Martin Freeman to play Richard III

[Carol the Dabbler]

Martin Freeman will play Shakespeare's Richard III in a West End production later this year.
 
From BBC News:
 

Freeman ... will take to the stage at Trafalgar Studios.  ....  The play will be directed by Jamie Lloyd, director of the theatre's production last year of Macbeth...  ....  Richard III will kick off the second season of Trafalgar Transformed at the theatre....

 
From the Daily Mail:
 

Sherlock and Hobbit star Martin Freeman will play his first Shakespearean role, Richard III, on the London stage this summer....
 
... Freeman’s Machiavellian monarch will be in rehearsal by late May or early June of this year, and in performance by July.
 
Richard III will run through till September....
 
Tickets for Richard III, the first of four plays in the new season, are expected to go on sale in the next seven to ten days.
 
Freeman was last on stage at the Royal Court in Bruce Norris’s powerful play Clybourne Park. His career has taken off like a rocket since the success of The Office and Sherlock on BBC television.

[Caya]

So will Benedict Cumberbatch, apparently:

 

 

eta: To clarify, from what I understand Martin Freeman is set to play Richard III on stage, while Benedict Cumberbatch is going to do so for a television production. Mr. Cumberbatch has also been announced to play Hamlet on stage next summer. So it's going to be a Shakespeare-intense year for the two of them.

[Arcadia]

And here I thought they set the screen on fire in Season 3. They'll incinerate it in S4 after all that Bard immersion...

[Slithytove]

I'm so happy that Benedict is going to play Richard the Third on BBC2. If ever anyone had the voice for Shakespeare's beautiful words.....It is going to be made by the same company which made the Hollow Crown plays, starring Ben Wishaw as Richard the Second and Tom Hiddlestone as Henry the Fifth. Wonderful stuff - I urge anyone who hasn't seen them to do so, as soon as possible.

 

I am not a royalist but I am a bit partisan over Richard the Third, as many people are. We are not far here from Bosworth Field, where he fought his last battle, and of course his remains were found here in Leicester quite recently, having been lost for five hundred years. I do feel he was probably maligned by Tudor propagandists such as Shakespeare and Sir Thomas Moore.

 

Having said that, it is a tremendous play and I am sure Benedict will be brilliant in the role. When I heard the news, I said to my daughter that I hoped they didn't try to make him look ugly, as Richard is supposed to be malformed, and she pointed out that I had thought Benedict was still quite attractive as Frankenstein's Creature. So, no worries there.....

[Caya]

History is written by the victors, as the old saying goes, and that seems to be true for Richard the Third as much as anyone, including but not limited to his deformities. Will be interesting to see if they try to rise to the challenge to make him really ugly or just go for pro-forma ugly, like some of the modern Phantoms .

 

As for Tom Hiddleston, there's a bit of him quoting Richard II at the end of this Jaguar ad:

 

[Slithytove]

Hmm......Tom is quite cute, isn't he? My 16 year old granddaughter has a massive crush on him.

 

I was amused to hear him refer to himself and his fellow actors as "Brits", which is a term none of us use. We might call ourselves British sometimes, but more usually we are English, Scots, Irish or Welsh. Presumably his script was written by someone who was not British.....

 

Considering that he was talking about villainy, John of Gaunt's speech was an interesting choice. It isn't a villain's speech but a reproach to an ineffectual king ( though you can't help feeling sorry for Richard by the end). Worked quite well in the ad, though.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I was amused to hear him refer to himself and his fellow actors as "Brits", which is a term none of us use. We might call ourselves British sometimes....

 

 

... and just to get even, we don't call ourselves Yanks.  (Maybe Yankees now and then -- but that's mostly a baseball team.)

 

[Slithytove]

No, I don't suppose you refer to yourselves in that way. . I would never call an American friend a Yank. It would be very rude.

 

I think that people who call us Brits don't quite realise that we have, in a way, two identities - British but also English, Welsh, etc. I suppose it is because we are four small nations joined together to make one (slightly!) larger nation (although Scotland may vote for independence in the upcoming referendum.). We have our shared history and culture but, within that, we also have our individual histories and cultural differences. Being British is a sort of overarching identity which unites us, but most of us probably identify by our country of origin. For instance, I think of myself as English and, as such, I am conscious of being different from a Scot, for instance, but we would both be aware of a shared identity as British. (Of course, as I said, that may change after the referendum.)

 

In my family's case, it is a bit more complicated as my husband is Indian and our kids are bi-racial, but we are all "Brits.". My husband got British nationality more than 35 years ago and I've never been more relieved in my life!

[Carol the Dabbler]

So you consider "Yank" to be something of an insult?  I've never been sure of that, but "Brit" sounds that way to me.

 

We Americans also have multiple identities to a certain extent.  Some self-identify with an ethnic group, of course, and many of us also identify with our home state.  For a few years after independence the original states considered themselves separate small countries in a loose confederation (and Texas had briefly declared itself a republic before joining the US), so we have something of that history and that attitude even though our separate-small-countries phase didn't last long -- with the exception of Hawaii, which had been a kingdom for several hundred years.

 

[Slithytove]

I've always assumed that Americans don't want to be called Yanks, so I would never do so. I don't think it is usually meant as a term of abuse, as so many words referring to ethnicity often are, but it doesn't seem very respectful. Similarly, I don't think that most people who call us Brits are trying to be nasty, but it never sounds very flattering.

