Richard III would be a nobody without Shakespeare
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/10/richard-iii-would-be-a-nobody-without-shakespeare Version 0 of 1. Yes, we all know that Shakespeare’s Richard III was a “fiction that more than anything else has blackened this man’s reputation” (Letters, 9 May), but such was Shakespeare’s genius that the pantomime villain he created has surely attracted more interest in this much-maligned monarch than any more obvious panegyric could possibly achieve? As a southerner of Lancastrian antecedents I might never have discovered Richard at all, were it not for my English teacher’s enthusiasm for Shakespeare and his ironic take on the Richard story. He encouraged a school friend and me to become involved in a spectacular production of the play in the ruins of Reading Abbey. More than four decades later my friend lives in Leicester and I live in York. We still meet up to compare notes. No, Richard will not be turning in his grave at this new production in Leicester Cathedral. Either he is utterly beyond such vain human conceits, or he will keep smiling the thin sardonic smile we know so well from the alleged portrait, safe in the knowledge that Shakespeare was ultimately his ally rather than his foe.Jeremy MuldowneyYork Shakespeare Project • So Leicester Cathedral plans to stage Shakespeare’s Richard III close to the monarch’s recent and much-feted final resting place. How insensitive and disrespectful this is. At best, it is an ignorant attempt to capitalise on the king’s name for publicity purposes. At worst, it shows a callous disregard for its own promise to bury Richard III “with dignity and honour”. No matter how one regards the play – as history, satire or simply entertainment, no matter how “sensitively” it is produced, the script is fictional vitriol and damning to the reputation of Richard III. There are still people who believe the story in its entirety and it beggars belief that anyone in authority at Leicester Cathedral could see this as compatible with an honourable Christian burial for the last king to die in battle on English soil. This production should be relocated and the powers that be should seriously reflect on their role as custodians of Richard III’s mortal remains.Ruth CartyPortsmouth • How can staging Richard III in Leicester Cathedral be “another desperate attempt at publicity and money-making” when the play was performed there a year before the reburial? It’s OK to dig up a body and rebury it, is it? The man is dead – he’s not going to be complaining about a fantastic piece of literature being shown in a fantastic setting, is he? If people are so worried that the audience will walk away from the performance with a negative image of their beloved king, what better way to use this as an opportunity to educate and engage? Stop going around trying to ban things.Danny MarshIpswich • So our major churches are in financial peril (Report, 24 April) but “making money” staging a Shakespeare play is not acceptable. We should view both Richard III, and the eponymous play, as products of their time; one was not a saint, the other not a work of scholarly history but a fascinating study of a flawed man. If I can get a ticket, I’ll be there!Richard PepperLeicester • If Leicester Cathedral gets cold feet, an obvious alternative venue would be Wingfield Church where his sister is buried. It a large medieval building opposite the De La Pole Arms, and has ample car parking. And unlike Leicester, it was a home of the Plantagenets. Prince Charles thought it suitable for one of his well-attended music concerts.Tommy GeeWingfield, Suffolk • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters |