Watson as Dick

Matin Freeman was interviewed by Andrew Marr about playing Richard III.
Marr stupidly asked if, "now we know he wasn't a hunchback" if Freeman
would play him like that.
Martin replied that "there would be no point playing the real Richard
because that isn't what Shakespeare was writing about." He then ignored
Marr to speak about the production, which is 'having the boring bits cut
out' [I can't think of any boring bits myself, even in the full length
version] and is set in the 1970s and 'inspired by the almost coup
against Harold Wilson'.
Can't wait to miss it.
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Matin Freeman was interviewed by Andrew Marr about playing Richard III.
Marr stupidly asked if, "now we know he wasn't a hunchback" if Freeman
would play him like that.
Martin replied that "there would be no point playing the real Richard
because that isn't what Shakespeare was writing about." He then ignored
Marr to speak about the production, which is 'having the boring bits cut
out' [I can't think of any boring bits myself, even in the full length
version] and is set in the 1970s and 'inspired by the almost coup
against Harold Wilson'.
Can't wait to miss it.
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Matin Freeman was interviewed by Andrew Marr about playing Richard III.
Marr stupidly asked if, "now we know he wasn't a hunchback" if Freeman
would play him like that.
Martin replied that "there would be no point playing the real Richard
because that isn't what Shakespeare was writing about." He then ignored
Marr to speak about the production, which is 'having the boring bits cut
out' [I can't think of any boring bits myself, even in the full length
version] and is set in the 1970s and 'inspired by the almost coup
against Harold Wilson'.
Can't wait to miss it.
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Paul,

I do find it unsettling that you seem to feel it would have been shameful if he had been "deformed in any way." It's just a matter of terminology, isn't it? I don't think people suffering with kyphosis like being referred to as Hunchbacks or as deformed these days any more than people with scoliosis.

The deformity of the spine (and yes, of course it is that - i.e. it is not formed as it should be) caused by scoliosis is not nearly so visible as that caused by kyphosis, but of course that is neither here nor there to an individual's personality.

Hi Diana, welcome to the forum! Just to make clear: there are two planes in which the spine can bend out of true: front-back and side-side. Front-back is called kyphosis and gives a person what has traditionally been referred to as a hunchback. A side-side bend is called scoliosis and will not cause a bulge on the back. The C-shaped curve in Richard's spine you saw in the photos went sideways - i.e. it was scoliosis. The skeleton was only bent forward in the ground because the grave hadn't been dug long enough, not because it had a hump.

The situation regarding Richard's spine has been thoroughly analysed now and the results were published in The Lancet. Basically, the top and bottom sections of the spine were vertical and aligned with each other - there was just this curve to one side in the middle section - so Richard's hips and shoulders would have been pretty much level and it wouldn't have caused him much problem or been noticeable when he was clothed. You can download a copy of the article from here (it's only a page long) - you have to register with their website but it doesn't cost anything. there's also a little video, which you don't have to register to play.

The scoliosis of Richard III, last Plantagenet King of England: diagnosis and clinical significance : The Lancet

Matin Freeman was interviewed by Andrew Marr about playing Richard III.
Marr stupidly asked if, "now we know he wasn't a hunchback" if Freeman
would play him like that.
Martin replied that "there would be no point playing the real Richard
because that isn't what Shakespeare was writing about." He then ignored
Marr to speak about the production, which is 'having the boring bits cut
out' [I can't think of any boring bits myself, even in the full length
version] and is set in the 1970s and 'inspired by the almost coup
against Harold Wilson'.
Can't wait to miss it.
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I saw Olivier give some truly dreadful performances, and Daniel Day-Lewis failing mightily to do Hamlet, so all actors are capable bad performances, even the so-called greats!
It is the concept though more than anything I find well worth missing!

Paul

On 02/07/2014 17:06, Janjovian janjovian@... [] wrote:
I have to say I don't think Martin Freeman is capable of a bad performance, so I suppose we will just have to see what he makes of it!

Jess From: mailto:
Sent: 02/07/2014 11:55
To: RichardIIISociety forum
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Watson as Dick

Matin Freeman was interviewed by Andrew Marr about playing Richard III.
Marr stupidly asked if, "now we know he wasn't a hunchback" if Freeman
would play him like that.
Martin replied that "there would be no point playing the real Richard
because that isn't what Shakespeare was writing about." He then ignored
Marr to speak about the production, which is 'having the boring bits cut
out' [I can't think of any boring bits myself, even in the full length
version] and is set in the 1970s and 'inspired by the almost coup
against Harold Wilson'.
Can't wait to miss it.
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

