Re: Casting Richard et al.

> Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 15:57:38 -0000
> From: "Janet" <forevere@...>
> Subject: Casting Richard III
>
> Oh no! Not this again. Sorry to the newbies but we oldtimers
> have cast and recast Richard III a jillion times!
True, but as there are always those who have not contributed to the discussion before, it is fun to hear new ideas. For example, I have never heard othe actor that Maria mentions below, but after googling him discovered he does bear a resemblance to Richard. In fact, here is a link of him as Leonardo DaVinci. Not exactly Ricardian garb, but somewhat contemporary: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/03_march/28/leonardo.shtml

LML,
MargaretA

>Message: 3
>Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 09:51:27 -0500
> From: Maria <ejbronte@...>
>Subject: RE: An idea stolen from Shakespeare class at school
>
>I'm still on board with Johnny Depp -in my mind, Richard is not tall. A
>few years ago, a movie version of "Angels and Insects" came out, and the
>main character was played by Mark Rylance. He was born in 1960, which
>might make him just a bit over the age limit, depending on what he looks
>like these days, but when I saw him in "Angels and Insects", my first
>thought was: "That's Richard!"
>
>Maria
>elena@...

Main problems with Mark Rylance are he is too old now, and has done a
hard core porn movie. I have nothing against porn, but I wouldn't want
Richard played by someone who had been involved in one!
Paul
who agrees that not everyone has been on the forum a long time to have
seen many of the discussions that get repeated or frequently brought
up.

On Jan 10, 2005, at 14:40, Margaret Anderson wrote:

>
>> Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 15:57:38 -0000
>> From: "Janet" <forevere@...>
>> Subject: Casting Richard III
>>
>> Oh no! Not this again. Sorry to the newbies but we oldtimers
>> have cast and recast Richard III a jillion times!
> True, but as there are always those who have not contributed to the
> discussion before, it is fun to hear new ideas. For example, I have
> never heard othe actor that Maria mentions below, but after googling
> him discovered he does bear a resemblance to Richard. In fact, here is
> a link of him as Leonardo DaVinci. Not exactly Ricardian garb, but
> somewhat contemporary:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/03_march/
> 28/leonardo.shtml
>
> LML,
> MargaretA
>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 09:51:27 -0500
>> From: Maria <ejbronte@...>
>> Subject: RE: An idea stolen from Shakespeare class at school
>>
>> I'm still on board with Johnny Depp -in my mind, Richard is not tall.
>> A
>> few years ago, a movie version of "Angels and Insects" came out, and
>> the
>> main character was played by Mark Rylance. He was born in 1960, which
>> might make him just a bit over the age limit, depending on what he
>> looks
>> like these days, but when I saw him in "Angels and Insects", my first
>> thought was: "That's Richard!"
>>
>> Maria
>> elena@...
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes... I can see why that would be an issue. And I personally don't agree with the idea of Johnny Depp as Richard, although that would certainly appeal to my 15-years-old-and-female tendencies. But that's what my classmates suggested. I do like the Ioan-and-Scarlett casting, though. I've been amusing myself lately by musicalizing Penman's book, but with no serious intentions toward producing it because I couldn't string two notes together on pain of death. So it's all filk lyrics to existing production numbers from various shows. (Quite a lot of Les Miserables, actually.)

I quite like the play, I really do. I had an assignment in drama a few months ago to parody a Shakespeare drama, and you can imagine what I chose. None of my male classmates wanted to touch the lead with a twenty-foot pole, so next thing you know I was limping around the stage with a pillow up my back trying to seduce a girl. Great fun (although in retrospect I should not have directed Bosworth by saying "And when I fall. . . everybody attack me at once!"). At least I got to make Henry VII out to be not much better than Shakespeare's Richard.

(Sample line: Richard, upon being crowned, takes it off and surrepiteously licks it. "...It tastes just like I dreamt it would!")
Main problems with Mark Rylance are he is too old now, and has done a
hard core porn movie. I have nothing against porn, but I wouldn't want
Richard played by someone who had been involved in one!
Paul
who agrees that not everyone has been on the forum a long time to have
seen many of the discussions that get repeated or frequently brought
up.

On Jan 10, 2005, at 14:40, Margaret Anderson wrote:

>
>> Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 15:57:38 -0000
>> From: "Janet" <forevere@...>
>> Subject: Casting Richard III
>>
>> Oh no! Not this again. Sorry to the newbies but we oldtimers
>> have cast and recast Richard III a jillion times!
> True, but as there are always those who have not contributed to the
> discussion before, it is fun to hear new ideas. For example, I have
> never heard othe actor that Maria mentions below, but after googling
> him discovered he does bear a resemblance to Richard. In fact, here is
> a link of him as Leonardo DaVinci. Not exactly Ricardian garb, but
> somewhat contemporary:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/03_march/
> 28/leonardo.shtml
>
> LML,
> MargaretA
>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 09:51:27 -0500
>> From: Maria <ejbronte@...>
>> Subject: RE: An idea stolen from Shakespeare class at school
>>
>> I'm still on board with Johnny Depp -in my mind, Richard is not tall.
>> A
>> few years ago, a movie version of "Angels and Insects" came out, and
>> the
>> main character was played by Mark Rylance. He was born in 1960, which
>> might make him just a bit over the age limit, depending on what he
>> looks
>> like these days, but when I saw him in "Angels and Insects", my first
>> thought was: "That's Richard!"
>>
>> Maria
>> elena@...
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

About the general staging of Shakespeare's Richard III, I always found it disturbing to see 50+ old men playing a man who died at only 32. When I think about a new staging of Shakespeare's play (that I do like), I believe that it would be interesting to depict the "wicked" Richard as a joung man struggling to be considerated in his huge family. I think that the age matter would add a little different shade to the traditional Richard.
Obviously I'm talking about Shakespeare.

