im wondering..do you think that some of these over the top performances will now start to look ever so slightly daft? Eileen

--- In , "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
>
> Was looking at a quote from Shakespeare's Richard III and couldn't help but think of an alternative in the light of recent events. So instead of
>
> "Why, I can smile and murder whiles I smile,
> And cry 'content' to that which grieves my heart,
> And wet my cheeks with artificial tears,
> And frame my face for all occasions."
>
> why not have
>
> "Why, I can smile and ponder whiles I smile,
> And cry 'content' knowing when I'm found,
> My face will once again look upon the world,
> And those good people will overturn the lies."
>
> A bit daft I know but folks out there with far more talent than me may have their own ideas??
>
> David Nix
>

I think that's rather good David.
 
 


________________________________
From: davidnicholls2652 <davidnicholls2652@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 18:49
Subject: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?

 
Was looking at a quote from Shakespeare's Richard III and couldn't help but think of an alternative in the light of recent events. So instead of

"Why, I can smile and murder whiles I smile,
And cry 'content' to that which grieves my heart,
And wet my cheeks with artificial tears,
And frame my face for all occasions."

why not have

"Why, I can smile and ponder whiles I smile,
And cry 'content' knowing when I'm found,
My face will once again look upon the world,
And those good people will overturn the lies."

A bit daft I know but folks out there with far more talent than me may have their own ideas??

David Nix

Olivier's has done for years!
Paul

Richard Liveth Yet!




On 5 Feb 2013, at 18:54, EileenB wrote:

> Im wondering..do you think that some of these over the top performances will now start to look ever so slightly daft? Eileen
>
> --- In , "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
>>
>> Was looking at a quote from Shakespeare's Richard III and couldn't help but think of an alternative in the light of recent events. So instead of
>>
>> "Why, I can smile and murder whiles I smile,
>> And cry 'content' to that which grieves my heart,
>> And wet my cheeks with artificial tears,
>> And frame my face for all occasions."
>>
>> why not have
>>
>> "Why, I can smile and ponder whiles I smile,
>> And cry 'content' knowing when I'm found,
>> My face will once again look upon the world,
>> And those good people will overturn the lies."
>>
>> A bit daft I know but folks out there with far more talent than me may have their own ideas??
>>
>> David Nix
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Yes Eileen - I'll look at some of those performances a bit differently from now on!
David

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Olivier's has done for years!
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
> On 5 Feb 2013, at 18:54, EileenB wrote:
>
> > Im wondering..do you think that some of these over the top performances will now start to look ever so slightly daft? Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> >>
> >> Was looking at a quote from Shakespeare's Richard III and couldn't help but think of an alternative in the light of recent events. So instead of
> >>
> >> "Why, I can smile and murder whiles I smile,
> >> And cry 'content' to that which grieves my heart,
> >> And wet my cheeks with artificial tears,
> >> And frame my face for all occasions."
> >>
> >> why not have
> >>
> >> "Why, I can smile and ponder whiles I smile,
> >> And cry 'content' knowing when I'm found,
> >> My face will once again look upon the world,
> >> And those good people will overturn the lies."
> >>
> >> A bit daft I know but folks out there with far more talent than me may have their own ideas??
> >>
> >> David Nix
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen

--- In , "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
>
> Yes Eileen - I'll look at some of those performances a bit differently from now on!
> David
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > Olivier's has done for years!
> > Paul
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5 Feb 2013, at 18:54, EileenB wrote:
> >
> > > Im wondering..do you think that some of these over the top performances will now start to look ever so slightly daft? Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Was looking at a quote from Shakespeare's Richard III and couldn't help but think of an alternative in the light of recent events. So instead of
> > >>
> > >> "Why, I can smile and murder whiles I smile,
> > >> And cry 'content' to that which grieves my heart,
> > >> And wet my cheeks with artificial tears,
> > >> And frame my face for all occasions."
> > >>
> > >> why not have
> > >>
> > >> "Why, I can smile and ponder whiles I smile,
> > >> And cry 'content' knowing when I'm found,
> > >> My face will once again look upon the world,
> > >> And those good people will overturn the lies."
> > >>
> > >> A bit daft I know but folks out there with far more talent than me may have their own ideas??
> > >>
> > >> David Nix
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?


> Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen

Why particularly Spacey and McKellen?  (McKellen, in fact, made a conscious decision to down-play the disability, almost "hiding" it and coping with it as someone would in real life.)

Does the reality of Henry V make you view the Olivier and Branagh performances in a different light?

I really wish people wouldn't get at Shakespeare.  He was writing sublime drama from limited historical sources.  The distortions in modern films - e.g. abominations like 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot' - are far more gross and infinitely less excusable.

Jonathan




________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?


 
Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen

--- In , "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
>
> Yes Eileen - I'll look at some of those performances a bit differently from now on!
> David
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > Olivier's has done for years!
> > Paul
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5 Feb 2013, at 18:54, EileenB wrote:
> >
> > > Im wondering..do you think that some of these over the top performances will now start to look ever so slightly daft? Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Was looking at a quote from Shakespeare's Richard III and couldn't help but think of an alternative in the light of recent events. So instead of
> > >>
> > >> "Why, I can smile and murder whiles I smile,
> > >> And cry 'content' to that which grieves my heart,
> > >> And wet my cheeks with artificial tears,
> > >> And frame my face for all occasions."
> > >>
> > >> why not have
> > >>
> > >> "Why, I can smile and ponder whiles I smile,
> > >> And cry 'content' knowing when I'm found,
> > >> My face will once again look upon the world,
> > >> And those good people will overturn the lies."
> > >>
> > >> A bit daft I know but folks out there with far more talent than me may have their own ideas??
> > >>
> > >> David Nix
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Jonathan,
 
As we have said already, it's not Shakespeare per se we have the problem with, it's people who think he was a historian.  As for Braveheart, yes it's distorted but definitely not more so than Shakespeare's Richard III.
 
As for the performances, I know it was a great performance but nothing really could be more distorted - in terms of physicality - than Antony Sher's Richard III. 
 
 
 
 

From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:14
Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?

 
From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?


> Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen

Why particularly Spacey and McKellen?  (McKellen, in fact, made a conscious decision to down-play the disability, almost "hiding" it and coping with it as someone would in real life.)

Does the reality of Henry V make you view the Olivier and Branagh performances in a different light?

I really wish people wouldn't get at Shakespeare.  He was writing sublime drama from limited historical sources.  The distortions in modern films - e.g. abominations like 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot' - are far more gross and infinitely less excusable.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?


 
Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
>
> Yes Eileen - I'll look at some of those performances a bit differently from now on!
> David
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > Olivier's has done for years!
> > Paul
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5 Feb 2013, at 18:54, EileenB wrote:
> >
> > > Im wondering..do you think that some of these over the top performances will now start to look ever so slightly daft? Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > >>
.

I saw Robert Lindsay on stage (without much disability). He was v good, he let the wit speak and was at one with the audience. And somehow it was very clear it was a 'play'.



________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:14
Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?

 

From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?


> Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen

Why particularly Spacey and McKellen?  (McKellen, in fact, made a conscious decision to down-play the disability, almost "hiding" it and coping with it as someone would in real life.)

Does the reality of Henry V make you view the Olivier and Branagh performances in a different light?

I really wish people wouldn't get at Shakespeare.  He was writing sublime drama from limited historical sources.  The distortions in modern films - e.g. abominations like 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot' - are far more gross and infinitely less excusable.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?


 
Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen

--- In , "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
>
> Yes Eileen - I'll look at some of those performances a bit differently from now on!
> David
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > Olivier's has done for years!
> > Paul
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5 Feb 2013, at 18:54, EileenB wrote:
> >
> > > Im wondering..do you think that some of these over the top performances will now start to look ever so slightly daft? Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Was looking at a quote from Shakespeare's Richard III and couldn't help but think of an alternative in the light of recent events. So instead of
> > >>
> > >> "Why, I can smile and murder whiles I smile,
> > >> And cry 'content' to that which grieves my heart,
> > >> And wet my cheeks with artificial tears,
> > >> And frame my face for all occasions."
> > >>
> > >> why not have
> > >>
> > >> "Why, I can smile and ponder whiles I smile,
> > >> And cry 'content' knowing when I'm found,
> > >> My face will once again look upon the world,
> > >> And those good people will overturn the lies."
> > >>
> > >> A bit daft I know but folks out there with far more talent than me may have their own ideas??
> > >>
> > >> David Nix
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Oh, I know.  It was the comment about looking "at some of those performances a bit differently now" that surprised me.  Why specifically the performances, allied to the value-judgement of "over-the-top"?  I can't imagine many theatre-goers treating Shakespeare as gospel now.  There may still be a general perception of "the hunchbacked king", but that's so embedded in our culture that I don't think a 3-month run at the NT or RSC of 'Richard III' is going to make any difference one way or the other.

And my point is not that 'Braveheart' et al are more distorted than 'Richard III' (though I think they're far more damaging because of the cinematic accent on realism), but that they have absolutely no excuse for it, unlike plays of the 16th/17th C.

Jonathan




________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:35
Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?


 
Jonathan,
 
As we have said already, it's not Shakespeare per se we have the problem with, it's people who think he was a historian.  As for Braveheart, yes it's distorted but definitely not more so than Shakespeare's Richard III.
 
As for the performances, I know it was a great performance but nothing really could be more distorted - in terms of physicality - than Antony Sher's Richard III. 
 
 
 
 

From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@...>
To: "" >
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:14
Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?

 
From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?

> Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen

Why particularly Spacey and McKellen?  (McKellen, in fact, made a conscious decision to down-play the disability, almost "hiding" it and coping with it as someone would in real life.)

Does the reality of Henry V make you view the Olivier and Branagh performances in a different light?

I really wish people wouldn't get at Shakespeare.  He was writing sublime drama from limited historical sources.  The distortions in modern films - e.g. abominations like 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot' - are far more gross and infinitely less excusable.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?

 
Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
>
> Yes Eileen - I'll look at some of those performances a bit differently from now on!
> David
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > Olivier's has done for years!
> > Paul
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5 Feb 2013, at 18:54, EileenB wrote:
> >
> > > Im wondering..do you think that some of these over the top performances will now start to look ever so slightly daft? Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > >>
.

No...I have nothing against Shakespeare...he was a genius.

But I do stand by what I say that some of the actors portraying Richard have been way over the top. Who was that one who threw himself across the stage like a giant black spider on crutches? Liz named him but I forget now.

As it happens I really enjoyed Ron Cook's portrayal of Richard...so much so I bought the DVD...

Eileen

--- In , Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
> Oh, I know.  It was the comment about looking "at some of those performances a bit differently now" that surprised me.  Why specifically the performances, allied to the value-judgement of "over-the-top"?  I can't imagine many theatre-goers treating Shakespeare as gospel now.  There may still be a general perception of "the hunchbacked king", but that's so embedded in our culture that I don't think a 3-month run at the NT or RSC of 'Richard III' is going to make any difference one way or the other.
>
> And my point is not that 'Braveheart' et al are more distorted than 'Richard III' (though I think they're far more damaging because of the cinematic accent on realism), but that they have absolutely no excuse for it, unlike plays of the 16th/17th C.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams
> To: ""
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:35
> Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>
>
>  
> Jonathan,
>  
> As we have said already, it's not Shakespeare per se we have the problem with, it's people who think he was a historian.  As for Braveheart, yes it's distorted but definitely not more so than Shakespeare's Richard III.
>  
> As for the performances, I know it was a great performance but nothing really could be more distorted - in terms of physicality - than Antony Sher's Richard III. 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>
> From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@...>
> To: "" >
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:14
> Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>
>  
> From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>
> > Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
>
> Why particularly Spacey and McKellen?  (McKellen, in fact, made a conscious decision to down-play the disability, almost "hiding" it and coping with it as someone would in real life.)
>
> Does the reality of Henry V make you view the Olivier and Branagh performances in a different light?
>
> I really wish people wouldn't get at Shakespeare.  He was writing sublime drama from limited historical sources.  The distortions in modern films - e.g. abominations like 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot' - are far more gross and infinitely less excusable.
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>
>  
> Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> >
> > Yes Eileen - I'll look at some of those performances a bit differently from now on!
> > David
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > >
> > > Olivier's has done for years!
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5 Feb 2013, at 18:54, EileenB wrote:
> > >
> > > > Im wondering..do you think that some of these over the top performances will now start to look ever so slightly daft? Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > > >>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes, I saw that one, too, and rather liked it.  Shakespeare is innately theatrical.  As I said earlier, cinema is now much more insidious because everything about it is designed to lull you into the belief that "this is real".