 

From what I've read of the Civil War in America, which admittedly isn't a huge amount, it seems to have been a terrible tragedy with enormous losses on both sides. Can't help admiring the spirit of Texas, though, believing that they could go it alone as an independent republic. As if somewhere like Somerset, for instance, decided to break away from the rest of the UK and declare independence.....

[Carol the Dabbler]

Texas didn't originally break away from the US, it broke away from Mexico, declared itself a republic, and later joined the US.  All that was some years before the US Civil War (indeed a terrible tragedy), in which Texas did break away from the US as part of the Confederacy.

 

Regarding the fight for Texan independence, you've probably heard of the Battle of the Alamo, due to its depiction in movies and television.

 

[Slithytove]

I have a feeling that my dad took me to see the film about the Alamo when I was a kid. John Wayne, was it? I didn't really like him, but my dad was a big fan.

 

Thinking about identifying as English more than British, Sherlock is very much an English gentleman, even in his latest incarnation. For instance, "England would fall!" or "Who needs me?" "England.". However, there is a strong impression that, to him, England basically means London. Even in the original stories, Holmes and London seem intertwined and he never seems very keen to leave it. Admittedly, he ventures further afield on a few occasions - to Dartmoor, for instance - but London is his natural habitat. When he was travelling during the hiatus, I can't imagine that he was pining for the provinces. He just wanted to get back to London.

 

That's why I was never really convinced that he would retire early to Sussex to keep bees. Obviously it's canon, but it never really seemed believable to me. He loved London so much, and his work was his life, but then he suddenly decided to pack it all in and bury himself in the countryside...I wish ACD had given us a convincing reason for such a massive change.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Maybe Conan Doyle did it precisely to get Holmes away from London, away from the crime and the cases, so he wouldn't be expected to write any more of those damned detective stories.  And it did seem to work better than throwing Holmes off a waterfall!

 

Yes, I know, you wanted an in-universe explanation.  Sorry!

 

[Caya]

Maybe it was a trick - he hired a man of passable likeness to care for those bees in Sussex so that he could (take your pick) continue fighting against crime while the underworld thought they were safe / finally live together with Watson in domestic bliss and relative obscurity in Islington / follow his muse and become a professional violinist without people bothering him about unsolved crimes .

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Maybe that's why Mofftiss sold the Holmes cottage to Janine knowing that she would get rid of the bees keeping Sherlock from retiring and harrying off when England needs him to stay in London and solve crimes on the QT.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Maybe selling the cottage to Janine was Mycroft's idea -- after all, "There will always come a time when we need Sherlock Holmes."

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Absolutely and don't we know it. Where would England and the world be without Sherlock Holmes and were would Sherlock Holmes be without "the Work".

[Carol the Dabbler]

Now where were we?  Oh, right, Martin Freeman in Richard III.  There's a new cast member, and ticket sales have been announced:
 

 

British actress Gina McKee has been cast alongside Martin Freeman in Richard III.
 
Jamie Lloyd’s much-anticipated production of the Shakespeare play for the second Trafalgar Transformed season will see McKee take on the role of Queen Elizabeth, with Sherlock star Freeman in the title role.  <snip>
 
Richard III will run from 1 July through to 27 September of this year, with general ticket sales opening on 13 May at 10am.
 
Priority on-sale ticket information will be released on 9 May, and you’re encouraged to check the Trafalgar Transformed Twitter and Facebook pages for more information on this.
 
Ticket prices range from £15 to £52.50, with additional premium tickets available.
 
Performances run from Monday to Saturday at 7:30pm with additional 2:30pm performances on Thursdays and Saturdays. 
 
On Mondays all tickets will be priced £15, with half of the tickets offered through a special outreach scheme. The rest will be made available to the public – with Lloyd keen to attract new theatregoers – at the beginning of each month (starting on the first of July) via the Trafalgar Studios Box Office (0844 871 7632) and online at trafalgartransformed.com.

 
 
You can read the entire article here.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Alex came across a photo (below) of Martin Freeman et al. at rehearsals for Richard III.  His beard (unlike John's mustache) would appear to be homegrown, judging by this photo of him with Amanda Abbington at the BAFTAs recently.

 

 

[Caya]

Well it's a definite step up from the mournstache .

 

 

(source)

[Carol the Dabbler]

Well it's a definite step up from the mournstache .

 

 

(source)

 

 

Agreed -- which once more demonstrates that if you (or Martin Freeman) want something done right, ya gotta do it yourself!

 

I was just going to post that same photo of Freeman in character as Richard (who is sure as hell not Lester Nygaard!), but I see that you and Amanda Abbington have beat me to it.  I will therefore post a link to my source, the official Trafalgar Transformed Twitter account.  They've naturally got the most up-to-date info on the play, including such tidbits as this:

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

More rehearsal photos here.

 

[CarrieHarayel]

When I heard about this I really wanted to go (who wouldn't? Its Martin Freeman!) then I found tickets were in the region of £30 to £70 a little to expensive even the cheapest seat was £30. Then I found out they were selling £15 tickets at the start of each month... yay! Now I'm reading about the production =-O the very bloody production apprently!

 

Just a quick question for anyone who got tickets for the front rows... where you told about the blood when you bought your tickets? I'm very curious.

 

Also for many reasons i'm glad I didn't get tickets even the £30 ones because I probably would have thrown up at some point!!

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Hi Carrie! Welcome back!

 

 Hhhmmm....usually if there is going to be stuff going on on stage that could carry out into the audience they keep those perspective rows blocked out and empty.

[CarrieHarayel]

I would have thought the same thing... In this case no because Ive been looking around on the web/twitter it would appear you probably will be violated if you're in the front rows!!