Shakespeare's Richard III in Bouffon...

[fajrdrako]

Did you know the term 'in bouffon'? I didn't, though the advertising for this production by A Company of Fools made it clear that it was a kind of medieval theatre in which the actors are (or appear to be) deformed, maimed, or (in the words of the ad) "monsters and freaks". A desultory online search confirmed: "...There are four major families of characters in Bouffon theatre: “There are the hunchbacks, big-bums and big-bellies, dwarfs, and the high priest characters. These people are part of our reality and Bouffon-style theatre makes people realize this.” (from this site). Right. Those types were all present, in various configurations.

"A Company of Fools", whose production of Much Ado About Nothing I so loved in the summer, is doing Shakespeare's Richard III "in bouffon". They define "bouffon" as "evil clown". Right. Okay, said I to myself in my naiveté, I guess this is one of those productions in which Richard of Gloucester will be a hunchback.

Wrong. Well, mostly wrong. I suppose, strictly speaking, he was a hunchback - his shoulders, insofar as he had them, certainly didn't match - but more significantly, he had no limbs at all. The other characters were likewise freakish, though more mobile. And the whole production was heavily eroticized, as the characters spent a lot of the show fondling, groping, licking, or casually kissing each other. Later on the characters were likewise licking, kissing and fondling their various bloody weapons. Various and assorted grossnesses were part of the action.

Powerful stuff.

Beyond the shock value, it was well-acted Shakespeare. The lines were beautifully delivered. Close your eyes and it sounded like a normal production. Open your eyes and... well. Flinch. I found myself wondering whether Shakespeare had really put in all those amazing double-entendres and overt sexual references - and concluded that he had. And usually the history plays look so respectable. What this production added - besides the 'in bouffon' style - was funny and inventive. The show started with the characters humming "O Canada" behind Gloucester's initial speech.

It was incredibly creative. If it had been less well-acted, it might not have made me quite so uncomfortable. Michael Brunet was particularly good as the powerful but limbless Richard III. Intense and expressive.

It was very funny, and I laughed quite a bit. But it felt weird to be laughing at it, when it was so very black. I closed my eyes sometimes, when I thought it was particuarly gross, and just concentrated on the beautifully-delivered lines.

The advertising for the show announced that it was unsuitable for children. There were children there anyway - they looked a little shell-shocked by the end, though I suppose most of the more bizarre sexual references were over their heads. If I had seen it at, say, ten, I couldn't have handled it; but then, I was (and am) a wimp. I'd have had nightmares for months.

There were six actors playing all the roles in Richard III. Sometimes they changed their hats to indicate which they were; a few parts were played by puppets, or with masks - but the costumes and the deformities never changed. Since the misshapenness of each actor was a dominant feature, I found it much more difficult to figure who was who from scene to scene, or when actors were the same character and when they were playing someone different. That many of the roles were cross-gendered didn't help particularly, though I'm not sure how much it hindered.

In some ways, the extreme grotesqueries made it all more poignant. And the pious Richmond, in the end, as scary in his way as the evil Richard.

I was left with the feeling that this was 'genuine' theatre in a way we seldom see - reaching rather deeply into the psyche and reaching levels we don't often try to touch in our rather cleansed and usually-politically-correct world.

To quote the programme: "There is nothing in the heart of Bouffon that does not exist in the heart of all of us." Scary thought, given that this is a play about murder, heartlessness and the ruthless pursuit of power at any cost.

Comments

[gem225.livejournal.com]

Wow. That sounds like something I'd love to see but not alone. I'm very glad that you went to see it and wrote about it.

I was fortunate enough to see Nathan Lane in Butley (http://www.bu.edu/huntington/0304/butley/index.html) yesterday, and I wish that you'd have been there to see it too. He was marvelous, and all the male characters was gay, *and* Butley had a comment about subtext. *happy sigh* None of them kissed, though, but that's how it goes.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I'm glad I saw it too. It was quite an experience. I don't know how much I actually *enjoyed* it, but that isn't the point.... It was like being stretched, emotionally.

"Butley" looks terrific - I wish I could see it!

[dargit.livejournal.com]

Don't forget the SOCK'N'BUSKIN performance of Hamlet
http://www.carleton.ca/socknbuskin/mainstage.html

EEP. looks like we will have to try to see both next weekend.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Maybe I can get to "Hamlet" next Saturday - I'd hate to miss it. Too much good theatre, too little time! (Maybe I'll see you there.)