Jonathan




________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:39
Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?


 
I saw Robert Lindsay on stage (without much disability). He was v good, he let the wit speak and was at one with the audience. And somehow it was very clear it was a 'play'.

________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@...>
To: "" >
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:14
Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?

 

From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?

> Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen

Why particularly Spacey and McKellen?  (McKellen, in fact, made a conscious decision to down-play the disability, almost "hiding" it and coping with it as someone would in real life.)

Does the reality of Henry V make you view the Olivier and Branagh performances in a different light?

I really wish people wouldn't get at Shakespeare.  He was writing sublime drama from limited historical sources.  The distortions in modern films - e.g. abominations like 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot' - are far more gross and infinitely less excusable.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?

 
Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen

--- In , "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
>
> Yes Eileen - I'll look at some of those performances a bit differently from now on!
> David
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > Olivier's has done for years!
> > Paul
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5 Feb 2013, at 18:54, EileenB wrote:
> >
> > > Im wondering..do you think that some of these over the top performances will now start to look ever so slightly daft? Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Was looking at a quote from Shakespeare's Richard III and couldn't help but think of an alternative in the light of recent events. So instead of
> > >>
> > >> "Why, I can smile and murder whiles I smile,
> > >> And cry 'content' to that which grieves my heart,
> > >> And wet my cheeks with artificial tears,
> > >> And frame my face for all occasions."
> > >>
> > >> why not have
> > >>
> > >> "Why, I can smile and ponder whiles I smile,
> > >> And cry 'content' knowing when I'm found,
> > >> My face will once again look upon the world,
> > >> And those good people will overturn the lies."
> > >>
> > >> A bit daft I know but folks out there with far more talent than me may have their own ideas??
> > >>
> > >> David Nix
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

What we really need is a spectacular movie to be made, with the facts straight and a chrismatic actor playing Richard.  Written by, Plilippa or Sharon or Paul...........

That would go a long way in wiping out the Shakespeare image of Richard.  You know most people believe the latest thing.
Vickie
 
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?

 
No...I have nothing against Shakespeare...he was a genius.

But I do stand by what I say that some of the actors portraying Richard have been way over the top. Who was that one who threw himself across the stage like a giant black spider on crutches? Liz named him but I forget now.

As it happens I really enjoyed Ron Cook's portrayal of Richard...so much so I bought the DVD...

Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
> Oh, I know.  It was the comment about looking "at some of those performances a bit differently now" that surprised me.  Why specifically the performances, allied to the value-judgement of "over-the-top"?  I can't imagine many theatre-goers treating Shakespeare as gospel now.  There may still be a general perception of "the hunchbacked king", but that's so embedded in our culture that I don't think a 3-month run at the NT or RSC of 'Richard III' is going to make any difference one way or the other.
>
> And my point is not that 'Braveheart' et al are more distorted than 'Richard III' (though I think they're far more damaging because of the cinematic accent on realism), but that they have absolutely no excuse for it, unlike plays of the 16th/17th C.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:35
> Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>
>
>  
> Jonathan,
>  
> As we have said already, it's not Shakespeare per se we have the problem with, it's people who think he was a historian.  As for Braveheart, yes it's distorted but definitely not more so than Shakespeare's Richard III.
>  
> As for the performances, I know it was a great performance but nothing really could be more distorted - in terms of physicality - than Antony Sher's Richard III. 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>
> From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@...>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:14
> Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>
>  
> From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>
> > Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
>
> Why particularly Spacey and McKellen?  (McKellen, in fact, made a conscious decision to down-play the disability, almost "hiding" it and coping with it as someone would in real life.)
>
> Does the reality of Henry V make you view the Olivier and Branagh performances in a different light?
>
> I really wish people wouldn't get at Shakespeare.  He was writing sublime drama from limited historical sources.  The distortions in modern films - e.g. abominations like 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot' - are far more gross and infinitely less excusable.
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>
>  
> Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> >
> > Yes Eileen - I'll look at some of those performances a bit differently from now on!
> > David
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > >
> > > Olivier's has done for years!
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5 Feb 2013, at 18:54, EileenB wrote:
> > >
> > > > Im wondering..do you think that some of these over the top performances will now start to look ever so slightly daft? Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > > >>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

And let us not forget, that our schools, at least in the US, are appalling. Students graduate without having learned the basics, much less how to really dig and research. So many, think that what is on the Internet, television or movies is gospel. It is very sad.
As to what we can do.....there seem to be quite a few members who are scholars and historians. I think the Forum and Society should continue to present the truth, as we know it. All this falling in love with a 500 year old king is just twaddle, meant for the mindless, but with an eye to the cash box of the newspapers, television programs, and so called, authors.


On Feb 6, 2013, at 11:17 AM, "Jonathan Evans" <jmcevans98@...<mailto:jmcevans98@...>> wrote:



Yes, I saw that one, too, and rather liked it. Shakespeare is innately theatrical. As I said earlier, cinema is now much more insidious because everything about it is designed to lull you into the belief that "this is real".

Jonathan

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:39
Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?



I saw Robert Lindsay on stage (without much disability). He was v good, he let the wit speak and was at one with the audience. And somehow it was very clear it was a 'play'.

________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@...<mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:14
Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?



From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?

> Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen

Why particularly Spacey and McKellen? (McKellen, in fact, made a conscious decision to down-play the disability, almost "hiding" it and coping with it as someone would in real life.)

Does the reality of Henry V make you view the Olivier and Branagh performances in a different light?

I really wish people wouldn't get at Shakespeare. He was writing sublime drama from limited historical sources. The distortions in modern films - e.g. abominations like 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot' - are far more gross and infinitely less excusable.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?


Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
>
> Yes Eileen - I'll look at some of those performances a bit differently from now on!
> David
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > Olivier's has done for years!
> > Paul
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5 Feb 2013, at 18:54, EileenB wrote:
> >
> > > Im wondering..do you think that some of these over the top performances will now start to look ever so slightly daft? Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Was looking at a quote from Shakespeare's Richard III and couldn't help but think of an alternative in the light of recent events. So instead of
> > >>
> > >> "Why, I can smile and murder whiles I smile,
> > >> And cry 'content' to that which grieves my heart,
> > >> And wet my cheeks with artificial tears,
> > >> And frame my face for all occasions."
> > >>
> > >> why not have
> > >>
> > >> "Why, I can smile and ponder whiles I smile,
> > >> And cry 'content' knowing when I'm found,
> > >> My face will once again look upon the world,
> > >> And those good people will overturn the lies."
> > >>
> > >> A bit daft I know but folks out there with far more talent than me may have their own ideas??
> > >>
> > >> David Nix
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

You mean Antony Sher - oddly enough, Paul's favourite.

Ron Cook's (not seen that) would be interesting in that it was very much part of the history cycle, rather than star vehicle.  My favourite (as I've said before) was McKellen, though more for the stage production than the film.  It was the first time I'd ever seen anyone play this *fictional* character as psychologically real.  No one's got near him since, for me, although I've seen more Richards than I've missed.

Jonathan




________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 17:12
Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?


 
No...I have nothing against Shakespeare...he was a genius.

But I do stand by what I say that some of the actors portraying Richard have been way over the top. Who was that one who threw himself across the stage like a giant black spider on crutches? Liz named him but I forget now.

As it happens I really enjoyed Ron Cook's portrayal of Richard...so much so I bought the DVD...

Eileen

--- In , Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
> Oh, I know.  It was the comment about looking "at some of those performances a bit differently now" that surprised me.  Why specifically the performances, allied to the value-judgement of "over-the-top"?  I can't imagine many theatre-goers treating Shakespeare as gospel now.  There may still be a general perception of "the hunchbacked king", but that's so embedded in our culture that I don't think a 3-month run at the NT or RSC of 'Richard III' is going to make any difference one way or the other.
>
> And my point is not that 'Braveheart' et al are more distorted than 'Richard III' (though I think they're far more damaging because of the cinematic accent on realism), but that they have absolutely no excuse for it, unlike plays of the 16th/17th C.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams
> To: ""
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:35
> Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>
>
>  
> Jonathan,
>  
> As we have said already, it's not Shakespeare per se we have the problem with, it's people who think he was a historian.  As for Braveheart, yes it's distorted but definitely not more so than Shakespeare's Richard III.
>  
> As for the performances, I know it was a great performance but nothing really could be more distorted - in terms of physicality - than Antony Sher's Richard III. 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>
> From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@...>
> To: ">
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:14
> Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>
>  
> From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>
> > Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
>
> Why particularly Spacey and McKellen?  (McKellen, in fact, made a conscious decision to down-play the disability, almost "hiding" it and coping with it as someone would in real life.)
>
> Does the reality of Henry V make you view the Olivier and Branagh performances in a different light?
>
> I really wish people wouldn't get at Shakespeare.  He was writing sublime drama from limited historical sources.  The distortions in modern films - e.g. abominations like 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot' - are far more gross and infinitely less excusable.
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>
>  
> Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> >
> > Yes Eileen - I'll look at some of those performances a bit differently from now on!
> > David
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > >
> > > Olivier's has done for years!
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5 Feb 2013, at 18:54, EileenB wrote:
> > >
> > > > Im wondering..do you think that some of these over the top performances will now start to look ever so slightly daft? Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > > >>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ah...yes...the very one....Antony Sher...

Ron Cook..yes..was part of a BBC series...I did enjoy it...he came across as a naughty misunderstood little boy at times...I loved the humour that he brought to it. Actually I just always enjoying watching Ron Cook...Eileen



--- In , Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
> You mean Antony Sher - oddly enough, Paul's favourite.
>
> Ron Cook's (not seen that) would be interesting in that it was very much part of the history cycle, rather than star vehicle.  My favourite (as I've said before) was McKellen, though more for the stage production than the film.  It was the first time I'd ever seen anyone play this *fictional* character as psychologically real.  No one's got near him since, for me, although I've seen more Richards than I've missed.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 17:12
> Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>
>
>  
> No...I have nothing against Shakespeare...he was a genius.
>
> But I do stand by what I say that some of the actors portraying Richard have been way over the top. Who was that one who threw himself across the stage like a giant black spider on crutches? Liz named him but I forget now.
>
> As it happens I really enjoyed Ron Cook's portrayal of Richard...so much so I bought the DVD...
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans wrote:
> >
> > Oh, I know.  It was the comment about looking "at some of those performances a bit differently now" that surprised me.  Why specifically the performances, allied to the value-judgement of "over-the-top"?  I can't imagine many theatre-goers treating Shakespeare as gospel now.  There may still be a general perception of "the hunchbacked king", but that's so embedded in our culture that I don't think a 3-month run at the NT or RSC of 'Richard III' is going to make any difference one way or the other.
> >
> > And my point is not that 'Braveheart' et al are more distorted than 'Richard III' (though I think they're far more damaging because of the cinematic accent on realism), but that they have absolutely no excuse for it, unlike plays of the 16th/17th C.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams
> > To: ""
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:35
> > Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> >
> >
> >  
> > Jonathan,
> >  
> > As we have said already, it's not Shakespeare per se we have the problem with, it's people who think he was a historian.  As for Braveheart, yes it's distorted but definitely not more so than Shakespeare's Richard III.
> >  
> > As for the performances, I know it was a great performance but nothing really could be more distorted - in terms of physicality - than Antony Sher's Richard III. 
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >
> > From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@>
> > To: "@[email protected]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:14
> > Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> >
> >  
> > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> >
> > > Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
> >
> > Why particularly Spacey and McKellen?  (McKellen, in fact, made a conscious decision to down-play the disability, almost "hiding" it and coping with it as someone would in real life.)
> >
> > Does the reality of Henry V make you view the Olivier and Branagh performances in a different light?
> >
> > I really wish people wouldn't get at Shakespeare.  He was writing sublime drama from limited historical sources.  The distortions in modern films - e.g. abominations like 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot' - are far more gross and infinitely less excusable.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> >
> >  
> > Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes Eileen - I'll look at some of those performances a bit differently from now on!
> > > David
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Olivier's has done for years!
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 5 Feb 2013, at 18:54, EileenB wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Im wondering..do you think that some of these over the top performances will now start to look ever so slightly daft? Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > > > >>
> > .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I'm a great fan of Ron Cook, Eileen. Very underrated, I always think, but always worth watching.

