The Life and Death of Richard II (5 Oct 1960)

After the double header of Hamlet/Antony and Cleopatra, the ABC came back for another Shakespeare double header with Richard II/Macbeth.

Premise

The last years of the reign and life of King Richard II from England, who must deal with a rebellion from Henry Bollingbroke. 

Cast

• Ric Hutton as King Richard II
• James Condon as Henry Bolingbroke
• Richard Parry as John of Gaunt
• John Fassen as Thomas Mowbray
  
• Hugh Stewart as Duke of York
• George Roubicek as Duke of Aumerle
• Walter Sullivan as Earl of Northumberland
• Geoffrey King as Bishop of Carlisle
• Malcolm Billings as Lord Ross
• Max Osbiston as Willoughby
• Peter Wagner as Bushy
• Max Meldrum as Green
• Rosemary Webster as Queen
• Nancye Stewart as Duchess Of Gloucester
• Laurier Lange as Earl of Sailsbury
• Leonard Teale as Sir Stephen Scroop 
• Owen Weingott as Sir Peirce of Exton
  
• Vaughan Tracy as Lord Marshal
• Norman Mann as 1st Herald
• Deryck Barnes as 2nd herald
• Nat Levison as gardener
• Edward Hepple as servant
• Jon Dennis as groom
• Moss Duker as keeper
• Dagmar Roubicek, Clare Dunn, Christine Clayton, Michael Italiano, Bill Cole, Robin Ramsay, John Barnard, David Crocker, Bill Tromp
  

Other adaptations

The play was adapted for ABC radio in 1952. 

It was adapted for BBC TV in 1950 directed by Royston Morley.   It was also an episode of BBC's 1960 Age of kings series.

 Production

Melbourne did Macbeth. Sydney did this. 

Alan Seymour wrote the script. Ray Menmuir directed.  Storry Walton was assistant to the producer (Menmuir).

Menmuir's obituary later said "Menmuir's greatest production achievement in those early years at the ABC was in 1960 when the ABC suspended peak-hour programs to transmit his live-to-air two-hour production of Shakespeare's Richard II utilising all three of the ABC's Gore Hill TV studios – a concept of such complexity and audacity that it was never repeated."

[The obit said "three" but I think it was two studios.]

It was produced in part to help students who were studying the play for their leaving certificate. (The play was often performed at the time, due to the fact it could get a guaranteed audience of students.) 

The ABC may have been inspired by the fact that Laurence Olivier appeared in a production on American TV two years previously .

Two studios were used for the telecast. They were the ABC's two king-sized 60 by 80ft. studios. The uninterrupted movement of the cast of 33 from one studio to the other was a minor but complicated problem in this big production.

Armour was made by propman Jim Erle who made armour as a hobby.

The jousting scene was prerecorded at Centennial Park.

Prue Bavin, the script assistant, later recalled "Both Studio 21 and Studio 22 were used for that production. We used to work in the Woolworths studio for our rehearsals."

The designer, Desmonde Dowling, a female (the name is tricky), spent three months on the project.  There's a profile of Dowling here.

Ric Hutton was injured while rehearsing a duel with Owen Weingott. This became infected and Hutton had to go to hospital on September 29. However he recovered to do the show.

The budget was an estimated 6,000 pounds. 

David Twilby later recalled:

One of the major dramas of 1959 was Richard II. Produced by Raymond Menmuir it involved both major studios. Months in preparation and large by any standard, nonetheless, the day following its transmission, Ray and I found ourselves rostered to do "Kindergarten Playtime".

Tom Jeffrey later wrote about it:

Ray staged Richard II in the two big newly built (then) ABCTV studios at Gore hill, Sydney – the first and probably only time those big studios were used for a single production. Using two studios made it a complex undertaking, particularly given that all TV programs went live to air in those days. The exterior scenes such as the Coast of Wales and the Camps and Battlements were set up in Studio 22; all the other scenes such as A Room in a London Palace, the Duke of York’s Garden and John O’Gaunt’s bedroom were in Studio 21. I was Floor Manager in Studio 21.

Ric Hutton played the role of Richard. We had to change Ric’s wardrobe in the scenic runway as he rushed between the studios for the different scenes. his chain-mail outfit (for the castle and battle scenes) was knitted in string by Jim earle, the senior propsman, and dipped in silver paint! For the interiors Ric had to wear voluminous regal robes. It was quite a challenge to take off and put on this gear as he did a rapid trot between the studios.

