Richard III

Richard III is one of the most distinguished and theatrically most appreciative Shakespearean characters. The archetypal study of irrational evil and the ”over-dead-bodies” desire for power inspired not only literature; they became essential in searching for other pathological cases. The last time, Richard III was compared with Hitler – influenced by the character of Richard III, Bertolt Brecht wrote his The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui, where the main character is a parallel of Führer.

The mechanism of compensation of one’s own physical illness or disability by fulfilling of excessive power ambitions has been dealt with in world’s drama, and it was strongest in Shakespeare’s Richard III In this tragedy the long-lasting War of the Roses ends, during which the rulers stained in blood reigned, and brutal political crimes caused the Old Testament revenges “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. Essence of evil appeared on the peak of the pyramid, embodied in cruel, crippled Richard III, who does not fight for his dynasty any more, but only for himself, he does not murder only the enemies, but also his own blood, and that means the end of the old social order with clear rules. In the closing monologue Richmond, later King Henry VII calls for forgiveness, and, therefore denies the “an eye for an eye” law. The ethics of blood revenge are changed for the ethics of forgiving – a new era comes, and Richard III, with white rose in his coat of arms, paradoxically appears as the “positive” character.

Director Michal Dočekal states: “Richard III should be played by unbelievable actor. Not handsome, nevertheless a man of strange sex appeal, outsider with starry potential.” He offered the title role to a thirtysomething leader of pop group Kryštof, Richard Krajčo. His acting and director’s interpretation give the tragedy new dimension – they emphasize theatricality of Richard’s acting: Richard III is above all an actor and director who, after every bloody step towards the throne, has to win favour of those his power depends on. Already in the opening monologue he uncovers to the audience his plans, which he later applies on the other characters. He comments on each of his acts – until then when he finds himself on the throne.

Once there, Richards loses his audience and his “play” finishes. In his monologues he does not turn to himself as to an actor in a play which he wrote and directed, but as to a deserted man.

Richard III sitting on the throne reminds of an actor sitting in front of a mirror in his dressing room. When taking off his make up, he slowly comes back to authentic, non-theatrical being and his words comment on his own existence. Those who had helped him by being passive, and who had survived the bloody slaughter, understood the horrible mistake of their silence, but it was too late. They may comfort themselves that their silence was not a sign of agreement, nevertheless, it enabled the rule of terror, which is punished by loneliness.

Dočekal´s Richard III is played by a young man fabricating everything in order to gain power, even his physical state. In this theatre of politics this Richard goes further – there are not only false words, statements and promises. They do not have any importance in the materialistic world and they can be easily played with. What may be false in Dočekal´s production is the last sacred institution of the materialistic world – the body and face. And those are presented in the way to have required effect: young but crippled body which rouses feelings of sympathy, is the best thing for the “play” of Richard III. Man has disappeared, what remained is only a knot in the net of instincts and struggles for power.
Ján Šimko