I saw this in the globe in London, we were right before the stage in the pouring rain and my feet hurt from standing still for so long. But i would do it again! His performance, and everyone's was great, and any reference to the 'beautiful' weather he looked longer at us in our hooded coats and there were roars of laughter! He was so funny but respectfully despicable too!
"Rain stopped play"? I guess it would be considered heresy to do for the Globe's audiences and players what was eventually done for Wimbledon's rain-plagued players and audiences - and end the pain of rain with a discreet little sliding roof. What? It would destroy the illusion of the new-ish Globe's superbly well-faked authenticity? Put the question of roofs, rain and authenticity to the vote every year - come rain or shine or hail-storms in mid-summer - let audiences decide! And give Oxfordians and Stratfordians something possibly even more divisive to duel over for another century or two. Paul G
What an astonishingly brilliant interpretation of the man Richard III - without any of the cliched comic book villainy of previous productions (atleast in this clip).
His entrance right at the beginning was jawdropping. The absolute last interpretation I would've ever expected, and I was wrapped around his finger from that moment.
Saw the Globe production in 2012, during the Games, as groundlings. Just a few feet from the stage, it was a fantastic experience (in the sunshine too) and we were really able to appreciate Mark's acting prowess and the whole Elizabethan scene.
The Globe's concept is 'do it like it was' and it WAS a bit like Bollywood: a bit of everything for everyone. But it takes a real master like Rylance to switch gears so dexterously between pathos and comedy, solemnity and a capering wit. Everyone on stage has a brief to be serious artistically but also responsive and witty, and they never let a welcome laugh go by even in a solemn scene. You note that the laughs never impede the impact of the drama or the overall thrust of the scene. The actors love it when a spit in the face gets a gasp from the audience.
I think Shakespeare was much funnier than traditional productions of the last hundred or so years would have us believe, even the tragedies. We have the Victorians to blame for all the melodramatic villainy of plays like Richard III. Rylance's far more subtle performance (compared with Olivier's for instance) seems to take account of the clinical fact that psychopaths are very good at appearing normal, plus the historical fact that the real Richard III was not a humpbacked limping monster who would frighten children, he was comparatively normal looking.
Then Globe do it like it was and it WAS a bit like Bollywood: a bit of everything for everyone. But it takes a real master like Rylance to switch gears so dexterously between pathos and comedy, solemnity and a capering wit.
I have a question. I know that back in Shakespeare's day, the men would play the women's parts. Is this the type of production where they would recreate that type of thing, because my question is that, and I do NOT mean any offense, but I want to know: is that a man playing Lady Anne? Thanks.
Yes... this was an originist production, where things were done as close as possible to the way it would have been done at the time, including men playing all parts.
I must be the only person in the world who thinks Mark Rylance's interpretations of Shakespeare are totally crap, so I suppose I may be wrong. I also, unlike Ryiance, believe Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare's plays and poetry so I may be right.
Yep probably one of the few - I disagree with everything you’ve said as I love Rylance’s interpretation of the text, but I understand we all have different tastes - I may be one of the few who thinks Ian McKellen ‘overacts’ it, emphasising far too much, it just takes me out of it and I’m watching Ian McKellen rather than the character if that makes sense.
No one is going to say this, but this is a bs Richard III. Mark Rylance is the greatest hack of our time. He trades complex intonation and comedy tricks for actual acting. Sorry, this is from a drama student from a top 10 UK drama school. This scene has been done way better at much smaller venues. This is bull.
+156qaz lol. Because the man currently seen as being one of the greatest (if not the greatest) actor of the modern stage is a hack. He brings humanity to his roles.
+156qaz To say "Mark Rylance is the greatest hack of our time" is just nonsense. Rylance is arguably one of the most accomplished and revered (especially by his peers) actors working today. Because you train, as an actor, at "one of the top 10 UK drama schools" - that does not make you an authority on 'playing Shakespeare'. All that proves is that you have some talent, and you will be marketable. Of course, you're entitled to your opinions; but to critisice one of the leading Shakespearean interpreters -strikes me as ignorant.
I saw this in the globe in London, we were right before the stage in the pouring rain and my feet hurt from standing still for so long. But i would do it again! His performance, and everyone's was great, and any reference to the 'beautiful' weather he looked longer at us in our hooded coats and there were roars of laughter! He was so funny but respectfully despicable too!
"Rain stopped play"? I guess it would be considered heresy to do for the Globe's audiences and players what was eventually done for Wimbledon's rain-plagued players and audiences - and end the pain of rain with a discreet little sliding roof. What? It would destroy the illusion of the new-ish Globe's superbly well-faked authenticity?
Put the question of roofs, rain and authenticity to the vote every year - come rain or shine or hail-storms in mid-summer - let audiences decide!
And give Oxfordians and Stratfordians something possibly even more divisive to duel over for another century or two.
Paul G
I was also there while it was pouring rain! Probably not same night since it rains a lot in London…
What an astonishingly brilliant interpretation of the man Richard III - without any of the cliched comic book villainy of previous productions (atleast in this clip).
His entrance right at the beginning was jawdropping. The absolute last interpretation I would've ever expected, and I was wrapped around his finger from that moment.
@@yohei72 How so? What did he do, if you can remember? It's annoying there's no filmed full version. Awesome that you got to see it, though :-D
I agree. A subtle, semi-halting, somewhat uncertain, understated choice, but powerful, compelling…🙏🎭
Saw the Globe production in 2012, during the Games, as groundlings. Just a few feet from the stage, it was a fantastic experience (in the sunshine too) and we were really able to appreciate Mark's acting prowess and the whole Elizabethan scene.