Up in the control rooms, similar com- plicated arrangements were occurring. Storry Walton (later director of the Australian Film and Television School) was Ray’s co-director in the gallery. Ray would be in one studio control room doing a scene, while Storry would be in the other studio ready to call the first few shots of the following scene. As soon as Ray finished his scene, master control would switch to Storry’s studio; Storry would start the scene there while Ray dashed along the upstairs corridor, into Storry’s control room, slide into the chair next to Storry and take over. Storry would beat a hasty exit and hurry to the other studio control room ready to start the next scene there.

Transmitting live to air meant no stopping for a re-take to fix up mistakes!  

Jeffrey also said in his oral history:

Richard the Second was probably the major the largest ABC live to air drama ever done involving two studios, Studio Twenty One and Twenty Two which had now, which had come on stream um late fifty nine or sixty.  And also Studio Twenty Three which was a new studio so all three studios were being used.  It was about a three hour production, it started we went live to air um about eight thirty and about nine thirty, half way through yeah probably went till eleven o’clock, two and a half hours, about nine thirty or a quarter to ten somewhere in that period, we had a quarter of an hour break.  And we went to the new studio, not for news, but for a musical interlude.  It was some person playing the piano for a quarter of an hour and then we came back and did the rest of the show.  Rick Hutton played Richard the Second and ah we used to move them up and down the scenic runway.  All the sets in Studio Twenty One were for interior scenes, the John Of Gaunt’s bedroom things like that.  Studio Twenty Two was used for all the battlement scenes and battle scenes so between, if Richard the Second and his cohorts were in Twenty One, Studio Twenty One, they had to be walked down the scenic runway and as they were going they had to be dressed in chain mail which was knitted string painted silver.  Um Jim (………) used to make that.  He was a propsman, he knitted string for ages making these ah chain mail costumes.  Moved into Studio Twenty Two, they played the scene up on the battlements or did whatever they had to do and then moved back to their next scene in Studio Twenty One, as they were going down the scenic runway, taking off their chain mail and armour and putting on their clothes for the other thing.  So it was quite a, it was quite a thing for live to air and um Richard Parry played John Of Gaunt, ah I don’t remember many of the others that were in it but it would have had a pretty, pretty good Aussie cast.  Richard Parry I remember ah oh Richard Meickle I’m sure would have been in it.  Yeah I don’t remember the woman but um Don Bethel played um, he was the floor manager for the for the Studio Twenty Two and then any number of props people and so on.  Really complicated show.  And what Storry and Ray Menmuir used to do. Storry would go ahead of Ray down the corridor upstairs and galleries between the two studio control rooms and he’d start the scene in say Studio Twenty Two, the battlement scene, and call the first few shots and get that going and then Ray would leave the Studio Twenty One, come down to where Storry was, take over that scene, Storry would go back down to the other studio and set up things getting ready for the next scene in Studio Twenty One.  That’s how we do it.  So um yeah so that was interesting. 
 

Crew 

Decor and costumes - Demonde Downing. Wardrobe - Zilla Weatherly. Armour and special properties - Don Shepherd, Music composed and conducted by - Robert Hughes and members of the Victorian Symphony Orchestra. Technical supervision - John Hicks. Assistant producer - Storry Walton. Production - Ray Menmuir.

 Reception

The TV critic for the Sydney Morning Herald wrote that the production was "a glittering technical success" which "did not neglect the essential issues and thematic unity of" the play, with Alan Seymour responsible for "skilful" cutting. Ric Hutton's acting was praised, "there was great visual and dramatic distinction in John of Gaunt's death scene" and "Desmonde Downing made a major contribution to the visual competence of the production with the skeletal Gothic arches, wintry trees, and thick-textured draperies of her sets and with costumes of emblazoned richness."

TV Times called it "a first class adaptation".

