The popularity of Shakespeare’s most performed play appears to have been carried over to the medium of television, with no fewer than nine programmes featuring King Richard, to a larger or lesser extent, being made and broadcast since 2002. Of these nine programmes, the Society has provided input in terms of a ‘talking head’ or information to the producers for five, and the Society is delighted to have had these opportunities to put forward an alternative view of King Richard.
The Society tracks references to Richard
III in the press and other media and these are published regularly in
the Society’s magazine the Ricardian Bulletin.
November 2006
On Thursday 30 November 2006, BBC2 aired another episode in their Castle in the Country series featuring Mount Stuart on the Isle of Bute, seat of the Marquess of Bute. Presenter John Craven interviewed the Marquess' archivist Andrew McLean, who produced a letter allegedly written by King Richard III, entrusted to Sir James Tyrell for delivery to a 'worthie governour'. In the document the 'governour' is told that the king is 'transferring our confidence as hee shall speak and doe signe', in other words Tyrell will tell all to the 'Governour', who will act accordingly.
The inference was, of course, that the governor in question has responsibility for the Tower of London, and as Tyrell had allegedly confessed to the murder of the Princes, the matter to be discussed is their disposal. Significantly the letter is dated 29 June 1483, just three days after Richard was proclaimed king.
Mr McLean commented that 'this may well be a crucial piece of evidence in solving the mystery of this most controversial episode in English history'. He continued 'we don't know if it maybe means something produced afterwards to discredit Richard or not but it may well be the original'. John Craven's closing comment was that 'with the help of this letter, who knows - it might even change history as we know it'.
If genuine
this would indeed be a document of great importance but was it genuine?
The Society's research committee made a careful examination of a copy
of the letter and concluded it was a fake. For the full story see Press
Releases.
Spring 2006
On Monday 30 January a question on the popular BBC2
programme ‘University Challenge’ asked the teams what was the ritual
punishment meted out to John Wycliff, and Richard III. A correct answer
was not forthcoming and Jeremy Paxman supplied it [sic] – ‘they
were posthumously beheaded’. Not surprisingly a number of members were
upset by this and Society President and former Research Officer, Peter
Hammond, has since commented:
‘It certainly does sound very odd to include Richard
III in any list of people whose bodies were mutilated in ‘punishment’
after death. It is difficult to see what the question-setters
had in mind unless they had a garbled memory of his bones being disinterred
and thrown into the river Soar at the Reformation. So far as we
know this wasn't in ‘punishment’ although who knows why it was done
(if it was) since so far as we know other burials from the Blackfriars
were not so treated. One other thing they might have had in mind
was that his head is said to have struck the parapet of Bow Bridge as
the body was carried back into Leicester on the back of a horse after
the battle. The body certainly wasn't being treated kindly but
this again was not a punishment in the sense that Cromwell's body was
treated badly after the Restoration.’
Joan Stephenson writes
‘Whilst watching Channel 5’s American import, CSI-New York, I was astounded
when the senior detective (Mac Taylor) answered a colleague’s comment
about things not being what they seemed: sorting through the evidence
and not looking up, he muttered, "like strawberries and Richard
III". Colleague looked baffled and moved on. The credits revolve
so fast that it was not possible to see the studio’s name, but Andrew
Lipsitz is shown as the writer, and Gary Sinese (Mac) is listed as a
producer in a long list of associate and executive directors. Will there
be future developments, and who is the friend in high places?’
Winter 2005
Dramatic
Circles: The BBC documentary series Drama Connections aired on
18 October featured the 1990 drama series House of Cards and
included an interview with Ian Richardson who played the villain, Francis
Urquhart.
One of the rather unusual aspects of the serial was Urquhart’s
frequent appeals direct to the camera and therefore the audience. In
effect he was explaining his motives and actions, which Richardson likened
to another character he had played on stage, Richard III. However, what
struck me as rather curious was a clip from the series which showed
Urquhart, I believe meant to be incognito, dressed in a light linen
suit, panama hat and some rather distinctive sunglasses. The image was
familiar and came from a film in which the ‘villain’ was being driven
in a limousine with his pill-popping wife Anne. The film? Richard Loncraine’s
Richard III. Was House of Cards the inspiration for the director
or star (Ian McKellen) for this scene or was it pure coincidence?