Ian Richardson was an interesting - and funny - Richard at The Other Place in the 70s. I don't think that the production was well reviewed but Richardson was, as always, very good.



--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Ah...yes...the very one....Antony Sher...
>
> Ron Cook..yes..was part of a BBC series...I did enjoy it...he came across as a naughty misunderstood little boy at times...I loved the humour that he brought to it. Actually I just always enjoying watching Ron Cook...Eileen
>
>
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans wrote:
> >
> > You mean Antony Sher - oddly enough, Paul's favourite.
> >
> > Ron Cook's (not seen that) would be interesting in that it was very much part of the history cycle, rather than star vehicle.  My favourite (as I've said before) was McKellen, though more for the stage production than the film.  It was the first time I'd ever seen anyone play this *fictional* character as psychologically real.  No one's got near him since, for me, although I've seen more Richards than I've missed.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 17:12
> > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> >
> >
> >  
> > No...I have nothing against Shakespeare...he was a genius.
> >
> > But I do stand by what I say that some of the actors portraying Richard have been way over the top. Who was that one who threw himself across the stage like a giant black spider on crutches? Liz named him but I forget now.
> >
> > As it happens I really enjoyed Ron Cook's portrayal of Richard...so much so I bought the DVD...
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Jonathan Evans wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh, I know.  It was the comment about looking "at some of those performances a bit differently now" that surprised me.  Why specifically the performances, allied to the value-judgement of "over-the-top"?  I can't imagine many theatre-goers treating Shakespeare as gospel now.  There may still be a general perception of "the hunchbacked king", but that's so embedded in our culture that I don't think a 3-month run at the NT or RSC of 'Richard III' is going to make any difference one way or the other.
> > >
> > > And my point is not that 'Braveheart' et al are more distorted than 'Richard III' (though I think they're far more damaging because of the cinematic accent on realism), but that they have absolutely no excuse for it, unlike plays of the 16th/17th C.
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: liz williams
> > > To: ""
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:35
> > > Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > > Jonathan,
> > >  
> > > As we have said already, it's not Shakespeare per se we have the problem with, it's people who think he was a historian.  As for Braveheart, yes it's distorted but definitely not more so than Shakespeare's Richard III.
> > >  
> > > As for the performances, I know it was a great performance but nothing really could be more distorted - in terms of physicality - than Antony Sher's Richard III. 
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >
> > > From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@>
> > > To: "@@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:14
> > > Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > >
> > >  
> > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> > > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > >
> > > > Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
> > >
> > > Why particularly Spacey and McKellen?  (McKellen, in fact, made a conscious decision to down-play the disability, almost "hiding" it and coping with it as someone would in real life.)
> > >
> > > Does the reality of Henry V make you view the Olivier and Branagh performances in a different light?
> > >
> > > I really wish people wouldn't get at Shakespeare.  He was writing sublime drama from limited historical sources.  The distortions in modern films - e.g. abominations like 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot' - are far more gross and infinitely less excusable.
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> > > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > >
> > >  
> > > Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes Eileen - I'll look at some of those performances a bit differently from now on!
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Olivier's has done for years!
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 5 Feb 2013, at 18:54, EileenB wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Im wondering..do you think that some of these over the top performances will now start to look ever so slightly daft? Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > .
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Ron Cook is completely unknown here in the USA. I've been lucky enough to see him several times at the National - especially in "The Seafarer." I didn't know he played Richard. Maire.

--- In , "highland_katherine" wrote:
>
> I'm a great fan of Ron Cook, Eileen. Very underrated, I always think, but always worth watching.
>
> Ian Richardson was an interesting - and funny - Richard at The Other Place in the 70s. I don't think that the production was well reviewed but Richardson was, as always, very good.
>
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Ah...yes...the very one....Antony Sher...
> >
> > Ron Cook..yes..was part of a BBC series...I did enjoy it...he came across as a naughty misunderstood little boy at times...I loved the humour that he brought to it. Actually I just always enjoying watching Ron Cook...Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Jonathan Evans wrote:
> > >
> > > You mean Antony Sher - oddly enough, Paul's favourite.
> > >
> > > Ron Cook's (not seen that) would be interesting in that it was very much part of the history cycle, rather than star vehicle.  My favourite (as I've said before) was McKellen, though more for the stage production than the film.  It was the first time I'd ever seen anyone play this *fictional* character as psychologically real.  No one's got near him since, for me, although I've seen more Richards than I've missed.
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 17:12
> > > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > > No...I have nothing against Shakespeare...he was a genius.
> > >
> > > But I do stand by what I say that some of the actors portraying Richard have been way over the top. Who was that one who threw himself across the stage like a giant black spider on crutches? Liz named him but I forget now.
> > >
> > > As it happens I really enjoyed Ron Cook's portrayal of Richard...so much so I bought the DVD...
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , Jonathan Evans wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oh, I know.  It was the comment about looking "at some of those performances a bit differently now" that surprised me.  Why specifically the performances, allied to the value-judgement of "over-the-top"?  I can't imagine many theatre-goers treating Shakespeare as gospel now.  There may still be a general perception of "the hunchbacked king", but that's so embedded in our culture that I don't think a 3-month run at the NT or RSC of 'Richard III' is going to make any difference one way or the other.
> > > >
> > > > And my point is not that 'Braveheart' et al are more distorted than 'Richard III' (though I think they're far more damaging because of the cinematic accent on realism), but that they have absolutely no excuse for it, unlike plays of the 16th/17th C.
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: liz williams
> > > > To: ""
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:35
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > > Jonathan,
> > > >  
> > > > As we have said already, it's not Shakespeare per se we have the problem with, it's people who think he was a historian.  As for Braveheart, yes it's distorted but definitely not more so than Shakespeare's Richard III.
> > > >  
> > > > As for the performances, I know it was a great performance but nothing really could be more distorted - in terms of physicality - than Antony Sher's Richard III. 
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > > From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@>
> > > > To: "@@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:14
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> > > > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > >
> > > > > Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
> > > >
> > > > Why particularly Spacey and McKellen?  (McKellen, in fact, made a conscious decision to down-play the disability, almost "hiding" it and coping with it as someone would in real life.)
> > > >
> > > > Does the reality of Henry V make you view the Olivier and Branagh performances in a different light?
> > > >
> > > > I really wish people wouldn't get at Shakespeare.  He was writing sublime drama from limited historical sources.  The distortions in modern films - e.g. abominations like 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot' - are far more gross and infinitely less excusable.
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> > > > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > > Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes Eileen - I'll look at some of those performances a bit differently from now on!
> > > > > David
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Olivier's has done for years!
> > > > > > Paul
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 5 Feb 2013, at 18:54, EileenB wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Im wondering..do you think that some of these over the top performances will now start to look ever so slightly daft? Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > .
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Quite a long time ago Maire...but Im glad others share my liking of Ron...as Katherine say very underrated which is a shame. Funnily enough he is on TV at the moment in the series Mr Selfridge....playing an accountant...Eileen

--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> Ron Cook is completely unknown here in the USA. I've been lucky enough to see him several times at the National - especially in "The Seafarer." I didn't know he played Richard. Maire.
>
> --- In , "highland_katherine" wrote:
> >
> > I'm a great fan of Ron Cook, Eileen. Very underrated, I always think, but always worth watching.
> >
> > Ian Richardson was an interesting - and funny - Richard at The Other Place in the 70s. I don't think that the production was well reviewed but Richardson was, as always, very good.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Ah...yes...the very one....Antony Sher...
> > >
> > > Ron Cook..yes..was part of a BBC series...I did enjoy it...he came across as a naughty misunderstood little boy at times...I loved the humour that he brought to it. Actually I just always enjoying watching Ron Cook...Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Jonathan Evans wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You mean Antony Sher - oddly enough, Paul's favourite.
> > > >
> > > > Ron Cook's (not seen that) would be interesting in that it was very much part of the history cycle, rather than star vehicle.  My favourite (as I've said before) was McKellen, though more for the stage production than the film.  It was the first time I'd ever seen anyone play this *fictional* character as psychologically real.  No one's got near him since, for me, although I've seen more Richards than I've missed.
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 17:12
> > > > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > > No...I have nothing against Shakespeare...he was a genius.
> > > >
> > > > But I do stand by what I say that some of the actors portraying Richard have been way over the top. Who was that one who threw himself across the stage like a giant black spider on crutches? Liz named him but I forget now.
> > > >
> > > > As it happens I really enjoyed Ron Cook's portrayal of Richard...so much so I bought the DVD...
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, I know.  It was the comment about looking "at some of those performances a bit differently now" that surprised me.  Why specifically the performances, allied to the value-judgement of "over-the-top"?  I can't imagine many theatre-goers treating Shakespeare as gospel now.  There may still be a general perception of "the hunchbacked king", but that's so embedded in our culture that I don't think a 3-month run at the NT or RSC of 'Richard III' is going to make any difference one way or the other.
> > > > >
> > > > > And my point is not that 'Braveheart' et al are more distorted than 'Richard III' (though I think they're far more damaging because of the cinematic accent on realism), but that they have absolutely no excuse for it, unlike plays of the 16th/17th C.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: liz williams
> > > > > To: ""
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:35
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  
> > > > > Jonathan,
> > > > >  
> > > > > As we have said already, it's not Shakespeare per se we have the problem with, it's people who think he was a historian.  As for Braveheart, yes it's distorted but definitely not more so than Shakespeare's Richard III.
> > > > >  
> > > > > As for the performances, I know it was a great performance but nothing really could be more distorted - in terms of physicality - than Antony Sher's Richard III. 
> > > > >  
> > > > >  
> > > > >  
> > > > >  
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@>
> > > > > To: "@@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:14
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > >
> > > > >  
> > > > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> > > > > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > >
> > > > > > Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > Why particularly Spacey and McKellen?  (McKellen, in fact, made a conscious decision to down-play the disability, almost "hiding" it and coping with it as someone would in real life.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Does the reality of Henry V make you view the Olivier and Branagh performances in a different light?
> > > > >
> > > > > I really wish people wouldn't get at Shakespeare.  He was writing sublime drama from limited historical sources.  The distortions in modern films - e.g. abominations like 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot' - are far more gross and infinitely less excusable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> > > > > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > >
> > > > >  
> > > > > Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes Eileen - I'll look at some of those performances a bit differently from now on!
> > > > > > David
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Olivier's has done for years!
> > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 5 Feb 2013, at 18:54, EileenB wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Im wondering..do you think that some of these over the top performances will now start to look ever so slightly daft? Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > .
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Yes   Ron Cook was good. And wasn't an excerpt from his R3 on the programe the other nightm he was wielding a sword. If you don't know him you probably wouldn't have recognised who he was - if you see what I mean


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 17:53
Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?