The Australian Woman's Weekly said:

If it were possible to sound a fanfare in type, I’d sound it for ABC-TV’s notable production of Richard II. IT was 90 minutes of absorbing entertainment. I’d sound personal fanfares for Ric Hutton’s Richard, Richard Parry’s John of Gaunt, and for producer Raymond Menmuir. Shakespeare’s Richard II is the Shakespearian play set by the New South Wales Department of Education for this year’s Leaving Certificate examination. It was produced primarily to help students sitting for the examination. It was no token help. In two special explanatory telecasts in the week preceding the production, the A.B.C. took pupils and interested televiewers by the hand to lead them to the full understanding of the final production the entertaining live play. I wish I’d known in my schooldays that Shakespeare was entertaining. I thought he was such a dull, wordy bore. Now I think he’s TV entertainment plus; all he needed was someone to put him across to his audience. He certainly seems to have found that some-one in Raymond Menmuir.  What fascinates me is that 16th-century Shakespeare does so much better at TV scripts than 20th-century specialist writers who’ve studied their medium. Menmuir has a theory that Shakespeare’s plays are good TV because they were written for an audience seated as close to the players as the TV camera is; that his plays are full of constant change of scene and movement; and that he used plot action rather than direct action. As a new Shakespearian fan, I wouldn’t know; all I want is more Shakespeare of the calibre of the production of Richard II.

Legacy

Ric Hutton later appeared before Senator Vincent in Canberra at a Select Committee. Vincent asked Hutton to compare Australian television productions with those from overseas. "Did you see the A.B.C. production Richard II?" he asked. Hutton replied, "I was Richard II." Then he added, "Perhaps he should have waited to hear what you were going to say." Senator Vincent said he personally liked the play "very much", and thought it was one of the best staged by the A.B.C.

The Age Supplement 6 Oct 1960 p 3

AWW 5 October 1960 p 65

AWW 5 Oct 1960 p 66

SMH TV Guide 3 Oct 1960 p 1

SMH TV Guide 3 Oct 1960 p 1

SMH 6 Oct 1960 p 7

AWW 19 Oct 1960 p 74

 

SMH 1 June 1964 p 12

SMH 2 April 1963 p 1

The Age 12 Oct 1960 p 5

The Age 7 Oct 1960 p 5

The Age 6 Oct 1960 p 35

The Age Supplement 6 Oct 1960 p 1

SMH 5 Oct 1960 p 21

SMH 3 Oct 1960 p 18

SMH 30 Sept 1960 p 16

 

The Stage 8 Sept 1960

 

Auntie's Jubilee

An article from Filmink

Forgotten Australian TV Plays: The Life and Death of Richard II
by Stephen Vagg
April 5, 2021
Stephen Vagg’s look at forgotten Australian TV plays ventures once more into the world of Shakespeare, with an analysis of the ABC’s 1960 production, The Life and Death of Richard II.

Writers love to use the expression “this was when [INSERT NAME] finally came of age”. Which made me wonder, when did Australian TV plays come of age? The 1958 thriller Gaslight, the first production of which the ABC seemed to actually feel proud? The 1959 wartime drama Outpost, the first locally-written show sold to the US (I think)? 1959’s Johnny Belinda, the first live one-hour drama on commercial television in Australia? (You probably won’t have heard of these… take my word for it, they were big-ish deals in their day.)

An argument could be made that Australian TV plays came of age with the ABC’s The Life and Death of Richard II in 1960. One of the most elaborate productions ever made in this country until then, it was shot in Sydney using two studios; it has been described as “a concept of such complexity and audacity that it was never repeated.”

The plot of Richard II concerns the last two years in the life of the titular king, from 1398 to 1400. It starts with him refereeing a dispute between Thomas Mowbray and Henry Bolingbroke, which results in the king deciding to banish both from England. One of his advisers, John of Gaunt, dies after making one of the coolest deathbed speeches of all time; Richard seizes John’s land, which leads to nobles supporting Bolingbroke when the latter decides to invade England and claim the throne. Richard can’t handle the pressure and winds up abdicating in favour of Bolingbroke, who becomes Henry IV (best known today as Henry V’s dad – the one sick of his kid hanging out with Falstaff). Richard intends to live quietly in retirement but poses too much of a political risk for the new regime and winds up executed.

Richard II isn’t a top level Shakespeare play; it’s never (to date, at least) been made into a feature film and tends to be overshadowed by its sequels, Henry IV Parts 1 and 2, and Henry V, as well as (the non-sequel) Richard III. However, it is still a very fine play, containing one of Shakespeare’s most famous speeches: John of Gaunt talking about “This Sceptred Isle” of England on his deathbed (“this Demi-paradise, this happy breed”, etc, etc).

