While Richard III has been done 21 times on Broadway, Richard II has been done only seven, most recently in 1957. (Source: ibdb.com) It is certainly less interesting. Richard III is a grand villain, smart, full of anger, violent, and terribly sorry for himself--yet able to scrounge up a bit of charm when it suits his needs. Richard II, while more poetic in language, is bland, self-involved, and petulant. Both men believe in the divine right of kings because, hey, they're the kings. While Richard III is arguably evil, Richard II is stupid, which is considerably less interesting. His downfall is triggered by shallow self-interest.
![]() |
| Michael Urie Photo: Carol Rosegg |
As with all of the history plays (and many of the Greek and Roman tragedies as well), the stories are supposed to possess gravitas because the main characters are royal. But, really, does being born into a particular family at a particular time make the characters more significant? Nah. And using the word hubris instead of the phrase blind, selfish stupidity doesn't ultimately disguise the fact that Richard II, Oedipus, King Lear, etc al, display, well, blind selfish stupidity.
Here's a way to reveal the actual pathetic humanness of these characters: picture Donald Trump instead. He was born into a particular family; he and his followers believe he was chosen by a god; and he has more power that Oedipus, Lear, and both Richards put together. But his story is not tragedy; it's the saddest and most horrifying of farces.
![]() |
| Photo: Carol Rosegg |
The Red Bull production of Richard II was adapted and directed by Craig Baldwin and stars Michael Urie. I am a fan of Red Bull and have enjoyed/been impressed by many of their "rethinkings" of classics. The excellent all-female Mac Beth in particular comes to mind. Richard II, however, is considerably less successful.
Moving the show to the 1980s adds little other than an excuse to use the song "Sweet Dreams" and some cool costumes by Rodrigo Muñoz. Richard's overt bisexuality-leaning-toward-gayness is fine, but the frequency of sexualized scenes diminishes whatever gravitas the character might have. Parts of the show almost read as anti-gay: look at the shallow, trivial gay guy who prefers the affairs of the body to the affairs of state.
According to some theories, the end of Richard II gives Richard the chance to redeem himself by showing dignity as he is stripped of his crown. That isn't the case in this production. I kept waiting for one of the other characters to slap him and say, get over your damn self.
By moving the story to the 1980s, by sexualizing the character so much, by removing the period trappings, Baldwin has taken away any grandeur Richard might have had. Sort of like replacing King Lear with Donald Trump.
Much of the staging is attractive; much of the acting is top-notch; the depiction of a duel as a contemporary boxing match, complete with hyperenthusiastic emcee, works perfectly. But the adaptation and direction undercut the play's strengths and emphasize its weaknesses.





Richard_Termine.jpeg)
