the banished James II. The overall effect of Cibber’s revisions is twofold: to simplify the plot to make the play more easily understood and to enhance the role of Richard. Cibber’s play dominated the stage until 1821 and was, as the critic Stanley Wells points out, “for a couple of centuries probably the most popular play on the English stage.” 2 Innovations such as the inclusion of Richard’s self-revelatory soliloquy from
3 Henry VI
and the adapted line “Off with his head! So much for Buckingham” continued to be used even in the Laurence Olivier film version of 1955.
Sandford withdrew and Cibber, more comedian than villain, took the part of Richard himself, giving a performance which was almost universally derided. The eighteenth-century theater historian Thomas Davies records how finally “the public grew out of patience and fairly hissed him off the stage.” 3 It was David Garrick making his acting debut as Richard in the “illegitimate” theater in Goodman’s Fields in 1741 who made the role his own. Garrick’s performance and “naturalistic” acting style drew instant acclaim. Recognizing the significance of his performance, fellow actor James Quin commented “if the young fellow was right, he and the rest of the playershad all been wrong.” 4 In his biography of Garrick, Davies describes the effect of his first performance:
Mr. Garrick’s easy and familiar, yet forcible style in speaking and acting, at first threw the critics into some hesitation concerning the novelty as well as propriety of his manner. They had been long accustomed to an elevation of the voice, with a sudden mechanical depression of its tones, calculated to excite admiration, and to intrap applause. To the just modulation of the words, and concurring expression of the features from the genuine workings of nature, they had been strangers, at least for some time. But after he had gone through a variety of scenes, in which he gave evident proofs of consummate art, and perfect knowledge of character, their doubts were turned into surprise and astonishment, from which they relieved themselves by loud and reiterated applause. 5
John Philip Kemble played the part but it hardly suited his scholarly, dignified persona, whereas the eccentric George Frederick Cooke at Covent Garden at the beginning of the nineteenth century won considerable acclaim. In her study of the play in performance, Julie Hankey says that “Cooke’s Richard was neither subtle and protean like Garrick’s, nor lofty like Kemble’s; it seems to have been joyfully, gloatingly horrible.” 6 The Romantics admired the individualism, if not the villainy of Richard. Of Edmund Kean’s performance, William Hazlitt said: “If Mr. Kean does not completely succeed in concentrating all the lines of the character, as drawn by Shakespear [sic], he gives an animation, vigor, and relief to the part which we have never seen surpassed. He is more refined than Cooke; more bold, varied and original than Kemble in the same character.” 7 Junius Brutus Booth modeled his performance on Kean’s and achieved some success, despite the efforts of Kean’s supporters to drown him out. Booth later emigrated to America and became a successful actor-manager there. His performance as Richard was noted for its physicality, especially in the concluding battle scenes, as were those of his American successor in the role, Edwin Forrest. The Cibber text was still being used in these performances, though the play was billed as Shakespeare’s.
In England, meanwhile, William Charles Macready attempted to restore Shakespeare’s text:
Though he used Cibber’s adaptation, this was a Richard more Shakespearian than most, and his own briefly performed adaptation of Shakespeare, while not successful, demonstrated his aims. His Richard was intellectually supple, witty, proud, and commanding. He was less bitter than Kean, full of an organizing energy, with a passionate enjoyment of his vengeance.
3 Henry VI
and the adapted line “Off with his head! So much for Buckingham” continued to be used even in the Laurence Olivier film version of 1955.
Sandford withdrew and Cibber, more comedian than villain, took the part of Richard himself, giving a performance which was almost universally derided. The eighteenth-century theater historian Thomas Davies records how finally “the public grew out of patience and fairly hissed him off the stage.” 3 It was David Garrick making his acting debut as Richard in the “illegitimate” theater in Goodman’s Fields in 1741 who made the role his own. Garrick’s performance and “naturalistic” acting style drew instant acclaim. Recognizing the significance of his performance, fellow actor James Quin commented “if the young fellow was right, he and the rest of the playershad all been wrong.” 4 In his biography of Garrick, Davies describes the effect of his first performance:
Mr. Garrick’s easy and familiar, yet forcible style in speaking and acting, at first threw the critics into some hesitation concerning the novelty as well as propriety of his manner. They had been long accustomed to an elevation of the voice, with a sudden mechanical depression of its tones, calculated to excite admiration, and to intrap applause. To the just modulation of the words, and concurring expression of the features from the genuine workings of nature, they had been strangers, at least for some time. But after he had gone through a variety of scenes, in which he gave evident proofs of consummate art, and perfect knowledge of character, their doubts were turned into surprise and astonishment, from which they relieved themselves by loud and reiterated applause. 5
John Philip Kemble played the part but it hardly suited his scholarly, dignified persona, whereas the eccentric George Frederick Cooke at Covent Garden at the beginning of the nineteenth century won considerable acclaim. In her study of the play in performance, Julie Hankey says that “Cooke’s Richard was neither subtle and protean like Garrick’s, nor lofty like Kemble’s; it seems to have been joyfully, gloatingly horrible.” 6 The Romantics admired the individualism, if not the villainy of Richard. Of Edmund Kean’s performance, William Hazlitt said: “If Mr. Kean does not completely succeed in concentrating all the lines of the character, as drawn by Shakespear [sic], he gives an animation, vigor, and relief to the part which we have never seen surpassed. He is more refined than Cooke; more bold, varied and original than Kemble in the same character.” 7 Junius Brutus Booth modeled his performance on Kean’s and achieved some success, despite the efforts of Kean’s supporters to drown him out. Booth later emigrated to America and became a successful actor-manager there. His performance as Richard was noted for its physicality, especially in the concluding battle scenes, as were those of his American successor in the role, Edwin Forrest. The Cibber text was still being used in these performances, though the play was billed as Shakespeare’s.
In England, meanwhile, William Charles Macready attempted to restore Shakespeare’s text:
Though he used Cibber’s adaptation, this was a Richard more Shakespearian than most, and his own briefly performed adaptation of Shakespeare, while not successful, demonstrated his aims. His Richard was intellectually supple, witty, proud, and commanding. He was less bitter than Kean, full of an organizing energy, with a passionate enjoyment of his vengeance.
Similar Books