The part of Richard II is a rich one; he’s not a hot-tempered warrior like Macbeth, Prince Hal or Othello, or a moody youth like Hamlet or Romeo; rather, he’s a trust fund mediocrity, a self-entitled aristocrat who discovers he’s in over his head, someone who only got his job via being a lucky sperm, but who achieves a sort of grace, or at least dimension, through suffering (that’s my interpretation anyway). The role was once closely associated with John Gielgud, but many other top actors have had a swing at it, including Eddie Redmayne, Maurice Evans, Paul Scofield, Mark Rylance, Ben Wishaw, and Fiona Shaw. It’s been adapted a bunch of times for TV.

The ABC liked to do double-bills of small screen Shakespeare around this time – in 1959, they produced Hamlet in Sydney and Antony and Cleopatra in Melbourne; in 1960, they did Richard II in Sydney and Macbeth in Melbourne. I’m not quite sure why the drama department picked Richard II to adapt rather than something more famous like, say, Julius Caesar: the fact that the play was being studied for the high school leaving certificate (thus guaranteeing an audience of resentful teens) surely had some influence.

Regardless of motive, once the decision was made, the national broadcaster went all in, providing a hefty budget of 6000 pounds, as well as allocating two full studios at their Gore Hill premises. The script adaptation was written by Alan Seymour, just prior to his achieving theatrical immortality with The One Day of the Year. The director (or “producer”, as they were called) was Ray Menmuir, who along with David Cahill was probably the leading TV director in Australia at the time. Menmuir’s assistant was Storry Walton, who went on to become a director himself (notably the 1965 small screen version of My Brother Jack). The cast was headed by Ric Hutton (as Richard II), James Condon (Bolingbroke), Richard Parry (John of Gaunt) and John Faasen (Thomas Mowbray). The play was broadcast live in Sydney on 5 October 1960; it was recorded and shown in other cities at a later date.

I was lucky enough to watch a complete copy of this production recently. While Richard II isn’t one of my favourite Shakespeares (I prefer the sequels), it’s a very admirable adaptation, beautifully mounted and sensitively done: you can see why contemporary audiences were so impressed. Ric Hutton is superb as the king, all faux dignity, insecurity and incompetence; Hutton had a light, sophisticated presence as an actor (a sort of Bob Cummings type, I guess you could describe it), which is deployed here to excellent effect.

Ray Menmuir’s direction is superb – he is in complete control of the material, keeps the pace moving, and knows when to go in for a close up and when to pull away. The costumes impress and we even get some location filming: knights on horseback jousting, no less (filmed at Centennial Park).

Reviews were glowing, and public response appears to have been excellent. Unlike most Australian TV plays, the impact of Richard II lingered long after its original broadcast. For instance, in the 1963 Senate Select Committee on the Encouragement of Australian Productions for Television, Senator Vincent, chairman of the committee, listened to evidence from Ric Hutton; Vincent recognised the actor from Richard II and praised the production. The recommendations of that committee (eventually) led to the government support that revitalised Australian drama (Vincent died in 1964 but the crucial reforms were carried out by his good friend John Gorton when the latter became Prime Minister. Both, incidentally, were members of the Liberal Party – not all supporters of the arts in this country come from the ALP).

I watched the production with Storry Walton, and asked him what he thought of seeing it after so many years.

“I am surprised at how static it is,” he said. “Not too far removed from theatrical style and enunciation. Within a year or two, Ray’s work is unrecognisable in comparison to this, when, in the UK his work quickly became visually fluid. Richard II seems to exemplify how the massive industrial mechanics of the studio inhibited visual liveliness in the way that film had been doing for decades – in that sense live tv drama was, in its early years, a step back. I realise how much, once fully-fledged as a producer/director on productions such as The Stranger and My Brother Jack, I bent over backwards to animate the live studio coverage of drama.”

The ABC continued to splash the cash on small screen Shakespeare productions throughout the 1960s, making versions of The Merchant of Venice, Othello, Romeo and Juliet, The Taming of the Shrew, Twelfth Night, and another version of Macbeth, as well as filming The First 400 Years, a kind of “greatest hits” of Shakespeare moments. I admit that I would have preferred these resources to have gone to Australian plays, but Richard II was a quality production, and all associated with it have every right to be proud. It was also a politically important production, in that its success helped reinforce the government’s commitment to locally made TV drama at a time when that could not be relied on. It did help us “come of age”. Thanks, Richard!