Contributed by Wendy Moorhen
Summer 2005
‘According
to BBC “Midlands Today” there is a chip shop in Nuneaton called “The
Batter of Bosworth”. It is part of their search for the region’s best
fish and chip supper. I’ll let
you know if it wins!’
and:
‘I understand that Dream Factory, working with the inmates of HMP Brixton,
are planning a production of Richard III some time. I doubt if the performance will be open to
the public, but I imagine there will be some fascinating perspectives
on the play’.
Contributed
by Jen Callow
Spring 2005
The repeat of Tony
Robinson’s Fact or Fiction: Richard
III on Discovery Channel in November yielded comment:
Metro 12
November, ‘ ... presents a new and intriguing spin on the reputation
of Richard III, who has been maligned throughout the ages. Richard, famous for murdering his two nephews, was a much more complex
figure than the man remembered in popular myth. His hunchback, for example,
has been much overstated’. Radio
Times, 6-12 November: ‘... film on England’s last medieval king,
most famous for murdering his two nephews.
Far from being the hunchbacked child-killer of Shakespeare’s
Richard III, the king, we learn, was perfectly formed and a dutiful
brother to Edward IV, only turning bloody after his death. And a revelation
about Edward’s parentage throws new light on Richard’s real motivation
for murder’.
Contributed by Ruth
Margolis
‘George
... er.. Richard ... er ... George III.
The announcement of the BBC2 programme Timewatch on 11 December
2004 in a Dutch TV Guide: ‘Historical documentary:
How mad was George III? Documentary
about Richard III who sat on the British throne for some 60 years.’
Contributed
by Livia Visser-Fuchs
Channel
4: Monarchy presented by David Starkey (2005)
The
second half of David Starkey’s television series on Britain’s monarchy
resumed in the autumn of 2005 on Channel 4. Viewers may remember that
the first half ended just prior to Richard taking the throne of England
and we all waited with baited breath to see how he, Starkey, would deal
with Richard.
Despite forebodings
Starkey painted a not unreasonable picture of Richard, considering the
style in which he has dealt with the other monarchs and it is evident
from this he has no liking for the monarchy. On the plus side he did
not rehash the usual myth of the hunchback and said that Richard III
was Shakespeare’s stage villain and that before the lure of the crown
got to him, he was ‘a good brother’. On the debit side he did leave
the murder of the princes in the Tower an open question and also suggested
that Richard was present in the Tower the night that Henry VI died,
although on which night Henry died or whether Richard was present is
of course unproven.
In viewing this series it should be remembered that Starkey is not doing
a straight-forward historical record of Britain’s monarchy; he has a
theme and that is that power once gained corrupts and changes people
dramatically, or to be more precise when they become monarchs.
To quote Starkey – ‘Lust, betrayal, plots, treason and murder
– the story of our monarchy is more gory than glory’. However, it was
interesting to see Starkey’s take on Sir John Fortescue and his ‘Governance’
which seemed to be drafted in purely to support Starkey’s particular
theme. The ‘Governance’ compares the English and French monarchies and
although the latter monarchs may well have had the opportunity to tax
the populace directly, the problem of ‘over-mighty’ nobles was surely
an issue both sides of the channel.
Although some Society members were undoubtedly upset
by Starkey’s portrayal of Richard it must be some compensation that
Henry VII came off much, much worse. Starkey says that although Henry
started out as a man full of ideals he in fact ended up being a suspicious
money-grabbing miser.
However, credit where credit is due. Starkey has a compelling
manner on screen. He appears to have gravitas and throughout
the programme made clear, concise statements, which to the uninitiated
appear to be the absolute truth. Of course Ricardians know enough to
challenge those statements.
As a response to this programme Chairman Phil
Stone has written to Channel 4, the Daily Telegraph, the Radio
Times and BBC History pointing out the unsubstantiated statements
that Starkey made, thus helping to continue the black history begun
by the Tudors to justify their usurpation of the crown.
