Theatre review: Richard II (Bridge Theatre)

Never mind his global fanbase post-Bridgerton and Wicked, those of us who frequent London theatre have wanted to see Jonathan Bailey's Dick for years. Bailey returns to Shakespeare and to director Nicholas Hytner for the Bridge's in-the-round Richard II, in which a capricious king who has never doubted his divine right to rule has tanked England's finances, raising money for wars that never happen, then spending it on himself while the country's military reputation becomes an embarrassment. The Lords might put up with this to avoid upending centuries of tradition, but Richard makes the mistake of making things personal: Intervening in a dispute between Henry Bullingbrook (Royce Pierreson) and Thomas Mowbray (Phoenix Di Sebastiani,) he banishes both - essentially for disrespecting him. He later adds injury to insult when Henry's father John of Gaunt (Nick Sampson) dies, and Richard commandeers his inheritance to finance one of his doomed expeditions.

As the King's cousin Henry has a connection to the succession, but there's still no denying deposing him will be treason - but with a figurehead to get behind, most of the Lords are ready to join the rebellion and get rid of Richard.

After some high-concept Shakespeare productions in the last week, Hytner keeps things much simpler and straightforward here: Bob Crowley's design is slick modern dress, but outwith that there's no overt reference to the modern-day parallels that Bailey has been referencing a lot in publicity for the show. What he does give us is the absolute selfishness and cruelty of Richard, albeit tempered with humour: This is a comically narcissistic toddler who alternates between throwing tantrums and preening about how he can push everyone else around. The trouble is he's literally got the keys to the kingdom - frankly why bother making the present-day parallels any more explicit when they so easily come to mind anyway?

There's a sense that if Bailey gives us a Richard who doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, the production around him agrees: He keeps his crown nearby at all times like a comfort blanket, and when he abandons his Irish campaign and returns to English soil, the ground he's so keen to be back on is covered in litter; he neither seems to notice this nor the symbolism of a rubbish pile being what he's made of the country he's meant to be ruling.

This light touch is fitting for a purportedly tragic play that actually descends into farce with surprising regularity. There is of course the scene in which the Lords challenge each other to such a convoluted sequence of duels that they run out of gauntlets to throw down; here the gauntlets are replaced with passports being thrown to the floor, which Phill interpreted as the characters being willing to bet their own citizenship on the fact that they believe their side to be the right one (although if that's the case they shouldn't really act too surprised when they end up banished.)

Even when the seemingly stable Bullingbrook is installed as Henry IV he finds himself in a farce, and a plot against his life turns ridiculous when the Duchess of York (Amanda Root) bursts in and won't leave him alone until he pardons her conspirator son Aumerle (Vinnie Heaven.) Given that writing plays about monarchs getting deposed was risky anyway when the subject of Elizabeth I's succession was banned from discussion, this production to me makes it seem particularly audacious the way Shakespeare shows two consecutive anointed kings with a shaky hold on power, and a fairly loose understanding of how the hell to actually wield it.

It's a few years since I last saw Richard II, and every time I'm reminded afresh of how unusually linear it is. Not that I don't like the multiple plotlines of most Shakespeare plays, but there's something particularly satisfying about the way this one has each scene's events knock down the next like dominoes. Although not a particularly short production it has pace, helped by Grant Olding's very Prestige TV Drama score (I'm going to go ahead and assume the specific reference is Succession, given that the play's subject is, you know... succession.)

Something I don't think I've seen as clearly before is how the Duke of York's (Michael Simkins) "for how art thou a king But by fair sequence and succession?" isn't just an attempt to stop Richard disinheriting Henry but also foreshadowing: If being Gaunt's son doesn't guarantee he will inherit his land, it opens the door to question why being Edward III's grandson should guarantee Richard inherit and keep the crown.

The play is often given a homoerotic undertone - certainly there's a camp element to Bailey's king, and he does get Bullingrook and Mowbray to fight each other topless in a pit. Some of this may come from us only seeing Richard with his cronies for most of the play, with barely a look-in for his queen, although when he does get to have a scene with Olivia Popica's Isabel, it's a moving goodbye and the start - too late - of him unearthing a more human side. But for the most part Bailey isn't afraid to show us the unlikeable man whose pettiness and self-absorption threaten to take down a country. If comedy is tragedy plus time, Richard II gives us both tangled up messily together - a lot more fun to watch than to live through.

Richard II by William Shakespeare is booking until the 10th of May at the Bridge Theatre.

Running time: 2 hours 50 minutes including interval.

Photo credit: Manuel Harlan.