Ric Hutton discussed the produciton at the Vincent Committee here

—I can say only that we have one or two very good directors who. unfortunately, are overseas at present. These are television directors. We have potentially very fine directors.
Would you say that we have here actors of world class?
—Certainly.
Why is it, then, that so many people say that our local television productions are inferior to the imported pro- duction?
—I do not think enough time is spent on them.
By Senator Drake-Broc kman.—What do you mean by that?—Rehearsal time.
By the Chairman.—Do you think that is the only rea- son?
—I am in a sense contradicting myself now, but a factor is the lack of being able to pay higher royalty fees for plays.
Did you see an Australian Broadcasting Commission production of “ Richard II.”?
—I was Richard II. Perhaps I should have waited to hear what you were going to say.
The criticism has been made of that production as com- pared with the corresponding production of the B.B.C., first that most of the cast—-I exclude present company— could not speak the language of Shakespeare; secondly, that they could not move as those characters moved on the screen; thirdly, that they wore their clothes so badly that they looked as if they were at a fancy dress ball instead of naturally attired in the clothes of the period; fourthly, that the play lacked cohesion. I do not say that those criticisms are mine, but they are made. It is said that the B.B.C. production had balance, smoothness and a high degree of technique. Would you accept that criticism?
—No. Had I known you were going to bring up the subject, I would have brought my scrapbook to show the press reviews we received in Sydney after that production, which were all highly favorable. I do not say that because I was in it, but I happen to have them.
I personally liked it very much. T think it is about the best thing that the A.B.C. has done. Getting away from “ Richard II.”, would you say that that criticism applied to the other serious A.B.C. work produced in Australia? Does it compare with B.B.C. work?
-—A lot of it compares very favorably with B.B.C. work.
Why can we not sell these things overseas?
—I wish I knew. I think we need a greater continuity of material to get this market. I understand that in London any night of the week from the B.B.C. and Independent Television, there are no less than seven plays; we do twelve a year. It has been claimed here that there is a great dearth of television material in the English-speaking world and that if a work is good enough it will attract a ready sale.
Witness after witness has told us that the difficulty about selling Australian productions is that they are not good enough?
—I do not know the titles, but several A.B.C. productions have been sold in Canada and England. If we had greater continuity of production we would sell.
I was told that the reason “ Richard II.” was not sold in England was that it was not good enough?
—That is a very extreme case, because very few people take Shakespeare to England. No one can do it as well as the English.
By Senator Hannan. - I suppose Shakespeare would not go too well in Chicago, either?
—They are doing it in Minneapolis at the moment.
By the Chairman.—Do you see any reason why we should not take Shakespeare to Minneapolis. Chicago or London?
—I do not think that Americans are very fond of Shakespeare as such, but I think it is very extreme for us to take Shakespeare to England. Go from the extreme through the spectrum as far as you like, to the western, crime or “ Dad and Dave ” type of play so beloved of this country years ago.
Why do you think we cannot get rid of these plays overseas?
—I do not know whether you would get “ Dad and Dave” overseas. I started with “ Richard II ” and finished with “ Dad and Dave ” take anything you like in between?
—Again, I think it is lack of continuity, and we have had five years’ television experience as against twenty years or more in England. Even recently, the picture is not getting any better so far as local productions are concerned overseas?'
—You mean that we are doing less now? Yes?
—Well, whose fault is this? You are putting the question again to me. I should like you to tell us?
—Could not the A.B.C. double its output of drama, possibly?
By Senator Hannan.—Did you do any announcing for the B.B.C. when you were there?
—For the overseas sec- tion of the B.B.C., I did.
You had no trouble with your voice?
—No. It has been stated in evidence and in other places that the Australian accent is not acceptable in England and in the United States.
Would you not think that was something of an over-statement?
—I think it needs to be modified. It is not a cardinal difficulty to overcome, is it?
—No.
... You were thinking of one particular film?
—Yes. We had a fair bit on “ Richard II ”. “ I love not poison that do poison me.’5?
— By the Chairman,—He was interred quietly.
By Senator Hannan.—He is not interred, “ Richard II ” as produced by the A.B.C. was no more foul than Orson Welle’s “ Othello ” in your view, was it?
—No, certainly not.
It was better than “ Othello ”, was it not?
—Yes, I think it was.
It was at least as well produced and better spoken?
—■ Yes, it was better spoken. I am not criticizing Mr. Welles.
You can let your hair down. You can criticize anybody, including the Chairman, if you like
?—I have a great respect for Mr. Welles. In fact there are some things that some countries do superbly and other countries should not try to imitate, the British do Shakespeare superbly. The Americans, I suppose, do westerns superbly?—And Tennessee Williams.

NLA Seymour