Channel 5: Britain’s Greatest Monarchs (2005)
Broadcast in June
2005 this programme featured a panel of politicians and historians,
writers and commentators who each represented an English monarch. Each
representative was given a brief opportunity to put the case for their
monarch and the remainder of the programme consisted of a debate between
the panel. Despite Dr Anne Sutton’s skilful advocacy of King Richard
the prejudice displayed by Anne Widdcombe MP and Prof. David Carpenter,
together with the time constraints of the programme, led to a poor result
for King Richard in the rankings.
BBC:
Medieval Lives (2004)
Hard
on the heels of the book which accompanies this series, Terry Jones,
Python turned scholar, brought medieval life to television, concentrating
on eight different archetypes: Peasant, Outlaw, Physician, Minstrel,
Monk, Knight, Damsel and King, with a view to debunking all the myths
that have grown up around them. Were peasants really downtrodden, ignorant
and died young? Were all women damsels in distress, helpless and dependent
on knights in shining armour to rescue them? Were knights all chivalrous
and honourable? Were kings all tyrants? Terry Jones proved that in every
case, the truth was very different from the myth.
In
the episode on kings, Terry Jones showed Richard III in a favourable,
fair and positive light. The Society released a press
release to coincide with this episode. It reads as follows:
‘The
Richard III Society welcomes the episode in Terry Jones's series Medieval
Lives which focused on kings and was broadcast on 29 March on BBC2.
The programme took an enlightened view of King Richard III, contrasting
the mythological king of Tudor propaganda with the known facts about
his life and reign. Mr Jones recognised a king who is both able and
energetic, and demonstrated an understanding of the circumstances in
which Richard became king and a realistic analysis of the realpolitik
issues he faced.
Terry
Jones has recently stated that there is a real need to challenge many
of the assumptions we hold about the Middle Ages and his television
series and accompanying book have certainly done this. He has addressed
the need for a reassessment of the reputations of a number of our medieval
monarchs. Those reputations in many instances have been determined by
either favourable or hostile contemporary propaganda; never more so
than with Richard III. All efforts to restore some balance to our understanding
of these monarchs are to be welcomed.’
The
programme was reviewed in the Summer issue of the Bulletin by Geoffrey Wheeler: ‘With the reigns of all three Richards to cover
in thirty minutes (as well as England’s “unknown king” Louis of
France who apparently ruled for only 18 months) the concluding episode
of BBC TV’s “Terry Jones’ Medieval
Lives: the King” posed quite a challenge. Wearing his scholarship lightly,
with a jokey, almost embarrassed style, he had appeared throughout,
firstly introducing each stereotype, in costume. So for Richard III,
a few predictable excerpts from the stage of Shakespeare’s Globe opened
the proceedings, though the Terry Gilliam “Python”- inspired animated
medieval manuscripts were kept to a minimum. The Windsor portrait, he
suggested “could be Tudor propaganda against Richard, or modern propaganda
against the Tudors”, evidently favouring the latter, as the “restored”
picture lost more than the scant half inch of actual alteration. For
once the Delaroche Princes illustrated that “their probable murder became
one of the key planks building the scaffold from which Richard’s reputation
hangs, twisting in the wind”. Obviously
drawing on Kendall’s inference “Richard was more at home
in the north”, and therefore a visit to York and its archives, where
Bishop Langton’s letter was quoted, as well as the city’s “Bosworth
epitaph” was a must. Richard’s “major reforms of the legal system” were
“pretty impressive”, Jones conceded. Summing up he reminded viewers
that “political spin was just as alive in the middle ages as it is today”
and furthermore “history isn’t really what happened, it’s very often
what someone wants us to think happened. So we shouldn't believe everything we’re told,
even if it’s set in stone”.’
It was particularly unfortunate that the BBC’s next ‘history-is-fun’
offering should have followed only three weeks after ‘Medieval Lives’
[in April 2004], and consequently suffered by comparison. Borrowing heavily from children’s books, such as the ‘Horrible Histories’
series and ‘... for dummies’
guides and manuals, Historyonics presented by Nick Knowles (more
familiar in D.I.Y. and ‘makeover’ programmes) attracted almost unanimously
hostile criticism for its first subject, the battle of Hastings. Peter Paterson (Daily Mail, 5 April) called it ‘appalling’, maintaining
‘if you want to do history in an unorthodox way, it comes down to a
choice between the witty and irreverent approach exemplified by the
humorous classic 1066 and All That – where the point is to make
people laugh while dispensing historical knowledge – or the Shakespeare
way recently tried by Jimmy McGovern in Gunpowder, Treason and Plot
in which the facts are sacrificed to gripping drama.