 

Quite a long time ago Maire...but Im glad others share my liking of Ron...as Katherine say very underrated which is a shame. Funnily enough he is on TV at the moment in the series Mr Selfridge....playing an accountant...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> Ron Cook is completely unknown here in the USA. I've been lucky enough to see him several times at the National - especially in "The Seafarer." I didn't know he played Richard. Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "highland_katherine" wrote:
> >
> > I'm a great fan of Ron Cook, Eileen. Very underrated, I always think, but always worth watching.
> >
> > Ian Richardson was an interesting - and funny - Richard at The Other Place in the 70s. I don't think that the production was well reviewed but Richardson was, as always, very good.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Ah...yes...the very one....Antony Sher...
> > >
> > > Ron Cook..yes..was part of a BBC series...I did enjoy it...he came across as a naughty misunderstood little boy at times...I loved the humour that he brought to it. Actually I just always enjoying watching Ron Cook...Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You mean Antony Sher - oddly enough, Paul's favourite.
> > > >
> > > > Ron Cook's (not seen that) would be interesting in that it was very much part of the history cycle, rather than star vehicle.  My favourite (as I've said before) was McKellen, though more for the stage production than the film.  It was the first time I'd ever seen anyone play this *fictional* character as psychologically real.  No one's got near him since, for me, although I've seen more Richards than I've missed.
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 17:12
> > > > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > > No...I have nothing against Shakespeare...he was a genius.
> > > >
> > > > But I do stand by what I say that some of the actors portraying Richard have been way over the top. Who was that one who threw himself across the stage like a giant black spider on crutches? Liz named him but I forget now.
> > > >
> > > > As it happens I really enjoyed Ron Cook's portrayal of Richard...so much so I bought the DVD...
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, I know.à It was the comment about looking "at some of those performances a bit differently now" that surprised me.à Why specifically the performances, allied to the value-judgement of "over-the-top"?à I can't imagine many theatre-goers treating Shakespeare as gospel now.à There may still be a general perception of "the hunchbacked king", but that's so embedded in our culture that I don't think a 3-month run at the NT or RSC of 'Richard III' is going to make any difference one way or the other.
> > > > >
> > > > > And my point is not that 'Braveheart' et al are more distorted than 'Richard III' (though I think they're far more damaging because of the cinematic accent on realism), but that they have absolutely no excuse for it, unlike plays of the 16th/17th C.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: liz williams
> > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:35
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > à
> > > > > Jonathan,
> > > > > à
> > > > > As we have said already, it's not Shakespeare per se we have the problem with, it's people who think he was a historian.à As for Braveheart, yes it's distorted but definitely not more so than Shakespeare's Richard III.
> > > > > à
> > > > > Asàfor the performances, I know it was a great performance but nothing really could be more distorted - in terms of physicality - than Antony Sher's Richard III.à
> > > > > à
> > > > > à
> > > > > à
> > > > > à
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@>
> > > > > To: "@@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:14
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > >
> > > > > à
> > > > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> > > > > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > >
> > > > > > Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > Why particularly Spacey and McKellen?à (McKellen, in fact, made a conscious decision to down-play the disability, almost "hiding" it and coping with it as someone would in real life.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Does the reality of Henry V make you view the Olivier and Branagh performances in a different light?
> > > > >
> > > > > I really wish people wouldn't get at Shakespeare.à He was writing sublime drama from limited historical sources.à The distortions in modern films - e.g. abominations like 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot' - are far more gross and infinitely less excusable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> > > > > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > >
> > > > > à
> > > > > Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes Eileen - I'll look at some of those performances a bit differently from now on!
> > > > > > David
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Olivier's has done for years!
> > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 5 Feb 2013, at 18:54, EileenB wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Im wondering..do you think that some of these over the top performances will now start to look ever so slightly daft? Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > .
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

It's on Youtube, I hope this works: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXEOAFiOGAE

--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> Ron Cook is completely unknown here in the USA. I've been lucky enough to see him several times at the National - especially in "The Seafarer." I didn't know he played Richard. Maire.
>
> --- In , "highland_katherine" wrote:
> >
> > I'm a great fan of Ron Cook, Eileen. Very underrated, I always think, but always worth watching.
> >
> > Ian Richardson was an interesting - and funny - Richard at The Other Place in the 70s. I don't think that the production was well reviewed but Richardson was, as always, very good.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Ah...yes...the very one....Antony Sher...
> > >
> > > Ron Cook..yes..was part of a BBC series...I did enjoy it...he came across as a naughty misunderstood little boy at times...I loved the humour that he brought to it. Actually I just always enjoying watching Ron Cook...Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Jonathan Evans wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You mean Antony Sher - oddly enough, Paul's favourite.
> > > >
> > > > Ron Cook's (not seen that) would be interesting in that it was very much part of the history cycle, rather than star vehicle.  My favourite (as I've said before) was McKellen, though more for the stage production than the film.  It was the first time I'd ever seen anyone play this *fictional* character as psychologically real.  No one's got near him since, for me, although I've seen more Richards than I've missed.
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 17:12
> > > > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > > No...I have nothing against Shakespeare...he was a genius.
> > > >
> > > > But I do stand by what I say that some of the actors portraying Richard have been way over the top. Who was that one who threw himself across the stage like a giant black spider on crutches? Liz named him but I forget now.
> > > >
> > > > As it happens I really enjoyed Ron Cook's portrayal of Richard...so much so I bought the DVD...
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, I know.  It was the comment about looking "at some of those performances a bit differently now" that surprised me.  Why specifically the performances, allied to the value-judgement of "over-the-top"?  I can't imagine many theatre-goers treating Shakespeare as gospel now.  There may still be a general perception of "the hunchbacked king", but that's so embedded in our culture that I don't think a 3-month run at the NT or RSC of 'Richard III' is going to make any difference one way or the other.
> > > > >
> > > > > And my point is not that 'Braveheart' et al are more distorted than 'Richard III' (though I think they're far more damaging because of the cinematic accent on realism), but that they have absolutely no excuse for it, unlike plays of the 16th/17th C.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: liz williams
> > > > > To: ""
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:35
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  
> > > > > Jonathan,
> > > > >  
> > > > > As we have said already, it's not Shakespeare per se we have the problem with, it's people who think he was a historian.  As for Braveheart, yes it's distorted but definitely not more so than Shakespeare's Richard III.
> > > > >  
> > > > > As for the performances, I know it was a great performance but nothing really could be more distorted - in terms of physicality - than Antony Sher's Richard III. 
> > > > >  
> > > > >  
> > > > >  
> > > > >  
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@>
> > > > > To: "@@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:14
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > >
> > > > >  
> > > > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> > > > > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > >
> > > > > > Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > Why particularly Spacey and McKellen?  (McKellen, in fact, made a conscious decision to down-play the disability, almost "hiding" it and coping with it as someone would in real life.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Does the reality of Henry V make you view the Olivier and Branagh performances in a different light?
> > > > >
> > > > > I really wish people wouldn't get at Shakespeare.  He was writing sublime drama from limited historical sources.  The distortions in modern films - e.g. abominations like 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot' - are far more gross and infinitely less excusable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> > > > > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > >
> > > > >  
> > > > > Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes Eileen - I'll look at some of those performances a bit differently from now on!
> > > > > > David
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Olivier's has done for years!
> > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 5 Feb 2013, at 18:54, EileenB wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Im wondering..do you think that some of these over the top performances will now start to look ever so slightly daft? Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > .
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Exactly opposite to you Eileen.I loathed Ron Cook and saw Tony Sher's bottled spider 11 times! Brilliant, and beautifully spoken.
Paul

Richard Liveth Yet!




On 6 Feb 2013, at 17:12, EileenB wrote:

> No...I have nothing against Shakespeare...he was a genius.
>
> But I do stand by what I say that some of the actors portraying Richard have been way over the top. Who was that one who threw himself across the stage like a giant black spider on crutches? Liz named him but I forget now.
>
> As it happens I really enjoyed Ron Cook's portrayal of Richard...so much so I bought the DVD...
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans wrote:
>>
>> Oh, I know. It was the comment about looking "at some of those performances a bit differently now" that surprised me. Why specifically the performances, allied to the value-judgement of "over-the-top"? I can't imagine many theatre-goers treating Shakespeare as gospel now. There may still be a general perception of "the hunchbacked king", but that's so embedded in our culture that I don't think a 3-month run at the NT or RSC of 'Richard III' is going to make any difference one way or the other.
>>
>> And my point is not that 'Braveheart' et al are more distorted than 'Richard III' (though I think they're far more damaging because of the cinematic accent on realism), but that they have absolutely no excuse for it, unlike plays of the 16th/17th C.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: liz williams
>> To: ""
>> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:35
>> Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>>
>>
>> Â
>> Jonathan,
>> Â
>> As we have said already, it's not Shakespeare per se we have the problem with, it's people who think he was a historian. As for Braveheart, yes it's distorted but definitely not more so than Shakespeare's Richard III.
>> Â
>> As for the performances, I know it was a great performance but nothing really could be more distorted - in terms of physicality - than Antony Sher's Richard III.Â
>> Â
>> Â
>> Â
>> Â
>>
>> From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@...>
>> To: "" >
>> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:14
>> Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>>
>> Â
>> From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
>> Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>>
>>> Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
>>
>> Why particularly Spacey and McKellen? (McKellen, in fact, made a conscious decision to down-play the disability, almost "hiding" it and coping with it as someone would in real life.)
>>
>> Does the reality of Henry V make you view the Olivier and Branagh performances in a different light?
>>
>> I really wish people wouldn't get at Shakespeare. He was writing sublime drama from limited historical sources. The distortions in modern films - e.g. abominations like 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot' - are far more gross and infinitely less excusable.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
>> Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>>
>> Â
>> Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes Eileen - I'll look at some of those performances a bit differently from now on!
>>> David
>>>
>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Olivier's has done for years!
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5 Feb 2013, at 18:54, EileenB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Im wondering..do you think that some of these over the top performances will now start to look ever so slightly daft? Eileen
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
>>>>>>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Vickie Vickie Vickie...been trying to raise interest and funds for sometime. Still kicking at doors in the hope one will soon fly open!
Paul

Richard Liveth Yet!




On 6 Feb 2013, at 17:22, Vickie Cook wrote:

> What we really need is a spectacular movie to be made, with the facts straight and a chrismatic actor playing Richard. Written by, Plilippa or Sharon or Paul...........
>
> That would go a long way in wiping out the Shakespeare image of Richard. You know most people believe the latest thing.
> Vickie
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 11:12 AM
> Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>
>
> No...I have nothing against Shakespeare...he was a genius.
>
> But I do stand by what I say that some of the actors portraying Richard have been way over the top. Who was that one who threw himself across the stage like a giant black spider on crutches? Liz named him but I forget now.
>
> As it happens I really enjoyed Ron Cook's portrayal of Richard...so much so I bought the DVD...
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans wrote:
>>
>> Oh, I know. It was the comment about looking "at some of those performances a bit differently now" that surprised me. Why specifically the performances, allied to the value-judgement of "over-the-top"? I can't imagine many theatre-goers treating Shakespeare as gospel now. There may still be a general perception of "the hunchbacked king", but that's so embedded in our culture that I don't think a 3-month run at the NT or RSC of 'Richard III' is going to make any difference one way or the other.
>>
>> And my point is not that 'Braveheart' et al are more distorted than 'Richard III' (though I think they're far more damaging because of the cinematic accent on realism), but that they have absolutely no excuse for it, unlike plays of the 16th/17th C.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: liz williams
>> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
>> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:35
>> Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>>
>>
>> Â
>> Jonathan,
>> Â
>> As we have said already, it's not Shakespeare per se we have the problem with, it's people who think he was a historian. As for Braveheart, yes it's distorted but definitely not more so than Shakespeare's Richard III.
>> Â
>> As for the performances, I know it was a great performance but nothing really could be more distorted - in terms of physicality - than Antony Sher's Richard III.Â
>> Â
>> Â
>> Â
>> Â
>>
>> From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@...>
>> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:14
>> Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>>
>> Â
>> From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
>> Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>>
>>> Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
>>
>> Why particularly Spacey and McKellen? (McKellen, in fact, made a conscious decision to down-play the disability, almost "hiding" it and coping with it as someone would in real life.)
>>
>> Does the reality of Henry V make you view the Olivier and Branagh performances in a different light?
>>
>> I really wish people wouldn't get at Shakespeare. He was writing sublime drama from limited historical sources. The distortions in modern films - e.g. abominations like 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot' - are far more gross and infinitely less excusable.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
>> Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>>
>> Â
>> Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes Eileen - I'll look at some of those performances a bit differently from now on!
>>> David
>>>
>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Olivier's has done for years!
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5 Feb 2013, at 18:54, EileenB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Im wondering..do you think that some of these over the top performances will now start to look ever so slightly daft? Eileen
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
>>>>>>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Why oddly? Original, charismatic, beautifully spoken.
Paul

Richard Liveth Yet!