The concept appals me too, Paul. Freeman's personal interpretation of Richard doesn't matter, because to me the whole production has a huge basic flaw. I believe that Shakespeare should always be performed in the period he intended, not shuffled around to fit later centuries. It never works for me. Shakespeare wrote for his own time, and didn't have a clue what was to come in the future, so leave him where he belongs. I do not really care if there are protests that his works are universal' and can be applied to any epoch. Stop meddling! His talent does not need costume tiddlyvating in order to come across. As for poor Richard being hauled into the 1970s... He was a wonderful, young, personable and just 15th century king, whose tragic life was ended before its time. That is the true Richard. In creating a brilliant if totally untrue drama about him, Shakespeare has already treated him most unfairly (don't even think of the list of slurs) so please don't let the present world of theatre make it even worse by dressing him up in flares as well! Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 10:00 AM To: Subject: Re: Watson as Dick

I saw Olivier give some truly dreadful performances, and Daniel Day-Lewis failing mightily to do Hamlet, so all actors are capable bad performances, even the so-called greats!
It is the concept though more than anything I find well worth missing!

Paul

On 02/07/2014 17:06, Janjovian janjovian@... [] wrote:
I have to say I don't think Martin Freeman is capable of a bad performance, so I suppose we will just have to see what he makes of it!

Jess From: mailto:
Sent: 02/07/2014 11:55
To: RichardIIISociety forum
Subject: Watson as Dick

Matin Freeman was interviewed by Andrew Marr about playing Richard III.
Marr stupidly asked if, "now we know he wasn't a hunchback" if Freeman
would play him like that.
Martin replied that "there would be no point playing the real Richard
because that isn't what Shakespeare was writing about." He then ignored
Marr to speak about the production, which is 'having the boring bits cut
out' [I can't think of any boring bits myself, even in the full length
version] and is set in the 1970s and 'inspired by the almost coup
against Harold Wilson'.
Can't wait to miss it.
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Hi, Sandra & Everyone 

I am torn about this . . . For one thing, I love Martin Freeman's work in Sherlock and the Hobbit movies and have begun noticing how often he pops up in other British films, some of which I had seen before really noticing him as an actor and realizing how dependably enjoyable he is.

That said, every actor (even Olivier) has his limits. On the other hand, Freeman might actually resemble Richard physically (not facially) more than most actors who have played Richard.

And, on the other hand, I must agree with Sandra that I heartily dislike Shakespearean plays transplanted to other eras  I can't think of any of them that have been terribly convincing. I tend to think they do it really because it's an effort to get in period, and the perception may be that there will be a greater appeal to the public if the play is updated.

So, I might do what I did with the Ian McKellen Richard  took a quick glimpse at it and then turned it off.

BTW, I also understand that Martin Freeman's crony in sleuthing and Middle-earth, Benedict Cumberbatch, is also playing Richard, though I don't have the particulars at my fingertips. Cumberbatch is an actor that I am actually more fascinated by than Freeman (being as he's more Sherlockian and Sauron-ian by nature, I think), so I will be looking for more on that one.

Bottom line  I don't personally wish Mr. Freeman ill, but I think his latest project may be ill-starred. <ooh, a pun!>

TTFN J

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

                              - Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 6:49 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Watson as Dick

The concept appals me too, Paul. Freeman's personal interpretation of Richard doesn't matter, because to me the whole production has a huge basic flaw. I believe that Shakespeare should always be performed in the period he intended, not shuffled around to fit later centuries. It never works for me. Shakespeare wrote for his own time, and didn't have a clue what was to come in the future, so leave him where he belongs. I do not really care if there are protests that his works are universal' and can be applied to any epoch. Stop meddling! His talent does not need costume tiddlyvating in order to come across. As for poor Richard being hauled into the 1970s... He was a wonderful, young, personable and just 15th century king, whose tragic life was ended before its time. That is the true Richard. In creating a brilliant if totally untrue drama about him, Shakespeare has already treated him most unfairly (don't even think of the list of slurs) so please don't let the present world of theatre make it even worse by dressing him up in flares as well!

Sandra

=^..^=

From: mailto:

Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 10:00 AM

To:

Subject: Re: Watson as Dick

I saw Olivier give some truly dreadful performances, and Daniel Day-Lewis failing mightily to do Hamlet, so all actors are capable bad performances, even the so-called greats!
It is the concept though more than anything I find well worth missing!

Paul

On 02/07/2014 17:06, Janjovian janjovian@... [] wrote:

I have to say I don't think Martin Freeman is capable of a bad performance, so I suppose we will just have to see what he makes of it!