If this ignorant rubbish is now thought to be the way to present
history on TV, then I despair’. But the Sunday Telegraph’s Giles
Smith pointed out ‘To provide gravity and to reassure us that books
have been consulted in the making of the programme, some of them quite
long, and one or two of them completely without pictures, Professor
Ronald Hutton, who is a genuine academic historian, occasionally delivers
a paragraph or two by way of ballast’. So one waited with trepidation
to see what could be inflicted on Richard III, hailed in Radio Times,
where the previewer admitted she ‘particularly liked the portrayal of
the Duke of Buckingham as a medieval Ali G figure, complete with shades,
bling bling and two-fingered rapping gestures’. As it turned out though the programme probably managed to give a
more comprehensive account, in its short time, than the previous efforts
of Tony Robinson and Terry Jones, despite its predicted wacky slant,
where anachronisms abound, all accompanied by a soundtrack of popular
music.
A
number of hard-hitting questions were raised.
From the opening deathbed scene of Edward IV – delivered as a
‘Godfather’ parody – was Richard really designated Protector? Secondly,
the dubious arrest of Hastings ‘the fly in the ointment’, so ‘Richard
and Buckingham fabricated a plot to remove him from the equation’, according
to Hutton, who after a graphic re-enactment of the execution on a block
of wood assured us ‘this really did happen’. After an affecting sob-story
told by Richard of his boyhood traumas, Knowles confronts him with ‘there
were no plots against you’ which brings the rejoinder ‘there might have
been’. And so to the surprise revelations of Bishop Stillington
(on home ground here as a number of scenes used Wells Cathedral
as interior locations, others being filmed at Tretower Court) coming
at a very ‘convenient’ time for Richard.
The
matter of the princes is similarly summed up in a few sentences by Prof.
Hutton. After quoting the Great
Chronicle on their disappearance and the discovery of the bones
in the Tower, he concluded satisfactorily ‘No one could prove they were
the bones of Richard III’s nephews and to this day nobody knows whether
Richard III himself actually killed them.
In fact Tudor historians accused him of killing many more people
he may not have, including Henry VI, and his own brother George, but
we can safely say that there were rumours and that they influenced public
opinion’.
Throughout
the programme, captions giving the death toll had been flagged up and
they now followed thick and fast, as Richard listed his own son and
wife, along with Buckingham, his rebellion being ‘rained off’. Bosworth
(‘the moment that changed history’ – Hutton) or seen in racing terms
by Knowles ‘The Bosworth Cup’, was economically though credibly staged
– Richard’s knights totalling five, pitted against that stereotype beloved
of Society members, of a wimpish Welsh Tudor, with Lord Stanley on the
sidelines, literally ‘testing the wind’ with an upraised finger.
Given
his reputation, most historians would probably agree that, challenged
with the inevitable question (put by Knowles before the end credits)
‘Now, off the record – did you murder the princes’? Richard would be
evasive, but he’s extremely unlikely, as in this case, to lead everyone
in a chorus of ‘I ain’t got no body – No body care for me’!
Contributed by Geoffrey Wheeler
Fact or Fiction? (2004)
The Society
welcomed the new insights into the life and times of Richard III highlighted
in the two Channel 4 programmes presented by Tony Robinson on 3 January
2004. The first of these re-examined the king’s character and motives,
while the second attempted to trace the current ‘heir’ to the House
of York based on the assumption that Edward IV was indeed illegitimate.
The Society
is particularly pleased that the programmes emphasised many of the positive
qualities of Richard as king and Duke of Gloucester. Particular mention
needs to be made of the contribution of The Ricardian editor,
Dr Anne Sutton, who was one of the experts interviewed by Tony Robinson.
Anne gave a composed and authoritative performance, which powerfully
promoted Richard’s personal qualities and his administrative abilities.
Other historians interviewed included Dr Michael K. Jones, Professor
Tony Pollard and Keith Dockray.
The first programme could have handled the key
period between April and July 1483 with more balance, recognising the
realpolitik issues facing Richard and the fact that he was legally
the Lord Protector. For this period there was an over-reliance
on Shakespeare’s melodramatic interpretation.
