Theatre
Richard III
Botanic Gardens, Glasgow
Neil Cooper
****
THERE is a moment in Jennifer Dick's four-actor adaptation of one of Shakespeare's longest plays when the audience for her Bard in the Botanics production in the Kibble Palace are goaded into joining in a chant of 'witches.' The rabble-rousing chorale is aimed at Vanessa Coffey's Queen Elizabeth, at the time the most powerful woman in the room. This is duly filmed by a cheer-leading entourage, presumably with the aim of streaming it online.
The moment is the perfect illustration of how political discourse can descend into ugly name-calling when populist ideologues dog-whistle their frontline cannon fodder into action. Neither is it hard to see parallels with those who today would chase female politicians down the street in packs, haranguing them as they go.
This is the world whipped up with malevolent relish in Dick’s own production by Robert Elkin's Richard, a camouflage-clad bundle of fury, whose strapped-up arm gives him an endless point to prove. This sees him posing for a picture with a murdered corpse. Slain by Richard’s own hand, the body now resembles a trophy, the evidence of which looks set to be hung on the wall alongside his other prey.
As he makes his bid for power, with Adam Donaldson's weasel-like Buckingham in tow, Richard's world is one of press conferences and photo-ops, and of duplicitous marriages of ambition as he takes advantage of Kirsty McDuff's shell-shocked Lady Anne. Elkin storms his way up and down the Kibble, flanked by a contrasting mixture of domestic and state paraphernalia on Carys Hobbs’ set.
As he finally achieves his ambition and unsure what to do next, Richard goes on the offensive. Out of this comes a world of paranoia and back-stabbing betrayal, as he is inevitably outsmarted by those who would similarly be king in what might be the most telling political play of our time.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here