I had the pleasure of seeing Richard III at Nicu’s Spoon Theatre. I had a wonderful experience, and I would recommend it to any fan of the play (it’s my favorite) who is in the New York City area.

The title role was played by Henry Holden, who has an artificial leg and used crutches to get around the stage. This was presented as Richard’s deformity. However, the actor skillfully embodied such a deformity of spirit in the role that the artificial leg was quickly overshadowed. This physicality was especially important, since Holden only spoke the lines that Richard speaks to the audience. When Richard was in public, his lines were spoken by a second actor, Andrew Hutcheson, who was positioned upstage left with a lectern and a reading light, while Holden remained as the physical Richard.

Typically, such production concepts turn me off immediately, but it worked particularly well here, in no small part due to the richly resonant voice of Hutcheson who overflowed the small house with Shakespeare the way it was meant to be performed. (His bio says he toured as the Beast in Beauty and, so that should give you a sense of the instrument at work here.) Also, having two actors playing Richard highlighted the contrast between Public Richard and Private Richard. The director (Heidi Lauren Duke) also had the freedom to underscore the more poignant moments by having a character deliver a line addressed to Richard to Hutcheson instead of Holden, or to have both actors speak a line in unison. And Hutcheson turning off his reading lamp to signify Richard’s death was a nice touch.

It would be difficult to review this show without mentioning the performance of Wynne Anders in the role of Queen Margaret. That’s a fantastic role, and she was absolutely riveting every moment she was on stage. But for me, the standout performance of the show was in the role of Queen Elizabeth, played by Rebecca Challis. In the scene with Richard, after he has killed her children, I could really feel her pain and hatred. That’s a tough scene (my favorite), and she nailed it.

Tickets are a steal at $18, and the theatre is conveniently located at 38 W 38th Street, between 5th and 6th Avenues. Hurry if you want to see it; the play is only running one more week. It closes on July 29.

If you do see the show, you can discuss it in the comments section of this post. If you really like the show, you can give them some good buzz at the New York Innovative Theatre Awards website.

WARNING: Comments may contain further discussion of the show, including potential spoilers.

From Othello:

Speak of me as I am; nothing extenuate,
Nor set down aught in malice: then, must you speak
Of one that lov’d not wisely but too well;
Of one not easily jealous, but, being wrought,
Perplex’d in the extreme;

Shift around the letters, and it becomes:

To augur the noble general as known ex-football player, we only meant to go to that unusual eye-opening nexus moment when O.J. Simpson kept to the text to fume “If I did this, it was because I loved her.”

I’ve been meaning to respond to this for some time:

Besides, in Rosse’s speech, the true hero of the battle in Fife is unnamed, referred to only as “Bellona’s bridegroom.”

But, wait – Fife. Fife is an important place in the play. Why? Because Macduff is the Thane of Fife.

Which means that it is Macduff who has captured Cawdor, turned back the Norwayan king, and won not only the battle but a huge sum of ransom from the enemy forces.

He’s talking about Macbeth, and if you read the scene in question, you’ll see two men, each of whom describes a battle. The first was fought by Macbeth. The second was fought by “Bellona’s bridegroom,” a reference to Mars, the Roman god of war. The question is – Is Bellona’s bridegroom meant to refer to Macbeth? Conventional wisdom says yes, but the Master of Verona says no, and his argument is worth reading. But let’s take a closer look.

I can see where, looking strictly at the text, you can make a case that Bellona’s bridegroom can’t be Macbeth. But assuming it’s Macduff is a bit of an overreach, and I think it would be a good time to revisit the distinction between a strong production concept and a close textual analysis. It seems to me there are three possibilities:

1. The two men are describing the same battle. It would not be unusual for Shakespeare, having written two accounts of the same battle, to have used them both. If Macdonwald is the Thane of Cawdor and the Norwayan lord refers to Norway himself, the two descriptions could be of the same battle. This seems unlikely, but I wanted to throw it out there all the same.

2. The two men are describing different battles, and Bellona’s bridegroom is Macbeth. This is troubling, for the reasons described by the Master of Verona. Also, Bellona’s bridegroom is described as having personally confronted Cawdor, and in the next scene, Macbeth seems unaware that anything is amiss with the wayward Thane:

By Sinel’s death I know I am Thane of Glamis;
But how of Cawdor? the Thane of Cawdor lives,
A prosperous gentleman;

So if Bellona’s bridegroom really is Macbeth, whether we have one battle or two, Shakespeare’s got some ‘splainin’ to do.

3. The two men are describing different battles, and Bellona’s bridegroom is not Macbeth. This makes sense dramatically, if the purpose of the scene was to show how Macbeth becomes the Thane of Cawdor. The description of the second battle shows how the title of Cawdor becomes available and the first battle demonstrates Macbeth’s deserving of it. It also would explain how Macbeth is unaware of Cawdor’s defeat. But then who is Bellona’s bridegroom? I like the idea that it’s Macduff, and it may have been Shakespeare’s intention, but it’s not in the text. Neither is there any textual strife between Macduff and Duncan. But it’s a brilliant production concept, and I think it would work well on stage.