On 6 Feb 2013, at 17:28, Jonathan Evans wrote:

> You mean Antony Sher - oddly enough, Paul's favourite.
>
> Ron Cook's (not seen that) would be interesting in that it was very much part of the history cycle, rather than star vehicle. My favourite (as I've said before) was McKellen, though more for the stage production than the film. It was the first time I'd ever seen anyone play this *fictional* character as psychologically real. No one's got near him since, for me, although I've seen more Richards than I've missed.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 17:12
> Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>
>
>
> No...I have nothing against Shakespeare...he was a genius.
>
> But I do stand by what I say that some of the actors portraying Richard have been way over the top. Who was that one who threw himself across the stage like a giant black spider on crutches? Liz named him but I forget now.
>
> As it happens I really enjoyed Ron Cook's portrayal of Richard...so much so I bought the DVD...
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans wrote:
>>
>> Oh, I know. It was the comment about looking "at some of those performances a bit differently now" that surprised me. Why specifically the performances, allied to the value-judgement of "over-the-top"? I can't imagine many theatre-goers treating Shakespeare as gospel now. There may still be a general perception of "the hunchbacked king", but that's so embedded in our culture that I don't think a 3-month run at the NT or RSC of 'Richard III' is going to make any difference one way or the other.
>>
>> And my point is not that 'Braveheart' et al are more distorted than 'Richard III' (though I think they're far more damaging because of the cinematic accent on realism), but that they have absolutely no excuse for it, unlike plays of the 16th/17th C.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: liz williams
>> To: ""
>> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:35
>> Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>>
>>
>> Â
>> Jonathan,
>> Â
>> As we have said already, it's not Shakespeare per se we have the problem with, it's people who think he was a historian. As for Braveheart, yes it's distorted but definitely not more so than Shakespeare's Richard III.
>> Â
>> As for the performances, I know it was a great performance but nothing really could be more distorted - in terms of physicality - than Antony Sher's Richard III.Â
>> Â
>> Â
>> Â
>> Â
>>
>> From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@...>
>> To: ">
>> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:14
>> Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>>
>> Â
>> From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
>> Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>>
>>> Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
>>
>> Why particularly Spacey and McKellen? (McKellen, in fact, made a conscious decision to down-play the disability, almost "hiding" it and coping with it as someone would in real life.)
>>
>> Does the reality of Henry V make you view the Olivier and Branagh performances in a different light?
>>
>> I really wish people wouldn't get at Shakespeare. He was writing sublime drama from limited historical sources. The distortions in modern films - e.g. abominations like 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot' - are far more gross and infinitely less excusable.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
>> Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>>
>> Â
>> Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes Eileen - I'll look at some of those performances a bit differently from now on!
>>> David
>>>
>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Olivier's has done for years!
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5 Feb 2013, at 18:54, EileenB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Im wondering..do you think that some of these over the top performances will now start to look ever so slightly daft? Eileen
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
>>>>>>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

As they say Paul...one man's meat is another man's poison. I think one of the things that appealed to me re Ron Cook...is he is not a drop dead gorgious type of bloke is he...When I was young....kof kof..some time ago...I came to the conclusion that good looking men were usually so in love with themselves and thought they were chocolate that I found it off putting. I guess I have always like men that have more character in their faces than good looks. They tend to treat the opposite sex better...but hey...Im off on a tangent..again...Eileen
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Exactly opposite to you Eileen.I loathed Ron Cook and saw Tony Sher's bottled spider 11 times! Brilliant, and beautifully spoken.
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
> On 6 Feb 2013, at 17:12, EileenB wrote:
>
> > No...I have nothing against Shakespeare...he was a genius.
> >
> > But I do stand by what I say that some of the actors portraying Richard have been way over the top. Who was that one who threw himself across the stage like a giant black spider on crutches? Liz named him but I forget now.
> >
> > As it happens I really enjoyed Ron Cook's portrayal of Richard...so much so I bought the DVD...
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Jonathan Evans wrote:
> >>
> >> Oh, I know. It was the comment about looking "at some of those performances a bit differently now" that surprised me. Why specifically the performances, allied to the value-judgement of "over-the-top"? I can't imagine many theatre-goers treating Shakespeare as gospel now. There may still be a general perception of "the hunchbacked king", but that's so embedded in our culture that I don't think a 3-month run at the NT or RSC of 'Richard III' is going to make any difference one way or the other.
> >>
> >> And my point is not that 'Braveheart' et al are more distorted than 'Richard III' (though I think they're far more damaging because of the cinematic accent on realism), but that they have absolutely no excuse for it, unlike plays of the 16th/17th C.
> >>
> >> Jonathan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: liz williams
> >> To: ""
> >> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:35
> >> Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> >>
> >>
> >> Â
> >> Jonathan,
> >> Â
> >> As we have said already, it's not Shakespeare per se we have the problem with, it's people who think he was a historian. As for Braveheart, yes it's distorted but definitely not more so than Shakespeare's Richard III.
> >> Â
> >> As for the performances, I know it was a great performance but nothing really could be more distorted - in terms of physicality - than Antony Sher's Richard III.Â
> >> Â
> >> Â
> >> Â
> >> Â
> >>
> >> From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@>
> >> To: "" >
> >> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:14
> >> Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> >>
> >> Â
> >> From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> >> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> >> Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> >>
> >>> Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
> >>
> >> Why particularly Spacey and McKellen? (McKellen, in fact, made a conscious decision to down-play the disability, almost "hiding" it and coping with it as someone would in real life.)
> >>
> >> Does the reality of Henry V make you view the Olivier and Branagh performances in a different light?
> >>
> >> I really wish people wouldn't get at Shakespeare. He was writing sublime drama from limited historical sources. The distortions in modern films - e.g. abominations like 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot' - are far more gross and infinitely less excusable.
> >>
> >> Jonathan
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> >> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> >> Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> >>
> >> Â
> >> Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
> >>
> >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Yes Eileen - I'll look at some of those performances a bit differently from now on!
> >>> David
> >>>
> >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Olivier's has done for years!
> >>>> Paul
> >>>>
> >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 5 Feb 2013, at 18:54, EileenB wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Im wondering..do you think that some of these over the top performances will now start to look ever so slightly daft? Eileen
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >> .
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

Yea, Eileen, I have a fellow on the tangent trail!

On Feb 6, 2013, at 1:08 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



As they say Paul...one man's meat is another man's poison. I think one of the things that appealed to me re Ron Cook...is he is not a drop dead gorgious type of bloke is he...When I was young....kof kof..some time ago...I came to the conclusion that good looking men were usually so in love with themselves and thought they were chocolate that I found it off putting. I guess I have always like men that have more character in their faces than good looks. They tend to treat the opposite sex better...but hey...Im off on a tangent..again...Eileen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Exactly opposite to you Eileen.I loathed Ron Cook and saw Tony Sher's bottled spider 11 times! Brilliant, and beautifully spoken.
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
> On 6 Feb 2013, at 17:12, EileenB wrote:
>
> > No...I have nothing against Shakespeare...he was a genius.
> >
> > But I do stand by what I say that some of the actors portraying Richard have been way over the top. Who was that one who threw himself across the stage like a giant black spider on crutches? Liz named him but I forget now.
> >
> > As it happens I really enjoyed Ron Cook's portrayal of Richard...so much so I bought the DVD...
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> >>
> >> Oh, I know.ý It was the comment about looking "at some of those performances a bit differently now" that surprised me.ý Why specifically the performances, allied to the value-judgement of "over-the-top"?ý I can't imagine many theatre-goers treating Shakespeare as gospel now.ý There may still be a general perception of "the hunchbacked king", but that's so embedded in our culture that I don't think a 3-month run at the NT or RSC of 'Richard III' is going to make any difference one way or the other.
> >>
> >> And my point is not that 'Braveheart' et al are more distorted than 'Richard III' (though I think they're far more damaging because of the cinematic accent on realism), but that they have absolutely no excuse for it, unlike plays of the 16th/17th C.
> >>
> >> Jonathan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: liz williams
> >> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>"
> >> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:35
> >> Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> >>
> >>
> >> ý
> >> Jonathan,
> >> ý
> >> As we have said already, it's not Shakespeare per se we have the problem with, it's people who think he was a historian.ý As for Braveheart, yes it's distorted but definitely not more so than Shakespeare's Richard III.
> >> ý
> >> Asý for the performances, I know it was a great performance but nothing really could be more distorted - in terms of physicality - than Antony Sher's Richard III.ý
> >> ý
> >> ý
> >> ý
> >> ý
> >>
> >> From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@>
> >> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:14
> >> Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> >>
> >> ý
> >> From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com<http://40googlemail.com>>
> >> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> >> Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> >>
> >>> Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
> >>
> >> Why particularly Spacey and McKellen?ý (McKellen, in fact, made a conscious decision to down-play the disability, almost "hiding" it and coping with it as someone would in real life.)
> >>
> >> Does the reality of Henry V make you view the Olivier and Branagh performances in a different light?
> >>
> >> I really wish people wouldn't get at Shakespeare.ý He was writing sublime drama from limited historical sources.ý The distortions in modern films - e.g. abominations like 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot' - are far more gross and infinitely less excusable.
> >>
> >> Jonathan
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com<http://40googlemail.com>>
> >> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> >> Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> >>
> >> ý
> >> Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
> >>
> >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Yes Eileen - I'll look at some of those performances a bit differently from now on!
> >>> David
> >>>
> >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Olivier's has done for years!
> >>>> Paul
> >>>>
> >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 5 Feb 2013, at 18:54, EileenB wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Im wondering..do you think that some of these over the top performances will now start to look ever so slightly daft? Eileen
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >> .
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

Who would dare to write a play to compare with Shakespeare?!!

Well you're right about Braveheart and there being no excuse these days but they know that their audiences are credulous.  Most people these days know very little about history. 



________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 17:10
Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?

 
Yes, I saw that one, too, and rather liked it.  Shakespeare is innately theatrical.  As I said earlier, cinema is now much more insidious because everything about it is designed to lull you into the belief that "this is real".

Jonathan

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:39
Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?


 
I saw Robert Lindsay on stage (without much disability). He was v good, he let the wit speak and was at one with the audience. And somehow it was very clear it was a 'play'.

________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:14
Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?

 

From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?

> Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen

Why particularly Spacey and McKellen?  (McKellen, in fact, made a conscious decision to down-play the disability, almost "hiding" it and coping with it as someone would in real life.)

Does the reality of Henry V make you view the Olivier and Branagh performances in a different light?

I really wish people wouldn't get at Shakespeare.  He was writing sublime drama from limited historical sources.  The distortions in modern films - e.g. abominations like 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot' - are far more gross and infinitely less excusable.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?

 
Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
>
> Yes Eileen - I'll look at some of those performances a bit differently from now on!
> David
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > Olivier's has done for years!
> > Paul
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5 Feb 2013, at 18:54, EileenB wrote:
> >
> > > Im wondering..do you think that some of these over the top performances will now start to look ever so slightly daft? Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Was looking at a quote from Shakespeare's Richard III and couldn't help but think of an alternative in the light of recent events. So instead of
> > >>
> > >> "Why, I can smile and murder whiles I smile,
> > >> And cry 'content' to that which grieves my heart,
> > >> And wet my cheeks with artificial tears,
> > >> And frame my face for all occasions."
> > >>
> > >> why not have
> > >>
> > >> "Why, I can smile and ponder whiles I smile,
> > >> And cry 'content' knowing when I'm found,
> > >> My face will once again look upon the world,
> > >> And those good people will overturn the lies."
> > >>
> > >> A bit daft I know but folks out there with far more talent than me may have their own ideas??
> > >>
> > >> David Nix
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

I also saw Ian Richardson in his last theatre role - Ben Jonson's "The Alchemist" which starred Simon Russell Beale. I almost died from laughter - what a wild play! Maire.