Jess

From: mailto:
Sent: 02/07/2014 11:55
To: RichardIIISociety forum
Subject: Watson as Dick

Matin Freeman was interviewed by Andrew Marr about playing Richard III.
Marr stupidly asked if, "now we know he wasn't a hunchback" if Freeman
would play him like that.
Martin replied that "there would be no point playing the real Richard
because that isn't what Shakespeare was writing about." He then ignored
Marr to speak about the production, which is 'having the boring bits cut
out' [I can't think of any boring bits myself, even in the full length
version] and is set in the 1970s and 'inspired by the almost coup
against Harold Wilson'.
Can't wait to miss it.
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Hi, Sandra & Everyone 

I am torn about this . . . For one thing, I love Martin Freeman's work in Sherlock and the Hobbit movies and have begun noticing how often he pops up in other British films, some of which I had seen before really noticing him as an actor and realizing how dependably enjoyable he is.

That said, every actor (even Olivier) has his limits. On the other hand, Freeman might actually resemble Richard physically (not facially) more than most actors who have played Richard.

And, on the other hand, I must agree with Sandra that I heartily dislike Shakespearean plays transplanted to other eras  I can't think of any of them that have been terribly convincing. I tend to think they do it really because it's an effort to get in period, and the perception may be that there will be a greater appeal to the public if the play is updated.

So, I might do what I did with the Ian McKellen Richard  took a quick glimpse at it and then turned it off.

BTW, I also understand that Martin Freeman's crony in sleuthing and Middle-earth, Benedict Cumberbatch, is also playing Richard, though I don't have the particulars at my fingertips. Cumberbatch is an actor that I am actually more fascinated by than Freeman (being as he's more Sherlockian and Sauron-ian by nature, I think), so I will be looking for more on that one.

Bottom line  I don't personally wish Mr. Freeman ill, but I think his latest project may be ill-starred. <ooh, a pun!>

TTFN J

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 6:49 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Watson as Dick

The concept appals me too, Paul. Freeman's personal interpretation of Richard doesn't matter, because to me the whole production has a huge basic flaw. I believe that Shakespeare should always be performed in the period he intended, not shuffled around to fit later centuries. It never works for me. Shakespeare wrote for his own time, and didn't have a clue what was to come in the future, so leave him where he belongs. I do not really care if there are protests that his works are universal' and can be applied to any epoch. Stop meddling! His talent does not need costume tiddlyvating in order to come across. As for poor Richard being hauled into the 1970s... He was a wonderful, young, personable and just 15th century king, whose tragic life was ended before its time. That is the true Richard. In creating a brilliant if totally untrue drama about him, Shakespeare has already treated him most unfairly (don't even think of the list of slurs) so please don't let the present world of theatre make it even worse by dressing him up in flares as well!

Sandra

=^..^=

From: mailto:

Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 10:00 AM

To:

Subject: Re: Watson as Dick

I saw Olivier give some truly dreadful performances, and Daniel Day-Lewis failing mightily to do Hamlet, so all actors are capable bad performances, even the so-called greats!
It is the concept though more than anything I find well worth missing!

Paul

On 02/07/2014 17:06, Janjovian janjovian@... [] wrote:

I have to say I don't think Martin Freeman is capable of a bad performance, so I suppose we will just have to see what he makes of it!

Jess

From: mailto:
Sent: 02/07/2014 11:55
To: RichardIIISociety forum
Subject: Watson as Dick

Matin Freeman was interviewed by Andrew Marr about playing Richard III.
Marr stupidly asked if, "now we know he wasn't a hunchback" if Freeman
would play him like that.
Martin replied that "there would be no point playing the real Richard
because that isn't what Shakespeare was writing about." He then ignored
Marr to speak about the production, which is 'having the boring bits cut
out' [I can't think of any boring bits myself, even in the full length
version] and is set in the 1970s and 'inspired by the almost coup
against Harold Wilson'.
Can't wait to miss it.
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

The amount of damage done to Richard's reputation by Shakespeare is incalculable
If I have learned anything over the last few months of studying the man, and talking to everyone here, it is that whatever Richard was, he was not that shambling deceitful, hunchbacked creature.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

But Shakespeare as written is (deliberately) littered with anachronisms, one period over-laid upon another to create resonances.  That's as true of "original practice" staging as it is now.
Just out of interest, in what period should 'Antony & Cleopatra' be staged?  The period in which it's nominally set (circa 30BC), or the period in which it's dramatically located (16th Century - "cut my lace, Charmian" etc)?
Jonathan

From: "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2014, 10:48
Subject: Re: Watson as Dick

