by Dawn Sands
Earlier this week, Shakespeare’s Globe in London announced the plays which they would be producing for their 2024 summer season, and the range is wide — in the months of May-October, Much Ado About Nothing, The Taming of the Shrew, Antony & Cleopatra, The Comedy of Errors and Richard III will take to the Globe stage, alongside the modern play Princess Essex and the all-ages production Rough Magic. Generally, this announcement has received positive reception — however, controversy has been sparked regarding the casting decision made for the lead role in Richard III: the Globe’s Artistic Director, Michelle Terry. Terry has been the Artistic Director at the Globe Theatre since 2018, and has within that time starred in a number of Globe productions, including playing the title role in their critically-acclaimed 2018 production of Hamlet and doubling as Cordelia and Fool in the 2022 production of King Lear. The controversy in question centres around the fact that Terry is an able-bodied actor, and Richard is a character — in fact, the only character in Shakespeare — who is explicitly referred to as disabled in the text, with many believing that, in a society in which many disabled people lack the opportunities afforded to others, the role of Richard III should be reserved for actors with disabilities.
The history of Richard III and the presentation of his disability is fascinating: despite having been portrayed by Shakespeare and precedent 16th century writers as severely deformed, with a hunchback, a withered arm, and teeth visible since his birth, evidence uncovered when Richard’s body was exhumed in 2012 proves otherwise — he is proven to have had scoliosis, not kyphosis, the condition that was previously assumed given his presentation in history as a ‘hunchback’, and there is no evidence at all of the historical Richard III having had a deformity in his arm or a full set of teeth from birth. Shakespeare’s character, however, who ought to be distinguished from the historical figure, is explicitly disabled, and there are many derogatory references to this within the text: he is called a ‘lump of foul deformity’, a ‘bunch-backed toad’, and in his opening soliloquy he refers to himself as ‘deformed, unfinished […] scarce half made-up’. This soliloquy, alongside others made by Richard’s character in Henry VI Part Three, describe how Richard has spent his life ostracised and mocked for his disability (‘Why, love foreswore me in my mother’s womb […] Am I then a man to be beloved? / O monstrous thought, to harbour such a fault!’ (3H6 3.2.155-166)), and this becomes something which contributes to his ruthless ambition for the Crown. Given how fundamental the concept of Richard’s disability appears to his motivations as a character, therefore, it seems natural that, in a 21st century in which the artistic industries are consciously focused on achieving inclusivity and eliminating discrimination, Shakespeare’s only disabled character should be portrayed on stage by a disabled actor, in the same way as one would nowadays expect Black characters such as Othello, whose ethnicity is integral to his story, to be played by a Black actor.
In 2022, the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) directed their first ever production of Richard III to star a disabled actor, Arthur Hughes, in the title role, with director Gregory Doran stating his belief that only disabled actors should perform the role professionally until they ‘have the opportunities across the board now more widely afforded to other actors’. (This statement is itself a real indicator of the progress that has been made in the theatre industry in the last 40 years, especially given that Doran is the husband of the late actor Antony Sher, whose 1984 portrayal of Richard III was iconic and arguably groundbreaking, but whose characterisation methods would today be viewed as highly exploitative towards disabled people.) For many viewers, the fact that Richard was portrayed by Hughes, who has radial dysplasia affecting his right arm, set apart his villainous, conniving nature from his disability entirely: the character’s disability was, for once, genuine and not a caricature, ensuring that this was not presented as the sole cause or explanation for his tyranny and thus allowing for a more nuanced interpretation to be made.
Can it be said, therefore, given the success of this production and given the very real disadvantage that marginalised actors face within the theatre industry, that the character of Richard III ought only ever to be portrayed by a disabled actor? There is certainly an argument to be made for this — however, given the reason that the 2022 Hughes portrayal was so effective, I believe it may still be possible to have able-bodied actors portray the role without exploiting disabled people or portraying the character as an unfair caricature. Especially as we know now that the historical Richard’s disability was not as severe as it was made out to be by Tudor writers, and that it may not even have been noticeable the majority of the time — interestingly, Queen Elizabeth II had exactly the same spinal condition — it ought to be possible for able-bodied actors to play the role without forcing a visible disability at all. If all the references to ‘deformity’ were kept in the script, yet no physical disability was portrayed, this may well accentuate the extent to which the unwarranted abuse from those around Richard has shaped his character, driving him to the point that he needs to prove himself as a bloodthirsty ruler in order that he might have worth. Richard internalises the hatred others show until it becomes an intrinsic part of him that he cannot shake, and although the disgust shown by other characters would still be extremely wrong if he did have the visible conditions the text assumes he does, perhaps this attitude directed towards someone who appears able-bodied would add a further dimension to the exploration of disability in the play, highlighting the incredibly damaging and ostracising effects of ableist behaviours.
It depends upon the particular direction individual productions wish to take. If a director wishes to focus on Richard’s disability as a key aspect of their interpretation, I would agree with Doran and with many others who have vocalised their opinions since the Globe’s casting was announced: in a period in which so many efforts are finally being made to increase inclusivity in the theatre, able-bodied actors should not be cast in the role if they are then made to force a disability they do not have. I would argue that disability does not need to be a theme, however — in a statement issued by the Globe on Twitter following backlash against the casting of Michelle Terry, they confirmed that ‘this production of Richard III is an interrogation of Richard’s abuse of power and pathological narcissism, why some of the characters in the play seem to support his path to tyranny in an age of impunity, and why we the audience seem so endlessly seduced by the charisma of evil’, a fascinating direction to explore, and one which does not necessarily need to highlight the character’s disability at all. The Globe’s production will not open until 9th May 2024, and until this date or at least until official trailers are released there is no way of knowing how Terry will portray the character. However, given the strides in accessibility being made by the Globe in other respects, such as the fact that their recently announced 2024 production of Antony & Cleopatra will use both spoken English and British Sign Language, and that assisted performances of each production (relaxed, captioned, audio-described and signed) are available, perhaps we ought to trust the Globe that they will approach this portrayal of Richard III, particularly regarding his disability, with sensitivity.
It is already clear from the casting that the production will not remain completely faithful to the character: Michelle Terry is a female actor, and while it is an exciting development that an increasing number of women are being cast professionally in male roles, this does prove that a certain amount of artistic license will already be taken as to the authenticity of the character. It should, therefore, still be possible to present a production of Richard III with an able-bodied actor in the title role that does not fall victim to ableist stereotypes; whether the Globe will do so or not remains to be seen, but as it stands, given the interpretation the director has chosen to make, I believe that this does not necessarily condemn them to a problematic production, and I for one eagerly anticipate what Michelle Terry’s performance will bring to the role.
https://www.shakespearesglobe.com/whats-on/richard-iii/
https://richardiii.net/finding-reburying-richard/background/
https://www.shakespearesglobe.com/visit/access/upcoming-assisted-performances/
https://www.shakespearesglobe.com/whats-on/antony-and-cleopatra/
Comments
Post a Comment
Comments with names are more likely to be published.