Shakespeare may be marvellous, BUT….!

All Greek to me

Another version of Shakespeare’s Richard…which means the same old, same old, of course. This one is slightly different in that the lead is played by a woman, Emily Carding. She may be truly excellent, I don’t know, but the usual humpy back, evil psychopath, crawling around the stage and so on is much in evidence.  If you’re a fan of Shakespeare’s Richard III, you’ll probably find this of great interest.


  1. I think this is against the political correctness. Richard cannot be a man or a woman. He has to be transsexual or an individual of undefined sex after gender theory. In this case he could not be any evil nor hunchback. I am sure that LGBT circles would protest.:))


  2. I just found it annoying that the article talks about the real Richard as if he was the Shakespearean Richard. People should just make a clear distinction between the two (as Olivier and McKellen/Loncraine did).

    Just as they should make a distinction between the real and the fictional Macbeth, for instance; I have no idea why anyone thinks Shakespeare was a historian rather than a fiction writer. Nobody thinks his Joan of Arc (sorceress, Charles VII’s mistress) was historically accurate, but that’s because the English propaganda about her is not the dominant view, because she is a French national heroine. But the views about British historical figures tend to be shaped a lot by his plays, especially if they are among his more popular ones.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Sheakespeare,s Richard is obviously a fictional person. He is so bad that it is impossible that anybody so bad and ugly existed. And of course he has to be old – old people are bad:)) But – by me – there are some limits of artistic visions. Richard played by women is ridiculous. May be I am too conservatist:))


    1. Why not? Bear in mind that in the original productions, Anne Neville and Elizabeth Woodville were played by men, as were all other Shakespearean female characters.

      And women have played male Shakespeare’s characters before – for instance, about a century ago, Sarah Bernhardt played Hamlet, and more recently, Fiona Shaw played Richard II. There have also been productions where some female characters were played by men as they were in Shakespeare’s times, and I think they have also been all-male and all-female Shakespeare casts.


      1. “Sarah Bernhardt played Hamlet”

        OK, I would like her:)) But a woman as Richard? Nooooo…..


  4. I know Shakespeare only had male actors to deal with, but to my mind the only occasion when this should be strictly applied is when the Bard is enacted on a state-of-the-art Tudor stage. Otherwise, my personal preference is for women playing women, and men playing men. To be really honest, watching a woman playing a man gives me the creeps, and vice versa. Sorry, but it’s the way I am. I know there will be many who disagree.


    1. Men playing women – it has a taste. This is Shakespeare,s theatre, specified historical reality. I have seen the spectacle of Italian baroque opera in Nancy. All parts – also female – were performed by male counter tenor voices. It was stunning:))


    2. Or when it’s played for laughs, as in “Charley’s Aunt.”
      This is likely to produce unintentional laughter.


Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.