  The concept appals me too, Paul. Freeman's personal interpretation of Richard doesn't matter, because to me the whole production has a huge basic flaw. I believe that Shakespeare should always be performed in the period he intended, not shuffled around to fit later centuries. It never works for me. Shakespeare wrote for his own time, and didn't have a clue what was to come in the future, so leave him where he belongs. I do not really care if there are protests that his works are universal' and can be applied to any epoch. Stop meddling! His talent does not need costume tiddlyvating in order to come across. As for poor Richard being hauled into the 1970s... He was a wonderful, young, personable and just 15th century king, whose tragic life was ended before its time. That is the true Richard. In creating a brilliant if totally untrue drama about him, Shakespeare has already treated him most unfairly (don't even think of the list of slurs) so please don't let the present world of theatre make it even worse by dressing him up in flares as well!   Sandra =^..^=   From: mailto: Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 10:00 AM To: Subject: Re: Watson as Dick     I saw Olivier give some truly dreadful performances, and Daniel Day-Lewis failing mightily to do Hamlet, so all actors are capable bad performances, even the so-called greats!
It is the concept though more than anything I find well worth missing!

Paul

On 02/07/2014 17:06, Janjovian janjovian@... [] wrote:
I have to say I don't think Martin Freeman is capable of a bad performance, so I suppose we will just have to see what he makes of it!

Jess From: mailto:
Sent: 02/07/2014 11:55
To: RichardIIISociety forum
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Watson as Dick

  Matin Freeman was interviewed by Andrew Marr about playing Richard III.
Marr stupidly asked if, "now we know he wasn't a hunchback" if Freeman
would play him like that.
Martin replied that "there would be no point playing the real Richard
because that isn't what Shakespeare was writing about." He then ignored
Marr to speak about the production, which is 'having the boring bits cut
out' [I can't think of any boring bits myself, even in the full length
version] and is set in the 1970s and 'inspired by the almost coup
against Harold Wilson'.
Can't wait to miss it.
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

But Shakespeare as written is (deliberately) littered with anachronisms, one period over-laid upon another to create resonances. That's as true of "original practice" staging as it is now.
Just out of interest, in what period should 'Antony & Cleopatra' be staged? The period in which it's nominally set (circa 30BC), or the period in which it's dramatically located (16th Century - "cut my lace, Charmian" etc)?
Jonathan
From: "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2014, 10:48
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Watson as Dick
The concept appals me too, Paul. Freeman's personal interpretation of Richard doesn't matter, because to me the whole production has a huge basic flaw. I believe that Shakespeare should always be performed in the period he intended, not shuffled around to fit later centuries. It never works for me. Shakespeare wrote for his own time, and didn't have a clue what was to come in the future, so leave him where he belongs. I do not really care if there are protests that his works are universal' and can be applied to any epoch. Stop meddling! His talent does not need costume tiddlyvating in order to come across. As for poor Richard being hauled into the 1970s... He was a wonderful, young, personable and just 15th century king, whose tragic life was ended before its time. That is the true Richard. In creating a brilliant if totally untrue drama about him, Shakespeare has already treated him most unfairly (don't even think of the list of slurs) so please don't let the present world of theatre make it even worse by dressing him up in flares as well! Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 10:00 AM To: Subject: Re: Watson as Dick I saw Olivier give some truly dreadful performances, and Daniel Day-Lewis failing mightily to do Hamlet, so all actors are capable bad performances, even the so-called greats!
It is the concept though more than anything I find well worth missing!

Paul

On 02/07/2014 17:06, Janjovian janjovian@... [] wrote:
I have to say I don't think Martin Freeman is capable of a bad performance, so I suppose we will just have to see what he makes of it!

Jess From: mailto:
Sent: 02/07/2014 11:55
To: RichardIIISociety forum
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Watson as Dick

Matin Freeman was interviewed by Andrew Marr about playing Richard III.
Marr stupidly asked if, "now we know he wasn't a hunchback" if Freeman
would play him like that.
Martin replied that "there would be no point playing the real Richard
because that isn't what Shakespeare was writing about." He then ignored
Marr to speak about the production, which is 'having the boring bits cut
out' [I can't think of any boring bits myself, even in the full length
version] and is set in the 1970s and 'inspired by the almost coup
against Harold Wilson'.
Can't wait to miss it.
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Yes, of course  and the reason that it was noted by at least one commentator that he was dressed in black was because he was in mourning for Edward  and later Anne and his little son. It does not mean that he wore black all the time! I do love the look of Olivier's film of *Richard III,* particularly Olivier's costumes. Unlike some, I guess, I think he caught something of Richard's genuine quick intelligence, bravery and humour, amongst the diabolical qualities with which the Bard imbued him. Also, if you think about it, Olivier's Richard was not very much impaired physically  I think he was careful to portray him in a way that would be consistent with a man who was a fierce and dangerous opponent in battle, even though there was little of that (other than Bosworth) portrayed in the film (and, I assume, in the original play).