So none of the solutions turn out to be particularly satisfying. My guess (and a guess it is) is that there were two battles and Bellona’s bridegroom is Macbeth. I think Shakespeare just didn’t notice or didn’t care about the errors and inconsistencies. Those who wish to argue that a genius of Shakespeare’s caliber would never make such an error need only to look at the opening moments of the original version of the scene in question, where Shakespeare clearly indicates a “bleeding Captain” in the stage directions, but when Duncan asks “What bloody man is this?”, Malcolm replies:

This is the Sergeant…

Clearly, we are putting way more thought into this than Shakespeare did.

I can’t think of a good Conundrum today, so you get an extra bonus Shakespeare Anagram.

From Romeo and Juliet:

O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father, and refuse thy name;
Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I’ll no longer be a Capulet.

Shift around the letters, and it becomes:

Your name alone is my enemy.

Every other thing is of a powerful centerfold model that a hot babe would turn wanton for or rot.

Lo, be thou here more!

Via the Shakespeare Geek, I see where Teller from Penn & Teller is doing Macbeth. It’s opening in New Jersey in mid-January, and will be at the Folger in Washington throughout March.

I hope I get a chance to check that out!

From The Winter’s Tale:

Exit, pursued by a bear.

Shift around the letters, and it becomes:

“A Ursa? Bye!” (But expired.)

I haven’t had much time for the blog this week, since I’ve been working at the Teaching Shakespeare Institute, a week-long intensive study course for teachers of Shakespeare. Shakespeare teachers, if you will.

I’m really exhausted, so I’ll just say for now that my fellow instructors are all extremely talented and professional, and the teachers taking the course are passionate and dedicated. It’s been such an incredible pleasure to work with them all this week.

And I see that Shakespeare Teacher Special Feature II has been almost entirely completed in my absence. Most excellent. The STSF was supposed to replace the weekly features, but now that it’s solved, I may decide to post a new riddle tomorrow morning anyway.

But for now, I’m going to bed.

Well, I’m off to the Shakespeare Teacher institute. I’m very excited about being a part of this, but it means that I may have to step away from the blog for a few days. I’ll post when I can, but I’ll probably be more interested in blogging about the institute than in keeping up with my regular features.

But what if I could once again leave behind just one post that combines my most popular regular features for the week? Why, we’d just have to call that Shakespeare Teacher Special Feature II: The Magic Word! Here’s how it breaks down:

• I. Thursday Morning Riddle: Please find below four brand-new riddles. Each riddle is numbered. Once you’ve solved the riddles, replace each number in the Venn Diagram below with the answer to the riddle that has that number.
• II. Shakespeare Anagram: Once the numbers have been replaced by the riddle answers, the letters in each circle of the Venn Diagram can be anagrammed into the title of a Shakespeare play. However, this can only be done after the question mark in the center section is replaced by a magic word. What is the magic word? And what are the three play titles?

(Actually, the letters that form the magic word can form several words, but only one of the combinations will make sense to fill in the blank below.)

• III. Conundrum: Last week’s challenge was to come up with 26 words, plurals commonly used in English, each of which had a different final letter. This week’s challenge is to come up with 26 words, any words commonly used in English, each of which has a different ______ letter. (Fill in the blank with the magic word from the center section of the Venn Diagram.)

Use the comments section below to register any and all answers, discussion, and comments. I won’t be around much the next couple of days to moderate this, so please work together. If someone posts an answer you think is right, go ahead and say so and offer some words of encouragement. Also, feel free to pass this along to anyone you think may be interested. Here is the direct link.

The Riddles:

1. I’m a town or a bar where they might serve a sling;
The condition of clothing you might need to wring;
I’m a nurse that gives milk to another’s offspring;
And I’m slippery roads as Bon Jovi might sing.

Who am I? (3 letters)

2. Elementary I, eighty-eight on the table;
In the dorm or the lab, I’m a student who’s able;
I’m the god of the sun in Egyptians’ old fable;
And you say me three times when you hope your team’s stable.

Who am I? (2 letters)

3. I am found in Gerardo’s distinct greatest hit;
In a fifty-first state we may someday admit;
I am laws for when businessmen aren’t legit;
And a player in Just Cause who’s violent a bit.

Who am I? (4 letters)

4. I’m a poet Romantic and Mary’s fond spouse;
I am Ratcliffe’s own dog in a film by the Mouse;
I’m where Arafat’s death watch caused many to grouse;
And I’m surname to Hotspur – Northumberland’s house.

Who am I? (5 letters)

So the solutions to this feature are four riddle answers, one magic word, three play titles, and up to 26 Conundrum words.

Good luck!

UPDATE: Riddles 1-4, Circles A, B, C, and the magic word all solved by Annalisa. Conundrum answers provided by Annalisa (15) and me (5). See comments for answers. 6 letters still open.

From Cymbeline:

Fear no more the heat o’ the sun,
Nor the furious winter’s rages;
Thou thy worldly task hast done,
Home art gone, and ta’en thy wages;
Golden lads and girls all must,
As chimney-sweepers, come to dust.

Shift around the letters, and it becomes:

There’s no need to shun death, that has neither hot days nor dark stormy nights.

Life is so much worse that you may as well go now and get compensated for earned tumult.

Age sneers. Gallows rule!

From King Richard II:

For God’s sake, let us sit upon the ground
And tell sad stories of the death of kings:

Shift around the letters, and it becomes:

Plantagenet’s ass took to the dirt and thus sighed OK eulogies for snuffed lords.

UPDATE: A more family-friendly version…

Plantagenet’s tush took to the dirt and so asked eulogies for snuffed lords. (Sigh!)