| Topics to consider for discussion on Monday
and Tuesday:
the play as Tudor propaganda vs. the play as a satire of human nature and politics in which we sympathize with the villain/hero who exploits others' vices and weaknesses: are these two functions compatible? playacting within the play; meta-theatrical commentary on the nature of theater and performance; the role the audience is asked to play; how the action comments on the nature and techniques of playwright's art Richard's exploitation of the ambiguities of language the nature of kingship/rule as the play defines it the role[s] of women: Elizabeth, Margaret, Ann; how does their commentary on and action in the world of the play differ from that of the men? how might racial bias and/or the defiance of racial
stereotypes affect the way one could cast a production of Richard III?
|
| For Thursday, please read and be prepared to discuss the essay on the Performance History of Richard III at this link to a page sponsored by the Richard III society. Why has Richard III always been such important cultural capital in the United States? That is, why has performing, filming, and discussing the play always been such a high priority for Americans? |