MIHAI MANIUTIU'S RICHARD III: INWARDNESS RENDERED VISIBLE

Abstract

The paper analyses Mihai Maniutiu’s 1993 producction of Richard III at the Odeon Theatre (Bucarest. It stresses upon the fact that this staging is neither an illustration not a translation or fulfilment, but a supplement, a term extrapolated by Marvin Carlson from Derrida’s of Grammatology, Consequently the paper compromises extensive comments on what was omitted from the text or changed in the order of scenes and in what was added at the paraverbal level, with explanations of the relevance of such “inerventions” for the global meaning of the production. The former process is clearly exemplified by the elimination of some characters, Richmond. Richard’s nephews, or by beginning the performance with parts of the soliloquy Richard delivers on the battlefield at the end of the play. The latter process evinces such valuable additions as: the threatening omnipresence of a group of warriors with stylized movements, reminiscent of the castle-like dimension of the Japanese war rituals, that render visible on stage the idea of a cruel dictator ruling absolutely through the sheer terror engendered by the military force he relies on: The figure with o wolf’s head, a directorial construct, Richard’s double, his shadow: the visualization of his primary, aggressive animality, Buckingham viewed as fascinated by Richard’s dark demonic restless side, following him because he cannot do otherwise the two being caught in the net of a terrible game the play with childish obstinacy, the director thus advancing shocking oxymoronic proposition, a candour of cruelty, a candour of crime, an interpretation sustained by Shakespeare himself when he describes Richard as “too childish and foolish for this world”, the effective use of a theatrical object, an apple, that metonymically reinforces the miraculous and malevolent temptation of power, while the rolling of apples from the king’s crown in the end unequivocally functions as a warning signal for Richard and the audience of haste with which the mechanism of history will soon absorb him too; the use of candles and torches all along the performance with the exception of the ending where the strong light in the background cannot in death represents an object of supreme fascination Richard goes to with widely opened eyes, burning with curiosity. It’s thus obvious that the production exploits to excess the suggestive power of the visual signs. It is an approach that gave no other option to the director but to adhere to a postmodern conception of character as a combination of numerous projections, adopted stances, stylizations, as a network of selves. This but in line with his strong belief that “proteanism, to he more people all the time, is the most authentic source of theatricality”. That is why in Maniutiu’s view, Richard’s secret energy that delights and terrifies, his Machiavellian virtuosity and cynicism join to shape a consummate play-actor attracted only by the mechanism of the game he is playing, a personality with charisma that deep down in his innermost recesses is flooded by aggressive, diabolic urges rendered visible by his double.