The crucial relationship with William Lord Hastings in particular
was over-simplified and the programme made the assumption that the princes
were indeed murdered, whereas all we know for certain is that they disappeared
from the Tower at some point during the second half of 1483. Also, the programme did not explore the implications
of the various ‘pretenders’ who surfaced during the reign of Henry VII.
The fact that the most prominent of these, Perkin Warbeck, was accepted
by many as Richard Duke of York does at least suggest that there was
at the time uncertainty about the fate of the two princes.
The debate over the illegitimacy of Edward IV and the
implications that this has both for Richard’s motives and his claim
to the throne is one to which the Society will contribute. The debate is in its early stages, but is an interesting new angle
on the House of York and the behaviour of its members during the late
fifteenth century. The programme
concentrated on Edward’s supposed illegitimacy and rather side-stepped
Richard’s stated rationale for assuming the throne: the pre-contract
with Lady Eleanor Talbot (Lady Butler) and the consequent illegitimacy
of Edward’s children by Elizabeth Woodville.
The involvement of John Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Wells,
both in 1478 at the time of Clarence’s trial for treason and with the
pre-contract revelation in 1483, was also not mentioned.
The Society does however recognise that the circumstances
in which Richard became king and the fate of the Princes in the Tower
and their possible illegitimacy remain areas of controversy.
The quest to establish the current Yorkist ‘heir’
through the line of Margaret Pole was a thorough and entertaining exercise.
However, no account was taken of the attainder of her father, George,
Duke of Clarence, which rendered his heirs ineligible for the throne.
Additionally, the fact that Henry Tudor’s claim was also based on the
right of conquest (as was the claim of the illegitimate William the
Conqueror) was not addressed. Australian members who may not yet have seen
the programme will be interested to note that the traced ‘heir’ is Michael
Hastings, 12th Earl of Loudoun, who has lived in New South Wales since
the early 1960s.
The Society congratulates the programme makers
for their handling of a complicated subject and making it accessible
to a wider audience. We look
forward to building on the positive publicity generated by the programmes.
Kings
and Queens (2003)
In July 2002 Channel 5 broadcast their
programme on Richard III as part of their ‘Kings and Queens’ series.
The Society was concerned at the misrepresentations of the king and
the Research Officer, on behalf of the Society, wrote to Channel 5 expressing
our concerns.
‘I
am writing to express my disappointment with your representation of
Richard III in the programme transmitted this evening in the Kings &
Queens series. Whilst the 'facts', or what we can best ascertain as
facts five hundred years after the events, were to some extent correct,
their presentation was sheer propaganda worthy of the Third Reich. The
duty of a historian, and I presume Mr Spivey has some claim to this
role, is surely to look objectively at his subject and make a sensible
assessment without relying totally on the writings of those not contemporary
to the subject matter. Mr Spivey's tale was based solely on the Tudor
writers seeking to justify a new dynasty that was established by conquest.
They give truth to the maxim that the victors write their own history.
If Mr Spivey had taken the time and trouble to scratch below the traditionalist
surface and examine contemporary primary sources he would have found
a different story. The reputation of Richard, as both duke and king,
has been extensively researched and examined in recent years and the
subject of many books and articles, but there was no indication that
any of these works had been consulted or any acknowledgement there was
an alternative to the Tudor version.
Passing
from generalities to specifics I would pick up on some of the misleading
statements, misconceptions and errors made in the programme. King Edward
IV was undoubtedly responsible for what happened in the aftermath of
Tewkesbury and for Mr Spivey to say 'Richard and his brother' as if
the 18-year-old duke is telling his elder brother and king what to do
is ridiculous. Incidentally, the most notorious desecration of sanctuary
was committed by Richard's successor, Henry VII, in 1486 at Culham.
Likewise, the arrest, trial and execution of Clarence is again the responsibility
of King Edward, who assembled parliament expressly to pass the bill
of attainder against his own brother. There is no record that Richard
agreed to this course of action. The manner of the private execution
of Clarence is unknown; the drowning in a butt of malmsey is pure speculation
but presented as fact by Mr Spivey. Richard led a peripatetic existence
in the north and to state that Middleham was his only home is incorrect
(Prof. Tony Pollard has recently suggested Richard rarely visited the
place). 'The heir', Edward V, was not under arrest in the Tower. Finally,
although this is not a conclusive list of inaccuracies, I was also concerned
at the reference to the bigamy of Edward IV as 'unsubtle propaganda'
when this was the pivotal issue in Richard assuming the throne.