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

                              - Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 9:52 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Watson as Dick

Richard would never be guilty of such appalling taste! He was too elegant.

Sandra
=^..^=

From: mailto:
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 1:41 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Watson as Dick

Ah, but Shakespeare envisaged all his plays as being in modern-dress. :-)

Shame to confine everything to two decades of fashion after 1590. One of the worst posthumous crimes I've seen against Richard was Mark Rylance putting him in a ridiculous Tudor (!) flower-pot hat. :-)

Jonathan

----------------------------------------------------------
From: "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2014, 13:06
Subject: Re: Watson as Dick

IMHO, all Shakespeare's plays should be performed as he wrote them, i.e. from a 16th century viewpoint. Perform them as he envisaged them. To do otherwise is, for me, like introducing an electric guitar to Beethoven's symphonies. Jarring to say the least. But on another tack entirely, there is the small Fender Resonator of women's roles being played by men... That is the only sticking point for me, and I admit it. So perhaps I have double standards.

Sandra
=^..^=

From: mailto:
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 12:35 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Watson as Dick

But Shakespeare as written is (deliberately) littered with anachronisms, one period over-laid upon another to create resonances. That's as true of "original practice" staging as it is now.

Just out of interest, in what period should 'Antony & Cleopatra' be staged? The period in which it's nominally set (circa 30BC), or the period in which it's dramatically located (16th Century - "cut my lace, Charmian" etc)?

Jonathan

----------------------------------------------------------
From: "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2014, 10:48
Subject: Re: Watson as Dick

The concept appals me too, Paul. Freeman's personal interpretation of Richard doesn't matter, because to me the whole production has a huge basic flaw. I believe that Shakespeare should always be performed in the period he intended, not shuffled around to fit later centuries. It never works for me. Shakespeare wrote for his own time, and didn't have a clue what was to come in the future, so leave him where he belongs. I do not really care if there are protests that his works are universal' and can be applied to any epoch. Stop meddling! His talent does not need costume tiddlyvating in order to come across. As for poor Richard being hauled into the 1970s... He was a wonderful, young, personable and just 15th century king, whose tragic life was ended before its time. That is the true Richard. In creating a brilliant if totally untrue drama about him, Shakespeare has already treated him most unfairly (don't even think of the list of slurs) so please don't let the present world of theatre make it even worse by dressing him up in flares as well!

Sandra
=^..^=

From: mailto:
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 10:00 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Watson as Dick

I saw Olivier give some truly dreadful performances, and Daniel Day-Lewis failing mightily to do Hamlet, so all actors are capable bad performances, even the so-called greats!
It is the concept though more than anything I find well worth missing!

Paul

On 02/07/2014 17:06, Janjovian janjovian@... [] wrote:

I have to say I don't think Martin Freeman is capable of a bad performance, so I suppose we will just have to see what he makes of it!

Jess

----------------------------------------------------------
From: mailto:
Sent: 02/07/2014 11:55
To: RichardIIISociety forum
Subject: Watson as Dick

Matin Freeman was interviewed by Andrew Marr about playing Richard III.
Marr stupidly asked if, "now we know he wasn't a hunchback" if Freeman
would play him like that.
Martin replied that "there would be no point playing the real Richard
because that isn't what Shakespeare was writing about." He then ignored
Marr to speak about the production, which is 'having the boring bits cut
out' [I can't think of any boring bits myself, even in the full length
version] and is set in the 1970s and 'inspired by the almost coup
against Harold Wilson'.
Can't wait to miss it.
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Goodness Diana, where on earth did you get the message the skeleton was hunchbacked? From that stupid woman's comment in the tv programme perhaps? She has since retracted her statement, as she has also tried to backtrack on smashing into the remains with a mallet and causing damage. Not what an experienced archaeologist would have done. Proper examination of the skeleton of King Richard proved beyond a doubt that Richard was not deformed in any way but suffered from late advanced scoliosis which would have resulted in possibly one shoulder slightly higher than the other, something only seeing him naked would have been noticed upon by anyone else. Michael Phelps, the Olympic swimmer 'suffers' from the same condition.
The DNA is totally convincing that it is King Richard who was found.
In a simple sentence KING RICHARD WAS NOT A HUNCHBACK. DEFINITELY NOT.
Paul

On 02/07/2014 12:37, Diana De La Porte adlp.diana@... [] wrote:
Paul, Having just joined this forum, could you please catch me up on whether R was or was not hunchback. The Leicester Skelton clearly was, the DNA was convincing (was it?). Common opinion seems to be that he wasn't.
Help please.
Diana



