Was Ever A Choice So Hard To Make!? A New Appreciation for Greenhill Directors...

  

Thank you Greenhill for guiding and inspiring our conversation last Friday and Monday! In our attempt to respond to your posting, we came full circle in our conclusions: we both have a new appreciation for the kind of sacred respect that is practiced by literary communities when engaging Shakespeare’s texts (all lines seem to matter!!) and have gained a new admiration for the efforts made by directors like that at Greenhill because cutting lines is tough.

On the first cut: We used a different edition, but if we understood the cut correctly, Greenhill suggested eliminating the lines when Derby/Stanley converses with Queen Elizabeth before Richard makes his entrance in scene 3. Both Sumer and Cole seemed to resist making such a cut:

Sumer: While the dialogue between Queen Elizabeth and Derby is short, cutting it would hinder both literary analysts and theatre spectators. I worry that, without those lines, we lose full view of how Elizabeth is perceived by other characters other than Richard. In the short exchange between the Queen and the men of her court, Elizabeth forgives Derby, almost before greeting him, for the hate his wife bears for her. This demonstrates that, while not as cunning as Richard, Queen Elizabeth does have her wits about her. In return, Derby apologizes to his Grace for his wife's words and even goes as far as to imply that her dislike stems from some kind of deficiency. Those eight or so lines demonstrate that not only Richard carries a low opinion of the “common-born” Queen, but it also shows her ability to influence and intimidate others, shown in Derby's immediate condemnation of his wife. The original first cuts by Greenhill do make sense and move the action along, but the cut also closes the scope on an already narrowly-viewed character such as Queen Elizabeth.

Cole: On first thought, cutting Elizabeth's lines with Derby seems like one of the best ways to make the appropriate cuts for shortening the length and focusing our attention on the primary action. After some analysis, I think the lines show that Elizabeth’s position could be weaker than we realized. Also, Elizabeth’s and Derby’s words show that there are divided alliances even after the War of the Roses.   Also some of Elizabeth's persuasive personality is shown in these lines.  She is able to confront Derby very quickly, making him share his thoughts about his wife.   Like Greenhill, these are the cuts I would make, but upon in depth analysis I worry if it would take away from Elizabeth’s character.​

Anuj, however, agreed with the suggested cuts: In the first cut suggested by Greenhill, the behavior of the wife of the Earl of Derby was brought up by Queen Elizabeth as being rather scathing and arrogant. Queen Elizabeth's mention of Lord Stanley's wife's behavior shows that the Queen has the ability to verbally put someone on the defensive in a conversation, but these short lines under consideration do not present any main ideas for the scene, instead showing peripheral subjects that would not be missed in a reading or performance. With the need to cut lines from the scene in mind, I agree that the ejection of this short discourse would not harm the mechanics of the scene and would therefore be an appropriate cut.

On the second cut: We had a great discussion about Margaret’s role in the play, and we considered the effect of cutting some of her more repetitive asides. Here’s what we realized:

Nick agreed: Queen Margaret had many asides and they all seemed to have the same effect, making this appear to be a great cut. These asides do emphasize, however, Margaret's resentment and bitterness to the other families while making her look a little crazy. They show her character. The Director of Drama here at Oakridge suggested that Margaret should be treated as a character "on the side," and following the script, Margaret does enter unnoticed by anyone (stage directions state, "Enter Old Margaret, [apart from others.]"). So I do think cutting some of her lines could help move the scene forward without taking much away.

Cade had some doubts: On first read, cutting some of Margaret's lines seemed like a very logical and easy decision, but the more I considered it, the more I saw her repeated lines as necessary for her portrayal to the audience. I think we are to see her as one who is crazy and able to see the future, and her asides add to her appearance making her over-dramatic and even annoying. As a reader, her lines and asides did seem irritating or obnoxious perhaps, but maybe this is exactly how Shakespeare wanted us to feel about this character. Although it is very easy to declare all Shakespeare’s lines as relevant, it is much more difficult to actually cut them and I believe the Greenhill students did an excellent job at this.

Ana presented a suggestion: I think Margaret is an interesting, foreshadowing character. I feel like she shows us what Queen Elizabeth might end up being like if her husband dies. In class someone described Margaret as a "grieving, melodramatic widow" whose feelings of bitterness and acrimoniousness tread the line of sanity. But I don’t think this character needs a spotlight for her at center stage, and as a director, I would suggest that other characters talk over her, thereby ignoring her warnings and drowning her voice out. That might be another option, just having characters actively ignore her by talking over her many asides and warnings.

As stated before, we came full circle in this discussion – appreciating both the literary reverence for all of Shakespeare’s words as well as the creative vision and courage demonstrated by directors who work to bring such words to life on the stage for our enrichment. Thanks again Greenhill for stimulating such great discussion here at Oakridge!