Whilst
I appreciate that in a programme of under thirty minutes’ duration it
is difficult to present a complex subject and keep it interesting and
entertaining, all you have done is peddle old news, and in such a way
as there can be doubt as to its veracity in the viewer's mind! It was
a pity you didn't have the vision to present both sides of the story.
Instead of telling the viewer what to think, why not offer them some
alternatives and let them make up their own minds? The effort has to
be made to look beyond the likes of Shakespeare and More, because they
don't stand up to scrutiny. Just think, if the Princes were murdered
by Richard, why were there so many rumours of their survival in the
next reign (and supported by pretenders)? If Richard was so unpopular
why was the reign of Henry VII and his successors plagued with conspiracies,
rebellions and insurrections? The late medieval period is apparently
no longer a subject taught in schools so the young of today will have
to rely on the media to learn about this period - surely you have a
duty to deliver a balanced view. This evening you failed in that duty.
The series is a children’s
educational television show in which two young investigative reporters,
a boy aged 14 and a girl aged 16 together with a venerable, if sometimes
overzealous stage magician, search for answers to some of the mysteries
on earth and beyond. Each episode includes two storylines and in 2002
the company produced Missing Princes/Ambrose
Small.
The premise the programme
took was that Richard III was innocent of the murder of the princes,
and a representative of the Society was briefly interviewed and asked
who would have framed Richard?
In the Autumn of 2002, Cromwell Productions’ four-part series on the Wars of the Roses was broadcast on The History Channel. The following review appeared in the December 2002 issue of the Society’s magazine, the Bulletin.
As a participant I am perhaps not the best person to review the programme but as I was given a copy of the script and the questions posed to the 'experts' it was interesting to see what was included in the programme and what was not! It followed the tried and tested format that combines landscape photography, historical re- enactment, stills of images and portraits, talking heads and narration. The series opened with The Two Roses and showed how the conflict could be traced back to the Hundred Years War and then moved on to the reign, and deficiencies, of Henry VI up to the first battle of St Albans. The second episode, The Rose of Rouen, picked up the story in May 1455 and continued with the final years of Henry's first reign and closed with King Edward being proclaimed king and his victory at Towton. So far so good. The story has been told competently and supported by 'expert analysis' from Rosemary Horrox and Christine Carpenter of Cambridge, John Watts of Oxford and Leeds-based lecturer and author Ian Dawson. Episode Three, The Kingmaker, charted Warwick's extraordinary career and the first ten years of King Edward's reign culminating in his victories at Barnet and Tewkesbury and the decimation of the Lancastrian cause. The experts were asked to comment on the rumours of cold-blooded assassination that surrounded the Prince of Wales's death at Tewkesbury and how likely it was that Henry VI died of 'pure displeasure and melancholy'. Neither the experts or the script suggested any involvement by King Edward's youngest brother, and this could perhaps lull the Ricardian viewer into a false sense of security. The final words of this episode, however, set the scene for the emergence of the character barely mentioned so far, but who had been 'hovering in the wings' -Richard of Gloucester.
Of course there had been
a clue to the treatment of Richard in the opening title sequence of
each programme, when the portraits of the protagonists were flashed
on screen. The producers chose the Windsor portrait of Richard and the
character portrayal that followed reflected the unpleasant countenance
of this picture. Richard's avarice was raised and illustrated by his
alleged treatment of the countess of Oxford but John Watts suggested
his wrangling with Clarence over the Warwick inheritance was due more
to Clarence's insecurity than Richard's greed. The 'experts' were asked
about the circumstances of Clarence's death and whether there was any
evidence of Richard's involvement. It was made clear that sole responsibility
for his execution rested with King Edward
but Rosemary Horrox added that it was unlikely the king would do such
a thing without at least the 'tacit' approval of his other brother.