Sent from my iPad
On 02 Jul 2014, at 12:55, "Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... []" <> wrote:

Matin Freeman was interviewed by Andrew Marr about playing Richard III.
Marr stupidly asked if, "now we know he wasn't a hunchback" if Freeman
would play him like that.
Martin replied that "there would be no point playing the real Richard
because that isn't what Shakespeare was writing about." He then ignored
Marr to speak about the production, which is 'having the boring bits cut
out' [I can't think of any boring bits myself, even in the full length
version] and is set in the 1970s and 'inspired by the almost coup
against Harold Wilson'.
Can't wait to miss it.
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Matin Freeman was interviewed by Andrew Marr about playing Richard III.
Marr stupidly asked if, "now we know he wasn't a hunchback" if Freeman
would play him like that.
Martin replied that "there would be no point playing the real Richard
because that isn't what Shakespeare was writing about." He then ignored
Marr to speak about the production, which is 'having the boring bits cut
out' [I can't think of any boring bits myself, even in the full length
version] and is set in the 1970s and 'inspired by the almost coup
against Harold Wilson'.
Can't wait to miss it.
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Yes, of course – and the reason that it was noted by at least one commentator that he was dressed in black was because he was in mourning for Edward – and later Anne and his little son. It does not mean that he wore black all the time! I do love the “look” of Olivier’s film of *Richard III,* particularly Olivier’s costumes. Unlike some, I guess, I think he caught something of Richard’s genuine quick intelligence, bravery and humour, amongst the diabolical qualities with which the Bard imbued him. Also, if you think about it, Olivier’s Richard was not very much impaired physically – I think he was careful to portray him in a way that would be consistent with a man who was a fierce and dangerous opponent in battle, even though there was little of that (other than Bosworth) portrayed in the film (and, I assume, in the original play).

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 9:52 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Watson as Dick

Richard would never be guilty of such appalling taste! He was too elegant.

Sandra
=^..^=

From: mailto:
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 1:41 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Watson as Dick

Ah, but Shakespeare envisaged all his plays as being in modern-dress. :-)

Shame to confine everything to two decades of fashion after 1590. One of the worst posthumous crimes I've seen against Richard was Mark Rylance putting him in a ridiculous Tudor (!) flower-pot hat. :-)

Jonathan

----------------------------------------------------------
From: "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2014, 13:06
Subject: Re: Watson as Dick

IMHO, all Shakespeare’s plays should be performed as he wrote them, i.e. from a 16th century viewpoint. Perform them as he envisaged them. To do otherwise is, for me, like introducing an electric guitar to Beethoven’s symphonies. Jarring to say the least. But on another tack entirely, there is the small Fender Resonator of women’s roles being played by men... That is the only sticking point for me, and I admit it. So perhaps I have double standards.

Sandra
=^..^=

From: mailto:
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 12:35 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Watson as Dick

But Shakespeare as written is (deliberately) littered with anachronisms, one period over-laid upon another to create resonances. That's as true of "original practice" staging as it is now.

Just out of interest, in what period should 'Antony & Cleopatra' be staged? The period in which it's nominally set (circa 30BC), or the period in which it's dramatically located (16th Century - "cut my lace, Charmian" etc)?

Jonathan

----------------------------------------------------------
From: "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2014, 10:48
Subject: Re: Watson as Dick

The concept appals me too, Paul. Freeman’s personal interpretation of Richard doesn’t matter, because to me the whole production has a huge basic flaw. I believe that Shakespeare should always be performed in the period he intended, not shuffled around to fit later centuries. It never works for me. Shakespeare wrote for his own time, and didn’t have a clue what was to come in the future, so leave him where he belongs. I do not really care if there are protests that his works are ‘universal’ and can be applied to any epoch. Stop meddling! His talent does not need costume tiddlyvating in order to come across. As for poor Richard being hauled into the 1970s... He was a wonderful, young, personable and just 15th century king, whose tragic life was ended before its time. That is the true Richard. In creating a brilliant if totally untrue drama about him, Shakespeare has already treated him most unfairly (don’t even think of the list of slurs) so please don’t let the present world of theatre make it even worse by dressing him up in flares as well!

Sandra
=^..^=

From: mailto:
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 10:00 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Watson as Dick

I saw Olivier give some truly dreadful performances, and Daniel Day-Lewis failing mightily to do Hamlet, so all actors are capable bad performances, even the so-called greats!
It is the concept though more than anything I find well worth missing!

Paul

On 02/07/2014 17:06, Janjovian janjovian@... [] wrote:

I have to say I don't think Martin Freeman is capable of a bad performance, so I suppose we will just have to see what he makes of it!