--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Quite a long time ago Maire...but Im glad others share my liking of Ron...as Katherine say very underrated which is a shame. Funnily enough he is on TV at the moment in the series Mr Selfridge....playing an accountant...Eileen
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > Ron Cook is completely unknown here in the USA. I've been lucky enough to see him several times at the National - especially in "The Seafarer." I didn't know he played Richard. Maire.
> >
> > --- In , "highland_katherine" wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm a great fan of Ron Cook, Eileen. Very underrated, I always think, but always worth watching.
> > >
> > > Ian Richardson was an interesting - and funny - Richard at The Other Place in the 70s. I don't think that the production was well reviewed but Richardson was, as always, very good.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ah...yes...the very one....Antony Sher...
> > > >
> > > > Ron Cook..yes..was part of a BBC series...I did enjoy it...he came across as a naughty misunderstood little boy at times...I loved the humour that he brought to it. Actually I just always enjoying watching Ron Cook...Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > You mean Antony Sher - oddly enough, Paul's favourite.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ron Cook's (not seen that) would be interesting in that it was very much part of the history cycle, rather than star vehicle.  My favourite (as I've said before) was McKellen, though more for the stage production than the film.  It was the first time I'd ever seen anyone play this *fictional* character as psychologically real.  No one's got near him since, for me, although I've seen more Richards than I've missed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 17:12
> > > > > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  
> > > > > No...I have nothing against Shakespeare...he was a genius.
> > > > >
> > > > > But I do stand by what I say that some of the actors portraying Richard have been way over the top. Who was that one who threw himself across the stage like a giant black spider on crutches? Liz named him but I forget now.
> > > > >
> > > > > As it happens I really enjoyed Ron Cook's portrayal of Richard...so much so I bought the DVD...
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh, I know.  It was the comment about looking "at some of those performances a bit differently now" that surprised me.  Why specifically the performances, allied to the value-judgement of "over-the-top"?  I can't imagine many theatre-goers treating Shakespeare as gospel now.  There may still be a general perception of "the hunchbacked king", but that's so embedded in our culture that I don't think a 3-month run at the NT or RSC of 'Richard III' is going to make any difference one way or the other.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And my point is not that 'Braveheart' et al are more distorted than 'Richard III' (though I think they're far more damaging because of the cinematic accent on realism), but that they have absolutely no excuse for it, unlike plays of the 16th/17th C.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: liz williams
> > > > > > To: ""
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:35
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > Jonathan,
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > As we have said already, it's not Shakespeare per se we have the problem with, it's people who think he was a historian.  As for Braveheart, yes it's distorted but definitely not more so than Shakespeare's Richard III.
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > As for the performances, I know it was a great performance but nothing really could be more distorted - in terms of physicality - than Antony Sher's Richard III. 
> > > > > >  
> > > > > >  
> > > > > >  
> > > > > >  
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@>
> > > > > > To: "@@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:14
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> > > > > > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why particularly Spacey and McKellen?  (McKellen, in fact, made a conscious decision to down-play the disability, almost "hiding" it and coping with it as someone would in real life.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does the reality of Henry V make you view the Olivier and Branagh performances in a different light?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I really wish people wouldn't get at Shakespeare.  He was writing sublime drama from limited historical sources.  The distortions in modern films - e.g. abominations like 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot' - are far more gross and infinitely less excusable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> > > > > > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes Eileen - I'll look at some of those performances a bit differently from now on!
> > > > > > > David
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Olivier's has done for years!
> > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 5 Feb 2013, at 18:54, EileenB wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Im wondering..do you think that some of these over the top performances will now start to look ever so slightly daft? Eileen
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > .
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Eileen wrote:
> > Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen

Jonathan responded:
> Why particularly Spacey and McKellen? (McKellen, in fact, made a conscious decision to down-play the disability, almost "hiding" it and coping with it as someone would in real life.)

Carol responds:

Maybe he figured that a fifty-six-year-old, cigarette-smoking twentieth-century Richard was sufficiently over the top!

Carol

I WISH I'd seen the spider. I have his book about playing it, it's brilliant. I saw him a couple of years ago in "An Enemy of the People" he is an amazing actor.



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 18:59
Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?

 
Exactly opposite to you Eileen.I loathed Ron Cook and saw Tony Sher's bottled spider 11 times! Brilliant, and beautifully spoken.
Paul

Richard Liveth Yet!

On 6 Feb 2013, at 17:12, EileenB wrote:

> No...I have nothing against Shakespeare...he was a genius.
>
> But I do stand by what I say that some of the actors portraying Richard have been way over the top. Who was that one who threw himself across the stage like a giant black spider on crutches? Liz named him but I forget now.
>
> As it happens I really enjoyed Ron Cook's portrayal of Richard...so much so I bought the DVD...
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans wrote:
>>
>> Oh, I know. It was the comment about looking "at some of those performances a bit differently now" that surprised me. Why specifically the performances, allied to the value-judgement of "over-the-top"? I can't imagine many theatre-goers treating Shakespeare as gospel now. There may still be a general perception of "the hunchbacked king", but that's so embedded in our culture that I don't think a 3-month run at the NT or RSC of 'Richard III' is going to make any difference one way or the other.
>>
>> And my point is not that 'Braveheart' et al are more distorted than 'Richard III' (though I think they're far more damaging because of the cinematic accent on realism), but that they have absolutely no excuse for it, unlike plays of the 16th/17th C.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: liz williams
>> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
>> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:35
>> Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>>
>>
>> Â
>> Jonathan,
>> Â
>> As we have said already, it's not Shakespeare per se we have the problem with, it's people who think he was a historian. As for Braveheart, yes it's distorted but definitely not more so than Shakespeare's Richard III.
>> Â
>> As for the performances, I know it was a great performance but nothing really could be more distorted - in terms of physicality - than Antony Sher's Richard III.Â
>> Â
>> Â
>> Â
>> Â
>>
>> From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@...>
>> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:14
>> Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>>
>> Â
>> From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
>> Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>>
>>> Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
>>
>> Why particularly Spacey and McKellen? (McKellen, in fact, made a conscious decision to down-play the disability, almost "hiding" it and coping with it as someone would in real life.)
>>
>> Does the reality of Henry V make you view the Olivier and Branagh performances in a different light?
>>
>> I really wish people wouldn't get at Shakespeare. He was writing sublime drama from limited historical sources. The distortions in modern films - e.g. abominations like 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot' - are far more gross and infinitely less excusable.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
>> Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>>
>> Â
>> Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes Eileen - I'll look at some of those performances a bit differently from now on!
>>> David
>>>
>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Olivier's has done for years!
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5 Feb 2013, at 18:54, EileenB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Im wondering..do you think that some of these over the top performances will now start to look ever so slightly daft? Eileen
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
>>>>>>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

I saw Jonathan Hyde in The Alchemist - it's a brilliant play indeed  I saw Ian Richardson in Richard II,alternating with Richard Pascoe.  Wonderful.



________________________________
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 19:39
Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?

 
I also saw Ian Richardson in his last theatre role - Ben Jonson's "The Alchemist" which starred Simon Russell Beale. I almost died from laughter - what a wild play! Maire.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Quite a long time ago Maire...but Im glad others share my liking of Ron...as Katherine say very underrated which is a shame. Funnily enough he is on TV at the moment in the series Mr Selfridge....playing an accountant...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > Ron Cook is completely unknown here in the USA. I've been lucky enough to see him several times at the National - especially in "The Seafarer." I didn't know he played Richard. Maire.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "highland_katherine" wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm a great fan of Ron Cook, Eileen. Very underrated, I always think, but always worth watching.
> > >
> > > Ian Richardson was an interesting - and funny - Richard at The Other Place in the 70s. I don't think that the production was well reviewed but Richardson was, as always, very good.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ah...yes...the very one....Antony Sher...
> > > >
> > > > Ron Cook..yes..was part of a BBC series...I did enjoy it...he came across as a naughty misunderstood little boy at times...I loved the humour that he brought to it. Actually I just always enjoying watching Ron Cook...Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > You mean Antony Sher - oddly enough, Paul's favourite.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ron Cook's (not seen that) would be interesting in that it was very much part of the history cycle, rather than star vehicle.  My favourite (as I've said before) was McKellen, though more for the stage production than the film.  It was the first time I'd ever seen anyone play this *fictional* character as psychologically real.  No one's got near him since, for me, although I've seen more Richards than I've missed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 17:12
> > > > > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  
> > > > > No...I have nothing against Shakespeare...he was a genius.
> > > > >
> > > > > But I do stand by what I say that some of the actors portraying Richard have been way over the top. Who was that one who threw himself across the stage like a giant black spider on crutches? Liz named him but I forget now.
> > > > >
> > > > > As it happens I really enjoyed Ron Cook's portrayal of Richard...so much so I bought the DVD...
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh, I know.à It was the comment about looking "at some of those performances a bit differently now" that surprised me.à Why specifically the performances, allied to the value-judgement of "over-the-top"?à I can't imagine many theatre-goers treating Shakespeare as gospel now.à There may still be a general perception of "the hunchbacked king", but that's so embedded in our culture that I don't think a 3-month run at the NT or RSC of 'Richard III' is going to make any difference one way or the other.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And my point is not that 'Braveheart' et al are more distorted than 'Richard III' (though I think they're far more damaging because of the cinematic accent on realism), but that they have absolutely no excuse for it, unlike plays of the 16th/17th C.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: liz williams
> > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:35
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > à
> > > > > > Jonathan,
> > > > > > à
> > > > > > As we have said already, it's not Shakespeare per se we have the problem with, it's people who think he was a historian.à As for Braveheart, yes it's distorted but definitely not more so than Shakespeare's Richard III.
> > > > > > à
> > > > > > Asàfor the performances, I know it was a great performance but nothing really could be more distorted - in terms of physicality - than Antony Sher's Richard III.à
> > > > > > à
> > > > > > à
> > > > > > à
> > > > > > à
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@>
> > > > > > To: "@@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:14
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > à
> > > > > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> > > > > > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why particularly Spacey and McKellen?à (McKellen, in fact, made a conscious decision to down-play the disability, almost "hiding" it and coping with it as someone would in real life.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does the reality of Henry V make you view the Olivier and Branagh performances in a different light?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I really wish people wouldn't get at Shakespeare.à He was writing sublime drama from limited historical sources.à The distortions in modern films - e.g. abominations like 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot' - are far more gross and infinitely less excusable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> > > > > > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > à
> > > > > > Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes Eileen - I'll look at some of those performances a bit differently from now on!
> > > > > > > David
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Olivier's has done for years!
> > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 5 Feb 2013, at 18:54, EileenB wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Im wondering..do you think that some of these over the top performances will now start to look ever so slightly daft? Eileen
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > .
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Well Sher certainly isn't good looking either.



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 19:08
Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?

 

As they say Paul...one man's meat is another man's poison. I think one of the things that appealed to me re Ron Cook...is he is not a drop dead gorgious type of bloke is he...When I was young....kof kof..some time ago...I came to the conclusion that good looking men were usually so in love with themselves and thought they were chocolate that I found it off putting. I guess I have always like men that have more character in their faces than good looks. They tend to treat the opposite sex better...but hey...Im off on a tangent..again...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Exactly opposite to you Eileen.I loathed Ron Cook and saw Tony Sher's bottled spider 11 times! Brilliant, and beautifully spoken.
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
> On 6 Feb 2013, at 17:12, EileenB wrote:
>
> > No...I have nothing against Shakespeare...he was a genius.
> >
> > But I do stand by what I say that some of the actors portraying Richard have been way over the top. Who was that one who threw himself across the stage like a giant black spider on crutches? Liz named him but I forget now.
> >
> > As it happens I really enjoyed Ron Cook's portrayal of Richard...so much so I bought the DVD...
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> >>
> >> Oh, I know. It was the comment about looking "at some of those performances a bit differently now" that surprised me. Why specifically the performances, allied to the value-judgement of "over-the-top"? I can't imagine many theatre-goers treating Shakespeare as gospel now. There may still be a general perception of "the hunchbacked king", but that's so embedded in our culture that I don't think a 3-month run at the NT or RSC of 'Richard III' is going to make any difference one way or the other.
> >>
> >> And my point is not that 'Braveheart' et al are more distorted than 'Richard III' (though I think they're far more damaging because of the cinematic accent on realism), but that they have absolutely no excuse for it, unlike plays of the 16th/17th C.
> >>
> >> Jonathan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: liz williams
> >> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> >> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:35
> >> Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> >>
> >>
> >> Â
> >> Jonathan,
> >> Â
> >> As we have said already, it's not Shakespeare per se we have the problem with, it's people who think he was a historian. As for Braveheart, yes it's distorted but definitely not more so than Shakespeare's Richard III.
> >> Â
> >> As for the performances, I know it was a great performance but nothing really could be more distorted - in terms of physicality - than Antony Sher's Richard III.Â
> >> Â
> >> Â
> >> Â
> >> Â
> >>
> >> From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@>
> >> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:14
> >> Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> >>
> >> Â
> >> From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> >> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> >> Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> >>
> >>> Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
> >>
> >> Why particularly Spacey and McKellen? (McKellen, in fact, made a conscious decision to down-play the disability, almost "hiding" it and coping with it as someone would in real life.)
> >>
> >> Does the reality of Henry V make you view the Olivier and Branagh performances in a different light?
> >>
> >> I really wish people wouldn't get at Shakespeare. He was writing sublime drama from limited historical sources. The distortions in modern films - e.g. abominations like 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot' - are far more gross and infinitely less excusable.
> >>
> >> Jonathan
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> >> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> >> Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> >>
> >> Â
> >> Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
> >>
> >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Yes Eileen - I'll look at some of those performances a bit differently from now on!
> >>> David
> >>>
> >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Olivier's has done for years!
> >>>> Paul
> >>>>
> >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 5 Feb 2013, at 18:54, EileenB wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Im wondering..do you think that some of these over the top performances will now start to look ever so slightly daft? Eileen
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >> .
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

