As planned, I watched Acts IV and V of Richard III last night and...

Well, the production was as great as I remembered it, and it was a treat to finally see Act V, but I am sorry to report that any historical knowledge whatsoever is incompatible with really enjoying the play. I kept having all these intrusive thoughts about the real Richard, who by all trustworthy accounts was at a minimum an earnest administrator and a would-be good king, and I just felt sorry for him.

Okay, and the other factor was this: my old university copy of Shakespeare notes, in the introduction to the play, that Richard is one of the first of Shakespeare's characters to have a distinct and personal voice (this is a relatively early play) and that means you get to know him and, evil or not, you sort of identify with him. Which I guess means that this version of the play treats the anti-hero in a modern way. So, having followed him along all this way, it's hard as a viewer who is not a subject of Henry VII's granddaughter to get up a really good hatred for Richard. He's just been such good company all along.

Also, Richmond (later Henry VII) is portrayed as such a shampoo model of a perfect plastic hero that it's very difficult for a modern viewer to see him as anything but funny. Not to mention the whole issue of the play putting him heroically in the forefront of the battle, which he actually was not.

Which makes sense, naturally: the last thing you want as a soldier is for the King's (or Pretender's) army to win the day only to discover that--oops!--the King or Pretender himself has been killed in battle.

Richard, in fact, fought in the thick of things and died in battle, but given what is known of his character it's easy to believe his attitude was along the lines of, "Fuck it, if I'm King by grace of God, then God will protect me. And if He doesn't, well, then apparently I had it wrong."

Excuse the modern language, I am not good at writing forsoothly, as it were.

I did amuse myself with wonder what the historical verdict would have been if Edward IV had not died, or Clarence had managed to get hold of the throne, and then Henry VII had successfully invaded. The play doesn't beat up on Richard's supposed victims, so it's easy to imagine that under other circumstances Richard would have been one of the unfortunate and well-meaning victims of the machinations of the evil usurper Clarence.

I'm about out of time but I assure you there will be further entries on this subject, especially once I finish reading the Kendall biography and The Sunne In Splendour, the which I have on hold.

Later.