From the death of King Edward, however, the remainder of Richard's story
followed the traditional view with Richard 'abducting' his nephew and
'usurping the throne' although the sorrow of the citizens of York on
learning of Richard's death was noted.
What
began as a promising series degenerated into old fashioned prejudice
in the final episode with a script that did not really allow an alternative
presentation of Richard by the participants. What is rather curious
is that the traditional story was centred around Richard's accession
and reign whilst his earlier career remained, by and large, unsullied.
I am not familiar with programmes from this channel but budget certainly
appeared to be an issue and this became very obvious in the court re-enactment
sequences. The costumes ranged from a l2th-century flat cap worn by
'Margaret of Anjou' to an l8th- century dandy complete with a flounced
lace cravat who represented Warwick and plenty of Tudor touches in between.
This series, along with Kings and Queens and The Tower of
London completes a rather dismal representation of King Richard
in 2002. We have no room for complacency.
Wendy
Moorhen
The
Tower (2002)
Channel 4’s ‘The Tower
series’ was broadcast in the spring of 2002. The episode covering the
murder of the princes was reviewed by Christopher Matthew of the Daily
Mail under the title of ‘The Tower and the gory’:
‘One
of the beneficial side-effects of television's passion for the historical
documentary is that it provides gainful employment for scores of actors
who might otherwise be sitting at home waiting for the phone to ring.
Their roles require them to dress up in the costumes of bygone ages,
don a variety of wigs and facial hair, and participate in various historical
reconstructions as kings and queens of England, archers at the Battle
of Agincourt or Black Death victims. They are frequently filmed out
of focus, so there is no need for them to resemble the characters they
are portraying, nor do they often do so. Rarely are they called upon
to deliver lines - or do much in the way of real acting. Indeed, most
might easily be members of a local amateur dramatic society helping
out in a historical tableau at a village carnival.
It
came as quite a surprise, therefore, when in last night's edition of
Channel 4's worthy series on the Tower of London, the actor giving his
Earl of Essex not only played cards with the actress portraying Queen
Elizabeth I and flirted with his besotted sovereign, but launched into
saucy cod-Elizabethan dialogue. Given his imminent fall from grace,
his words were heavy with dramatic irony: "I have but my hearts
to give to Your Majesty," he murmured. "And yet again a spade
to dig myself into an early grave... And indeed the card with which
I have lost: the queen." The old girl fluttered her eye-lashes,
smiled coyly, but said nothing
The
temptation for documentary makers to enliven well-worn historical events
with dramatic reconstructions is rarely successful. Television is never
better than when featuring a compelling personality telling a riveting
story. Producer Simon Everson had been presented with a gift of a story
in the shape of London's most famous historic landmark - especially
so as the subject was one that has drawn countless visitors to the Tower
since Victorian times, namely execution and murder. Several familiar
victims were wheeled on - Essex, the Little Princes, Lady Jane Grey,
Guy Fawkes, the Duke of Monmouth. Their crimes were outlined, their
deaths described in minute detail. We saw a modern reproduction scaffold
being built for an exhibition, and an axe being forged. We heard the
arguments for Richard III being the murderer of the Little Princes.
We discovered what happened to Guy Fawkes' joints when he was tortured
on the rack and to the stomach of Sir Thomas Overbury, the unwise lover
of James I's favourite, Robert Carr, when subjected to six months of
agonising poison.
The
programme was instructive, lucid and competently produced throughout.
Sean Pertwee's commentary was perfectly businesslike. there were useful
contributions from a number of experts, including the Governor of the
Tower himself, and the actors did their best. Yet somehow, the stories
never quite came alive. A Dr David Starkey was needed to seize our imaginations
and prove that the reality of what happened in The Tower really is even
more riveting than the myths. In fact there was such a man in the shape
of Yeoman Warder Alan Kingshott, and for a few brief moments we saw
him in action, sending shivers down the spines of a group of tourists
as he described in loving detail the last moments of the botched execution
of the Duke of Monmouth. "He knelt down, removed his butcher's
knife and proceeded to cut away the last stubborn sinews of flesh and
gristle." There was a pause as he looked round. "Gory enough
for you?" Yes, yes, but more, more.
The
Trial of Richard III (1984)
|
|
Witness
for the prosecution
Witness
for the defence
Trial Witnesses
|
|||