It is a special day to have to opportunity to watch this. Thank you.
"Nay do not pause!" hahahahahaha
The Globe's concept is 'do it like it was' and it WAS a bit like Bollywood: a bit of everything for everyone. But it takes a real master like Rylance to switch gears so dexterously between pathos and comedy, solemnity and a capering wit. Everyone on stage has a brief to be serious artistically but also responsive and witty, and they never let a welcome laugh go by even in a solemn scene. You note that the laughs never impede the impact of the drama or the overall thrust of the scene. The actors love it when a spit in the face gets a gasp from the audience.
Get you arrested now.
Wow. I would have never thought of this scene as being funny, but it works! Wish I could see the full version!
These actors are amazing.
And now I'd like to see Rylance's Richard address the audience directly.
Wow. What a great interpretation.
Superb acting! The costumes represent late Elizabethan/early Jacobean (16th/early 17th century) fashions.
Such a hard flippin' scene.
I had the privilege of seeing this production on the West End. What an honour. Unforgettable.
I'll say now that I do prefer this scene under the sort creepy dark mood, but it is fantastic to see it done in a comedic manner.
I think Shakespeare was much funnier than traditional productions of the last hundred or so years would have us believe, even the tragedies. We have the Victorians to blame for all the melodramatic villainy of plays like Richard III. Rylance's far more subtle performance (compared with Olivier's for instance) seems to take account of the clinical fact that psychopaths are very good at appearing normal, plus the historical fact that the real Richard III was not a humpbacked limping monster who would frighten children, he was comparatively normal looking.
@@rexmundi2237 actually, when they found King Richard III's skeleton in that carpark (parking lot), they saw that he had a curvature in his spine.
Amazing.
Never thought I'd find this scene funny.
+Martin Ponferrada The play is in part funny, until the buffoon becomes a psychopath. And I saw the transformation. He is the best right now.
It's a comedy! Who knew?
Then Globe do it like it was and it WAS a bit like Bollywood: a bit of everything for everyone. But it takes a real master like Rylance to switch gears so dexterously between pathos and comedy, solemnity and a capering wit.
Its Shakespeare. Its like life. Comedy one scene and a tragedy the next.
By God Rylance is good.
Where can I watch the full play? I've looked everywhere!
Contact The Globe - they have recordings of a number of plays - perhaps this specific one too.
nAY DO NOT PAUSE---
does anyone know if this production is available on dvd
Matthew P It's avalible in Shakespeare's Globe website.
It’s not currently available.
This same cast doing "Twelfth Night" at the Globe Theatre is on DVD, but not "Richard III". I wish it were.
our father..
I have a question. I know that back in Shakespeare's day, the men would play the women's parts. Is this the type of production where they would recreate that type of thing, because my question is that, and I do NOT mean any offense, but I want to know: is that a man playing Lady Anne? Thanks.
Yes... this was an originist production, where things were done as close as possible to the way it would have been done at the time, including men playing all parts.
Who is the woman Richard III is talking to and who is playing her?
It's Lady And, the actor is Joseph Timms. Amazing
Lady Ann
... well holy shit
Shakespeare would be very proud.
too abious that it is a text learned by heart. He should think it more, as creating the words at this very momento.
Horrible histories said he wasnt a villian
RII Yes...RIII No
Hilarious as fuck. Funny instead of ??? like in the text.
In regard to the comments by 157gaz, I agree 100 %.
Was ever woman in this manner wooed?!
Was ever woman in this manner won?!
He fails to maintain the integrity of the metre when he affects repetition of the first words in some lines.
Who cares. It’s brilliant.
I must be the only person in the world who thinks Mark Rylance's interpretations of Shakespeare are totally crap, so I suppose I may be wrong. I also, unlike Ryiance, believe Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare's plays and poetry so I may be right.
Yep probably one of the few - I disagree with everything you’ve said as I love Rylance’s interpretation of the text, but I understand we all have different tastes - I may be one of the few who thinks Ian McKellen ‘overacts’ it, emphasising far too much, it just takes me out of it and I’m watching Ian McKellen rather than the character if that makes sense.
What specifically do you dislike?
Rylance makes it more convincing and authentic when it is played straight.
You’re right. You’re the only one. He’s brilliant.
No one is going to say this, but this is a bs Richard III. Mark Rylance is the greatest hack of our time. He trades complex intonation and comedy tricks for actual acting. Sorry, this is from a drama student from a top 10 UK drama school. This scene has been done way better at much smaller venues. This is bull.
+156qaz You have to see the play in person-- idiot.
+156qaz lol. Because the man currently seen as being one of the greatest (if not the greatest) actor of the modern stage is a hack. He brings humanity to his roles.
+156qaz ha, you think because you're a drama student you know everything about acting? That hardly gives you grounds to make a statement like that.
+156qaz Well thank god we've got a drama student here to open our eyes to the truth!
+156qaz To say "Mark Rylance is the greatest hack of our time" is just nonsense. Rylance is arguably one of the most accomplished and revered (especially by his peers) actors working today. Because you train, as an actor, at "one of the top 10 UK drama schools" - that does not make you an authority on 'playing Shakespeare'. All that proves is that you have some talent, and you will be marketable. Of course, you're entitled to your opinions; but to critisice one of the leading Shakespearean interpreters -strikes me as ignorant.
Rylance is the most overrated actor today!