Cecilia


---------------------------------
Nuovo Yahoo! Messenger E' molto più divertente: Audibles, Avatar, Webcam, Giochi, Rubrica… Scaricalo ora!

It would certainly take a certain edge off of Shakespeare's vision of the wooing of Anne, which I have always interpreted as having quite a heavy dose of Electra-complex father figure confusion going for it. The only hazard is that it would have to be presented completely free of the Henry VI plays, because those present Richard as practically middle-aged at events during which he was actually a toddler.

Cecilia Latella <cabepfir@...> wrote:About the general staging of Shakespeare's Richard III, I always found it disturbing to see 50+ old men playing a man who died at only 32. When I think about a new staging of Shakespeare's play (that I do like), I believe that it would be interesting to depict the "wicked" Richard as a joung man struggling to be considerated in his huge family. I think that the age matter would add a little different shade to the traditional Richard.
Obviously I'm talking about Shakespeare.

Cecilia


---------------------------------
Nuovo Yahoo! Messenger E' molto piý divertente: Audibles, Avatar, Webcam, Giochi, Rubricaý Scaricalo ora!





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

I don't think that the Henry VI plays present Richard almost as middle-aged; he's called "Richard of York's child" or something like that, meaning that he was his favourite (and most resembling) son. Moreover, in the scene when Edward IV wooes Elizabeth Woodward, Richard and George of Clarence mock at them with a clearly youthful licentiousness.
In my opinion there's nothing in the Shakespearean play that suggests that Richard has to be played by a middle-aged man; we shouldn't forget, besides, that in Shakespearean age people lived less than now, and that a 50 years old man was practically an old man.

Megan Lerseth <megan_phntmgrl@...> wrote:

It would certainly take a certain edge off of Shakespeare's vision of the wooing of Anne, which I have always interpreted as having quite a heavy dose of Electra-complex father figure confusion going for it. The only hazard is that it would have to be presented completely free of the Henry VI plays, because those present Richard as practically middle-aged at events during which he was actually a toddler.

Cecilia Latella wrote:About the general staging of Shakespeare's Richard III, I always found it disturbing to see 50+ old men playing a man who died at only 32. When I think about a new staging of Shakespeare's play (that I do like), I believe that it would be interesting to depict the "wicked" Richard as a joung man struggling to be considerated in his huge family. I think that the age matter would add a little different shade to the traditional Richard.
Obviously I'm talking about Shakespeare.

Cecilia


---------------------------------
Nuovo Yahoo! Messenger E' molto più divertente: Audibles, Avatar, Webcam, Giochi, Rubrica… Scaricalo ora!





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.










Yahoo! Groups Links









---------------------------------
Nuovo Yahoo! Messenger E' molto più divertente: Audibles, Avatar, Webcam, Giochi, Rubrica… Scaricalo ora!

--- In , Cecilia Latella

..... we shouldn't forget, besides, that in Shakespearean age people
lived less than now, and that a 50 years old man was practically an
old man.


This is a common misconception that we've also discussed in this
forum. The average lifespan was shorter -- emphasis on average --
because the figures are weighted by high infant mortality and death
due to complications of pregnancy and childbirth, plus the tendency
of young men to die in battle. However, plenty of people, especially
in the nobility, had lifespans quite compatable to modern times.
William Marshall, who is sometimes called the greatest knight of the
era, and who fought in tournaments till he was past 50, lived to be
over 80. So did Eleanor of Aquitaine and Cecily Neville, despite
bearing 12 children each.

The peasants and small-holders worked hard, aged fast, and died
relatively young, as they do today in similar agricultural
societies. But generally speaking, a 50 year old man was not
necessarily old and decrepit and people did not have an accelerated
rate of aging.

And they weren't shorter in those days, either.

Katy

Except of course, for Richard himself, who seems to have been fairly short. ;)

oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
And they weren't shorter in those days, either.








---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In , Megan Lerseth
<megan_phntmgrl@s...> wrote:
> Except of course, for Richard himself, who seems to have been
fairly short. ;)
>
> oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
> And they weren't shorter in those days, either.

Yes, but relative to whom? And how tall were the people he was
compared to?

Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
>
>

I think that the precise picture is that the normal height range was about the same as today, around 5ft 4 to 6ft 3 for men, but there was a higher proportion at the short end, so that the average height was lower. Also height varied more with social status than it does today - the better-off were better fed and tended to be taller. But these are generalisations.

'Blood and Roses', which includes a scientific study of a group of soldiers buried in a mass grave at Towton (about 20 bodies, if I remember correctly) bears this out. I'm relying entirely on memory here, but there were a couple of 5ft 10 - 6ft, and the great majority were in the range 5ft 4 - 5ft 8.

My personal feeling about Richard III was that he was one of these tough wiry chaps of about 5ft 6 - 5ft 7, on the small side, but by no means a midget. And, of course, most men would look short compared with Edward IV, who was 6ft 3.

Ann

oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:

--- In , Megan Lerseth
<megan_phntmgrl@s...> wrote:
> Except of course, for Richard himself, who seems to have been
fairly short. ;)
>
> oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
> And they weren't shorter in those days, either.

Yes, but relative to whom? And how tall were the people he was
compared to?

Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
>
>





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.