Jess

----------------------------------------------------------
From: mailto:
Sent: ‎02/‎07/‎2014 11:55
To: RichardIIISociety forum
Subject: Watson as Dick

Matin Freeman was interviewed by Andrew Marr about playing Richard III.
Marr stupidly asked if, "now we know he wasn't a hunchback" if Freeman
would play him like that.
Martin replied that "there would be no point playing the real Richard
because that isn't what Shakespeare was writing about." He then ignored
Marr to speak about the production, which is 'having the boring bits cut
out' [I can't think of any boring bits myself, even in the full length
version] and is set in the 1970s and 'inspired by the almost coup
against Harold Wilson'.
Can't wait to miss it.
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Paul,

I do find it unsettling that you seem to feel it would have been shameful if he had been "deformed in any way." It's just a matter of terminology, isn't it? I don't think people suffering with kyphosis like being referred to as Hunchbacks or as deformed these days any more than people with scoliosis.

The deformity of the spine (and yes, of course it is that - i.e. it is not formed as it should be) caused by scoliosis is not nearly so visible as that caused by kyphosis, but of course that is neither here nor there to an individual's personality.

Hi Diana, welcome to the forum! Just to make clear: there are two planes in which the spine can bend out of true: front-back and side-side. Front-back is called kyphosis and gives a person what has traditionally been referred to as a hunchback. A side-side bend is called scoliosis and will not cause a bulge on the back. The C-shaped curve in Richard's spine you saw in the photos went sideways - i.e. it was scoliosis. The skeleton was only bent forward in the ground because the grave hadn't been dug long enough, not because it had a hump.

The situation regarding Richard's spine has been thoroughly analysed now and the results were published in The Lancet. Basically, the top and bottom sections of the spine were vertical and aligned with each other - there was just this curve to one side in the middle section - so Richard's hips and shoulders would have been pretty much level and it wouldn't have caused him much problem or been noticeable when he was clothed. You can download a copy of the article from here (it's only a page long) - you have to register with their website but it doesn't cost anything. there's also a little video, which you don't have to register to play.

The scoliosis of Richard III, last Plantagenet King of England: diagnosis and clinical significance : The Lancet

Hello Diana

On the subject of Richard's back, I agree entirely with Marie's comments.

It is also worth looking at the history of the words being used. Richard suffered from Scoliosis and the word only came into use in English in the 18th century. The word Kyphosis was coined even later so at the time Richard lived, writers did not have these words to describe his condition.

So the writers of his own time only had access to the words that now are somewhat frowned upon.

For some time, the word Scoliosis covered both conditions.

I hope this helps

David





Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
From: 'diana' adlp.diana@... [] <>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Watson as Dick
Sent: Thu, Jul 3, 2014 2:11:40 PM

Matin Freeman was interviewed by Andrew Marr about playing Richard III.
Marr stupidly asked if, "now we know he wasn't a hunchback" if Freeman
would play him like that.
Martin replied that "there would be no point playing the real Richard
because that isn't what Shakespeare was writing about." He then ignored
Marr to speak about the production, which is 'having the boring bits cut
out' [I can't think of any boring bits myself, even in the full length
version] and is set in the 1970s and 'inspired by the almost coup
against Harold Wilson'.
Can't wait to miss it.
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Diana wrote:

Carol wrote:

"Actually, the writers of Richard's time said nothing whatever about what we would call scoliosis (much less the inapplicable kyphosis). They spoke of his small size and von Popelau mentioned his slender arms and legs, but no one until Rous, writing a few years after Richard's death, mentioned so much as the raised shoulder. More and Vergil repeat the raised shoulder and small stature (More exaggerates the shoulder and also makes it the left rather than the right). Vergil gives him a "short face" (I think he's mistranslating a phrase in Rous) and a cruel expression; More assigns him the withered arm (based on a passage from Vergil that I've discussed elsewhere and won't repeat here). None of these traits except the raised shoulder has any foundation in reality.

But not even More or Vergil resorts to "words that now are frowned upon," by which I suppose you mean "hunchback," since neither mentions any such condition. It's only in Shakespeare that we get the "poisonous bunch-backed toad" and "lump of foul deformity." "

Marie responds:

There is one pretty early recorded reference to Richard's scoliosis, and that is the statement alleged to have been made in the spring of 1491 by the York schoolmaster John Burton that Richard was a hypocrite and a crouchback. 'Crouchback' is a synyonym of 'crookback', so this was not a claim that Richard was crouched over but merely that he had a crooked back. The kyphotic hump was as you say a development by Shakespeare, and he probably made this change in order to point the finger at Robert Cecil. Also, the passage in Rous that Vergil interpreted as meaning Richard had a short face immediately precedes the reference to the raised shoulder, and may have been intended to mean that Richard had a malformed or deficient appearance.