I know...but he wouldnt have been my type...back in the days...:0)

--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> Well Sher certainly isn't good looking either.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 19:08
> Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>
>  
>
> As they say Paul...one man's meat is another man's poison. I think one of the things that appealed to me re Ron Cook...is he is not a drop dead gorgious type of bloke is he...When I was young....kof kof..some time ago...I came to the conclusion that good looking men were usually so in love with themselves and thought they were chocolate that I found it off putting. I guess I have always like men that have more character in their faces than good looks. They tend to treat the opposite sex better...but hey...Im off on a tangent..again...Eileen
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > Exactly opposite to you Eileen.I loathed Ron Cook and saw Tony Sher's bottled spider 11 times! Brilliant, and beautifully spoken.
> > Paul
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 6 Feb 2013, at 17:12, EileenB wrote:
> >
> > > No...I have nothing against Shakespeare...he was a genius.
> > >
> > > But I do stand by what I say that some of the actors portraying Richard have been way over the top. Who was that one who threw himself across the stage like a giant black spider on crutches? Liz named him but I forget now.
> > >
> > > As it happens I really enjoyed Ron Cook's portrayal of Richard...so much so I bought the DVD...
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Oh, I know. It was the comment about looking "at some of those performances a bit differently now" that surprised me. Why specifically the performances, allied to the value-judgement of "over-the-top"? I can't imagine many theatre-goers treating Shakespeare as gospel now. There may still be a general perception of "the hunchbacked king", but that's so embedded in our culture that I don't think a 3-month run at the NT or RSC of 'Richard III' is going to make any difference one way or the other.
> > >>
> > >> And my point is not that 'Braveheart' et al are more distorted than 'Richard III' (though I think they're far more damaging because of the cinematic accent on realism), but that they have absolutely no excuse for it, unlike plays of the 16th/17th C.
> > >>
> > >> Jonathan
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >> From: liz williams
> > >> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:35
> > >> Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Â
> > >> Jonathan,
> > >> Â
> > >> As we have said already, it's not Shakespeare per se we have the problem with, it's people who think he was a historian. As for Braveheart, yes it's distorted but definitely not more so than Shakespeare's Richard III.
> > >> Â
> > >> As for the performances, I know it was a great performance but nothing really could be more distorted - in terms of physicality - than Antony Sher's Richard III.Â
> > >> Â
> > >> Â
> > >> Â
> > >> Â
> > >>
> > >> From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@>
> > >> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:14
> > >> Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > >>
> > >> Â
> > >> From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > >> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> > >> Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > >>
> > >>> Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
> > >>
> > >> Why particularly Spacey and McKellen? (McKellen, in fact, made a conscious decision to down-play the disability, almost "hiding" it and coping with it as someone would in real life.)
> > >>
> > >> Does the reality of Henry V make you view the Olivier and Branagh performances in a different light?
> > >>
> > >> I really wish people wouldn't get at Shakespeare. He was writing sublime drama from limited historical sources. The distortions in modern films - e.g. abominations like 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot' - are far more gross and infinitely less excusable.
> > >>
> > >> Jonathan
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >> From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > >> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> > >> Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > >>
> > >> Â
> > >> Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
> > >>
> > >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Yes Eileen - I'll look at some of those performances a bit differently from now on!
> > >>> David
> > >>>
> > >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Olivier's has done for years!
> > >>>> Paul
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 5 Feb 2013, at 18:54, EileenB wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Im wondering..do you think that some of these over the top performances will now start to look ever so slightly daft? Eileen
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >> .
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Oh I saw that production, Liz. I saw it with Pasco as the king and Ian Richardson as Bolingbroke. My parents saw it both ways round but they wouldn't take me twice.:-(

I've never seen The Alchemist but I did see Paul Scofield as Volpone at the Olivier. Ben Kingsley and John Gielgud were also in that production.

Happy days.


--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> I saw Jonathan Hyde in The Alchemist - it's a brilliant play indeed  I saw Ian Richardson in Richard II,alternating with Richard Pascoe.  Wonderful.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 19:39
> Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>
>  
> I also saw Ian Richardson in his last theatre role - Ben Jonson's "The Alchemist" which starred Simon Russell Beale. I almost died from laughter - what a wild play! Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Quite a long time ago Maire...but Im glad others share my liking of Ron...as Katherine say very underrated which is a shame. Funnily enough he is on TV at the moment in the series Mr Selfridge....playing an accountant...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >
> > > Ron Cook is completely unknown here in the USA. I've been lucky enough to see him several times at the National - especially in "The Seafarer." I didn't know he played Richard. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "highland_katherine" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm a great fan of Ron Cook, Eileen. Very underrated, I always think, but always worth watching.
> > > >
> > > > Ian Richardson was an interesting - and funny - Richard at The Other Place in the 70s. I don't think that the production was well reviewed but Richardson was, as always, very good.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah...yes...the very one....Antony Sher...
> > > > >
> > > > > Ron Cook..yes..was part of a BBC series...I did enjoy it...he came across as a naughty misunderstood little boy at times...I loved the humour that he brought to it. Actually I just always enjoying watching Ron Cook...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You mean Antony Sher - oddly enough, Paul's favourite.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ron Cook's (not seen that) would be interesting in that it was very much part of the history cycle, rather than star vehicle.  My favourite (as I've said before) was McKellen, though more for the stage production than the film.  It was the first time I'd ever seen anyone play this *fictional* character as psychologically real.  No one's got near him since, for me, although I've seen more Richards than I've missed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: EileenB
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 17:12
> > > > > > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > No...I have nothing against Shakespeare...he was a genius.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But I do stand by what I say that some of the actors portraying Richard have been way over the top. Who was that one who threw himself across the stage like a giant black spider on crutches? Liz named him but I forget now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As it happens I really enjoyed Ron Cook's portrayal of Richard...so much so I bought the DVD...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oh, I know.  It was the comment about looking "at some of those performances a bit differently now" that surprised me.  Why specifically the performances, allied to the value-judgement of "over-the-top"?  I can't imagine many theatre-goers treating Shakespeare as gospel now.  There may still be a general perception of "the hunchbacked king", but that's so embedded in our culture that I don't think a 3-month run at the NT or RSC of 'Richard III' is going to make any difference one way or the other.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And my point is not that 'Braveheart' et al are more distorted than 'Richard III' (though I think they're far more damaging because of the cinematic accent on realism), but that they have absolutely no excuse for it, unlike plays of the 16th/17th C.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: liz williams
> > > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:35
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > Jonathan,
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > As we have said already, it's not Shakespeare per se we have the problem with, it's people who think he was a historian.  As for Braveheart, yes it's distorted but definitely not more so than Shakespeare's Richard III.
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > As for the performances, I know it was a great performance but nothing really could be more distorted - in terms of physicality - than Antony Sher's Richard III. 
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@>
> > > > > > > To: "@@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:14
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why particularly Spacey and McKellen?  (McKellen, in fact, made a conscious decision to down-play the disability, almost "hiding" it and coping with it as someone would in real life.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Does the reality of Henry V make you view the Olivier and Branagh performances in a different light?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I really wish people wouldn't get at Shakespeare.  He was writing sublime drama from limited historical sources.  The distortions in modern films - e.g. abominations like 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot' - are far more gross and infinitely less excusable.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes Eileen - I'll look at some of those performances a bit differently from now on!
> > > > > > > > David
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Olivier's has done for years!
> > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 5 Feb 2013, at 18:54, EileenB wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Im wondering..do you think that some of these over the top performances will now start to look ever so slightly daft? Eileen
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I saw them that way round too.  We went with the school.



________________________________
From: highland_katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 20:42
Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?

 

Oh I saw that production, Liz. I saw it with Pasco as the king and Ian Richardson as Bolingbroke. My parents saw it both ways round but they wouldn't take me twice.:-(

I've never seen The Alchemist but I did see Paul Scofield as Volpone at the Olivier. Ben Kingsley and John Gielgud were also in that production.

Happy days.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
>
> I saw Jonathan Hyde in The Alchemist - it's a brilliant play indeed  I saw Ian Richardson in Richard II,alternating with Richard Pascoe.  Wonderful.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 19:39
> Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>
>  
> I also saw Ian Richardson in his last theatre role - Ben Jonson's "The Alchemist" which starred Simon Russell Beale. I almost died from laughter - what a wild play! Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Quite a long time ago Maire...but Im glad others share my liking of Ron...as Katherine say very underrated which is a shame. Funnily enough he is on TV at the moment in the series Mr Selfridge....playing an accountant...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >
> > > Ron Cook is completely unknown here in the USA. I've been lucky enough to see him several times at the National - especially in "The Seafarer." I didn't know he played Richard. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "highland_katherine" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm a great fan of Ron Cook, Eileen. Very underrated, I always think, but always worth watching.
> > > >
> > > > Ian Richardson was an interesting - and funny - Richard at The Other Place in the 70s. I don't think that the production was well reviewed but Richardson was, as always, very good.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah...yes...the very one....Antony Sher...
> > > > >
> > > > > Ron Cook..yes..was part of a BBC series...I did enjoy it...he came across as a naughty misunderstood little boy at times...I loved the humour that he brought to it. Actually I just always enjoying watching Ron Cook...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You mean Antony Sher - oddly enough, Paul's favourite.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ron Cook's (not seen that) would be interesting in that it was very much part of the history cycle, rather than star vehicle.à My favourite (as I've said before) was McKellen, though more for the stage production than the film.à It was the first time I'd ever seen anyone play this *fictional* character as psychologically real.à No one's got near him since, for me, although I've seen more Richards than I've missed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: EileenB
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 17:12
> > > > > > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > à
> > > > > > No...I have nothing against Shakespeare...he was a genius.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But I do stand by what I say that some of the actors portraying Richard have been way over the top. Who was that one who threw himself across the stage like a giant black spider on crutches? Liz named him but I forget now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As it happens I really enjoyed Ron Cook's portrayal of Richard...so much so I bought the DVD...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oh, I know.Ã’â¬aà It was the comment about looking "at some of those performances a bit differently now" that surprised me.Ã’â¬aà Why specifically the performances, allied to the value-judgement of "over-the-top"?Ã’â¬aà I can't imagine many theatre-goers treating Shakespeare as gospel now.Ã’â¬aà There may still be a general perception of "the hunchbacked king", but that's so embedded in our culture that I don't think a 3-month run at the NT or RSC of 'Richard III' is going to make any difference one way or the other.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And my point is not that 'Braveheart' et al are more distorted than 'Richard III' (though I think they're far more damaging because of the cinematic accent on realism), but that they have absolutely no excuse for it, unlike plays of the 16th/17th C.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: liz williams
> > > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:35
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > > Jonathan,
> > > > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > > As we have said already, it's not Shakespeare per se we have the problem with, it's people who think he was a historian.Ã’â¬aà As for Braveheart, yes it's distorted but definitely not more so than Shakespeare's Richard III.
> > > > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > > AsÃ’â¬aàfor the performances, I know it was a great performance but nothing really could be more distorted - in terms of physicality - than Antony Sher's Richard III.Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@>
> > > > > > > To: "@@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:14
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why particularly Spacey and McKellen?Ã’â¬aà (McKellen, in fact, made a conscious decision to down-play the disability, almost "hiding" it and coping with it as someone would in real life.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Does the reality of Henry V make you view the Olivier and Branagh performances in a different light?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I really wish people wouldn't get at Shakespeare.Ã’â¬aà He was writing sublime drama from limited historical sources.Ã’â¬aà The distortions in modern films - e.g. abominations like 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot' - are far more gross and infinitely less excusable.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > > Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes Eileen - I'll look at some of those performances a bit differently from now on!
> > > > > > > > David
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Olivier's has done for years!
> > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 5 Feb 2013, at 18:54, EileenB wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Im wondering..do you think that some of these over the top performances will now start to look ever so slightly daft? Eileen
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ian Holm as Richard?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E78njWjnleM



Michael Wood first came to notice presenting this, which triggered my interest in the Dark Ages:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCsXLdytwj8





________________________________
From: highland_katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 20:42
Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?


 

Oh I saw that production, Liz. I saw it with Pasco as the king and Ian Richardson as Bolingbroke. My parents saw it both ways round but they wouldn't take me twice.:-(

I've never seen The Alchemist but I did see Paul Scofield as Volpone at the Olivier. Ben Kingsley and John Gielgud were also in that production.

Happy days.

--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> I saw Jonathan Hyde in The Alchemist - it's a brilliant play indeed  I saw Ian Richardson in Richard II,alternating with Richard Pascoe.  Wonderful.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 19:39
> Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>
>  
> I also saw Ian Richardson in his last theatre role - Ben Jonson's "The Alchemist" which starred Simon Russell Beale. I almost died from laughter - what a wild play! Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Quite a long time ago Maire...but Im glad others share my liking of Ron...as Katherine say very underrated which is a shame. Funnily enough he is on TV at the moment in the series Mr Selfridge....playing an accountant...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >
> > > Ron Cook is completely unknown here in the USA. I've been lucky enough to see him several times at the National - especially in "The Seafarer." I didn't know he played Richard. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "highland_katherine" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm a great fan of Ron Cook, Eileen. Very underrated, I always think, but always worth watching.
> > > >
> > > > Ian Richardson was an interesting - and funny - Richard at The Other Place in the 70s. I don't think that the production was well reviewed but Richardson was, as always, very good.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah...yes...the very one....Antony Sher...
> > > > >
> > > > > Ron Cook..yes..was part of a BBC series...I did enjoy it...he came across as a naughty misunderstood little boy at times...I loved the humour that he brought to it. Actually I just always enjoying watching Ron Cook...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You mean Antony Sher - oddly enough, Paul's favourite.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ron Cook's (not seen that) would be interesting in that it was very much part of the history cycle, rather than star vehicle.à My favourite (as I've said before) was McKellen, though more for the stage production than the film.à It was the first time I'd ever seen anyone play this *fictional* character as psychologically real.à No one's got near him since, for me, although I've seen more Richards than I've missed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: EileenB
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 17:12
> > > > > > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > à
> > > > > > No...I have nothing against Shakespeare...he was a genius.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But I do stand by what I say that some of the actors portraying Richard have been way over the top. Who was that one who threw himself across the stage like a giant black spider on crutches? Liz named him but I forget now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As it happens I really enjoyed Ron Cook's portrayal of Richard...so much so I bought the DVD...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oh, I know.Ã’â¬aà It was the comment about looking "at some of those performances a bit differently now" that surprised me.Ã’â¬aà Why specifically the performances, allied to the value-judgement of "over-the-top"?Ã’â¬aà I can't imagine many theatre-goers treating Shakespeare as gospel now.Ã’â¬aà There may still be a general perception of "the hunchbacked king", but that's so embedded in our culture that I don't think a 3-month run at the NT or RSC of 'Richard III' is going to make any difference one way or the other.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And my point is not that 'Braveheart' et al are more distorted than 'Richard III' (though I think they're far more damaging because of the cinematic accent on realism), but that they have absolutely no excuse for it, unlike plays of the 16th/17th C.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: liz williams
> > > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:35
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > > Jonathan,
> > > > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > > As we have said already, it's not Shakespeare per se we have the problem with, it's people who think he was a historian.Ã’â¬aà As for Braveheart, yes it's distorted but definitely not more so than Shakespeare's Richard III.
> > > > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > > AsÃ’â¬aàfor the performances, I know it was a great performance but nothing really could be more distorted - in terms of physicality - than Antony Sher's Richard III.Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@>
> > > > > > > To: "@@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:14
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why particularly Spacey and McKellen?Ã’â¬aà (McKellen, in fact, made a conscious decision to down-play the disability, almost "hiding" it and coping with it as someone would in real life.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Does the reality of Henry V make you view the Olivier and Branagh performances in a different light?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I really wish people wouldn't get at Shakespeare.Ã’â¬aà He was writing sublime drama from limited historical sources.Ã’â¬aà The distortions in modern films - e.g. abominations like 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot' - are far more gross and infinitely less excusable.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > > Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes Eileen - I'll look at some of those performances a bit differently from now on!
> > > > > > > > David
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Olivier's has done for years!
> > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 5 Feb 2013, at 18:54, EileenB wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Im wondering..do you think that some of these over the top performances will now start to look ever so slightly daft? Eileen
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

If you don't want to wade through Henry VI, the Richard III part start halfway though this section:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crmIYflPpM0



________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 23:49
Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?


 
Ian Holm as Richard?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E78njWjnleM

Michael Wood first came to notice presenting this, which triggered my interest in the Dark Ages:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCsXLdytwj8

________________________________
From: highland_katherine katherine.michaud@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 20:42
Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?


 

Oh I saw that production, Liz. I saw it with Pasco as the king and Ian Richardson as Bolingbroke. My parents saw it both ways round but they wouldn't take me twice.:-(

I've never seen The Alchemist but I did see Paul Scofield as Volpone at the Olivier. Ben Kingsley and John Gielgud were also in that production.

Happy days.

--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> I saw Jonathan Hyde in The Alchemist - it's a brilliant play indeed  I saw Ian Richardson in Richard II,alternating with Richard Pascoe.  Wonderful.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 19:39
> Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
>
>  
> I also saw Ian Richardson in his last theatre role - Ben Jonson's "The Alchemist" which starred Simon Russell Beale. I almost died from laughter - what a wild play! Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Quite a long time ago Maire...but Im glad others share my liking of Ron...as Katherine say very underrated which is a shame. Funnily enough he is on TV at the moment in the series Mr Selfridge....playing an accountant...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >
> > > Ron Cook is completely unknown here in the USA. I've been lucky enough to see him several times at the National - especially in "The Seafarer." I didn't know he played Richard. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "highland_katherine" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm a great fan of Ron Cook, Eileen. Very underrated, I always think, but always worth watching.
> > > >
> > > > Ian Richardson was an interesting - and funny - Richard at The Other Place in the 70s. I don't think that the production was well reviewed but Richardson was, as always, very good.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah...yes...the very one....Antony Sher...
> > > > >
> > > > > Ron Cook..yes..was part of a BBC series...I did enjoy it...he came across as a naughty misunderstood little boy at times...I loved the humour that he brought to it. Actually I just always enjoying watching Ron Cook...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You mean Antony Sher - oddly enough, Paul's favourite.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ron Cook's (not seen that) would be interesting in that it was very much part of the history cycle, rather than star vehicle.à My favourite (as I've said before) was McKellen, though more for the stage production than the film.à It was the first time I'd ever seen anyone play this *fictional* character as psychologically real.à No one's got near him since, for me, although I've seen more Richards than I've missed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: EileenB
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 17:12
> > > > > > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > à
> > > > > > No...I have nothing against Shakespeare...he was a genius.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But I do stand by what I say that some of the actors portraying Richard have been way over the top. Who was that one who threw himself across the stage like a giant black spider on crutches? Liz named him but I forget now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As it happens I really enjoyed Ron Cook's portrayal of Richard...so much so I bought the DVD...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oh, I know.Ã’â¬aà It was the comment about looking "at some of those performances a bit differently now" that surprised me.Ã’â¬aà Why specifically the performances, allied to the value-judgement of "over-the-top"?Ã’â¬aà I can't imagine many theatre-goers treating Shakespeare as gospel now.Ã’â¬aà There may still be a general perception of "the hunchbacked king", but that's so embedded in our culture that I don't think a 3-month run at the NT or RSC of 'Richard III' is going to make any difference one way or the other.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And my point is not that 'Braveheart' et al are more distorted than 'Richard III' (though I think they're far more damaging because of the cinematic accent on realism), but that they have absolutely no excuse for it, unlike plays of the 16th/17th C.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: liz williams
> > > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:35
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > > Jonathan,
> > > > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > > As we have said already, it's not Shakespeare per se we have the problem with, it's people who think he was a historian.Ã’â¬aà As for Braveheart, yes it's distorted but definitely not more so than Shakespeare's Richard III.
> > > > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > > AsÃ’â¬aàfor the performances, I know it was a great performance but nothing really could be more distorted - in terms of physicality - than Antony Sher's Richard III.Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@>
> > > > > > > To: "@@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:14
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why particularly Spacey and McKellen?Ã’â¬aà (McKellen, in fact, made a conscious decision to down-play the disability, almost "hiding" it and coping with it as someone would in real life.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Does the reality of Henry V make you view the Olivier and Branagh performances in a different light?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I really wish people wouldn't get at Shakespeare.Ã’â¬aà He was writing sublime drama from limited historical sources.Ã’â¬aà The distortions in modern films - e.g. abominations like 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot' - are far more gross and infinitely less excusable.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:18
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > > Spacey and McKellan spring to mind! Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes Eileen - I'll look at some of those performances a bit differently from now on!
> > > > > > > > David
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Olivier's has done for years!
> > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 5 Feb 2013, at 18:54, EileenB wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Im wondering..do you think that some of these over the top performances will now start to look ever so slightly daft? Eileen
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidnicholls2652" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Anthony Sher. RSC. Stratford. 1984.

--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> No...I have nothing against Shakespeare...he was a genius.
>
> But I do stand by what I say that some of the actors portraying Richard have been way over the top. Who was that one who threw himself across the stage like a giant black spider on crutches? Liz named him but I forget now.

Except a "fifty-six-year-old, cigarette-smoking twentieth-century Richard" couldn't be further from 15th Century faux realism - which is surely a good thing - and I still don't know what's "over the top" about a concept that unlocks the play as a study in how tyranny establishes itself. For instance, I've never seen Brackenbury's lines "I will not reason what is meant hereby / Because I shall be guiltless from the meaning" foregrounded so effectively before, nor the citizens "Leave it all to God" (which is often cut).

It's like saying that the NT's Gulf War 'Henry V' was over the top, or the ESC one that portrayed the English army as post-Falklands football hooligans with their "Gotcha!" banner. Plays are texts that you re-invent every time you produce them and they have *nothing* to do with the real history. We really need to start accepting that because if we continue to see the history plays as a mirror (no matter how distorted) of the real Richard, we can hardly complain if everyone else does.

Jonathan

Maxwell Anderson. Except for the iambic pentameter bit.

Okay, maybe I'm partial. But I like both of them. And no one remembers Anderson.

~Weds

--- In , P BARRETT wrote:
>
> Who would dare to write a play to compare with Shakespeare?!!

I have Robert Fripp's *Dark Sovereign,* and though I haven't had time to
read the entire play, I am impressed with his effort to write a more
historically accurate play and use Shakespearean English. It is worth adding
to one's Ricardian library, imho. It's still in print, and I got it from
Amazon.



(Fripp is Canadian, so that's a plus right there!)



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 9:25 PM
To:
Subject: Re: RICHARD III : Alternative Play?





Maxwell Anderson. Except for the iambic pentameter bit.

Okay, maybe I'm partial. But I like both of them. And no one remembers
Anderson.

~Weds

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , P BARRETT wrote:
>
> Who would dare to write a play to compare with Shakespeare?!!