I wonder if the early emphasis on Richard's physical imperfections (notably Rous) was perhaps designed to persuade the public that Henry VII, despite his wandering eyes (which couldn't be disguised with clever tailoring), was still much nearer to physical, and therefore moral, perfection than his predecessor.

Carol replied to Diana:

"Carol responds:

Hi, Diana, and welcome. I just want to supplement Marie's well-informed response with a couple of quotations from Dr. Lin Foxhall, one of the scientists on the Leicester team of archaeologists (not to be confused with Jo Appleby, whose blunders Paul referred to in his post).

"The skeleton found in the Choir area has spinal abnormalities. We believe the individual would have had severe scoliosis  which is a form of spinal curvature. This would have made his right shoulder appear visibly higher than the left shoulder. This is consistent with contemporary accounts of Richard's appearance [none of which mention any deformity other than a raised shoulder]. The skeleton does not have kyphosis  a different form of spinal curvature. The man did not have the feature sometimes inappropriately known as a 'hunchback' and did not have a 'withered arm'."

Carol replied to Diana:

"Carol responds:

Hi, Diana, and welcome. I just want to supplement Marie's well-informed response with a couple of quotations from Dr. Lin Foxhall, one of the scientists on the Leicester team of archaeologists (not to be confused with Jo Appleby, whose blunders Paul referred to in his post).

"The skeleton found in the Choir area has spinal abnormalities. We believe the individual would have had severe scoliosis  which is a form of spinal curvature. This would have made his right shoulder appear visibly higher than the left shoulder. This is consistent with contemporary accounts of Richard's appearance [none of which mention any deformity other than a raised shoulder]. The skeleton does not have kyphosis  a different form of spinal curvature. The man did not have the feature sometimes inappropriately known as a 'hunchback' and did not have a 'withered arm'."

" [snip} [T]he passage in Rous that Vergil interpreted as meaning Richard had a short face immediately precedes the reference to the raised shoulder, and may have been intended to mean that Richard had a malformed or deficient appearance. I wonder if the early emphasis on Richard's physical imperfections (notably Rous) was perhaps designed to persuade the public that Henry VII, despite his wandering eyes (which couldn't be disguised with clever tailoring), was still much nearer to physical, and therefore moral, perfection than his predecessor."

Carol responds:

Right, but since the raised shoulder follows the debatable passage in Rous, the "malformed or deficient appearance," if that's the correct translation, would have been limited to the raised shoulder. You may be right about Richard's raised shoulder being made to appear worse than Henry's wandering eye as a means of demonstrating Henry's (supposed) moral superiority. Does any chronicler that you know of mention Henry's eye? And how widely read was Rous? His Historia was in Latin. Obviously, More and Vergil read it and passed it on with additions and apparent errors (we know that Richard didn't have a short face). But who else besides Henry (and perhaps Bernard Andre through a secretary reading it to him) would have read that description in the late 1480s or early 1490s?

Carol

Carol wrote:

"Right, but since the raised shoulder follows the debatable passage in Rous, the "malformed or deficient appearance," if that's the correct translation, would have been limited to the raised shoulder. You may be right about Richard's raised shoulder being made to appear worse than Henry's wandering eye as a means of demonstrating Henry's (supposed) moral superiority. Does any chronicler that you know of mention Henry's eye?"

Marie responds:

No, but they wouldn't, would they? My point is that it was none the less entirely visible to onlookers.

Carol wrote:

" And how widely read was Rous? His Historia was in Latin. Obviously, More and Vergil read it and passed it on with additions and apparent errors (we know that Richard didn't have a short face). But who else besides Henry (and perhaps Bernard Andre through a secretary reading it to him) would have read that description in the late 1480s or early 1490s?"

Marie responds:

I guess it was passed around the court. But word of Richard's scoliosis was clearly current in York by 1491 (viz the schoolmaster's jibe which I also mentioned), so we can't pretend to ourselves that the knowledge wasn't around. Shakespeare didn't invent the humpback out of thin air (which would be some coincidence) but instead developed it from the 'crookback' claim of earlier writers (could someone confirm the earliest reference to this in a Tudor history, please?). My view, shared by many others, is that Richard's scoliosis (which must always have been known about by his family and body servants) became public knowledge when his body was stripped after the battle - particularly after it had been slung across the horse. I suggest that Rous may have been 'encouraged' to include Richard's spinal curvature in his account, but as he lived a rather sheltered existence he was vague as to the specifics.