Travel

I’ll start off by saying what’s on everyone’s mind when they walk out of a performance of Richard II at Bridge Theatre: if Jonathan Bailey is an incredible actor on-screen, he is truly a force to behold in-person. 

But let’s back up a little bit. When I saw on social media that Bailey was performing in a West End (albeit not technically located in the central theatre district of London) production of Shakespeare’s Richard II directed by Nicholas Hytner, I knew Abby and I absolutely had to go while we were in London. We’re both big fans of Bailey from his more popular film and television roles, including Wicked, Bridgerton, and Fellow Travelers, but considering his extensive theatrical background, we recognized this wasn’t an opportunity to miss. 

Although I was unfamiliar with the story of the play itself, I knew two things to be true: 1. It would be a fantastic show regardless of how much I understood it and 2. The play was sure to convey the story in a compelling way that we could (hopefully) grasp.

Shakespeare has a reputation of being a bit stodgy and difficult to understand. It’s no wonder why: I remember dissecting the lines of Comedy of Errors in middle school English class, and it wasn’t exactly the easiest text to translate into basic terms. As an adult, though, I’ve attained a newfound appreciation for Shakespearean storytelling.

My history with Shakespeare

I’ve actually seen more Shakespeare performed in the city of London than you might think. I took an attachment course during my undergrad studies at Marist University (formerly Marist College) called “Shakespeare in London,” which gave me and my peers an entire spring semester to read, discuss, and even perform readings of a selection of Shakespeare plays—plays that were selected based on our ability to see them live during our class’ summer excursion to London.

At Shakespeare’s Globe, we saw an abstract, off-beat performance of Henry VIII, a show that isn’t typically first-choice to perform, but one that was made downright silly by the theatre’s vision. We also witnessed an incredible take on Much Ado About Nothing, and I actually stood on the floor leaning right up against the stage for that show, which proved to be one of my wisest decisions on that trip. The show was an absolutely breathtaking rendition in a rich setting and complete with all-around immersive acting.

I can’t necessarily say the same for the final show we saw at the Globe during that trip, a King Lear interpretation that had endured some production setbacks in its early stages (through no fault of its own) and couldn’t really bounce back from them in the show itself. To round out our list of plays, we also saw the West End show Six, which is all about Henry VIII’s six wives; & Juliet, a delightful musical that playfully blends Romeo & Juliet and pop songs as source material; and Wars of the Roses at the Royal Shakespeare Company in Shakespeare’s birthplace, Stratford-upon-Avon.

I’ve also taken a playwriting course and acted as co-stage manager for a student production. These experiences have absolutely aided me in understanding the inner workings of what it takes to write a play and all the moving parts that make a production effective.

About the Bridge Theatre experience

That all being said, I’m no theatrical OR Shakespeare aficionado. Still, I was eager to see how Bailey would embody a “charismatic, eloquent, and flamboyantly witty” ruler who is also, as the Bridge Theatre puts it, “a disastrous King – dishonest, dangerous, and politically incompetent.”

For starters, the Bridge Theatre, which is located right on the Thames with the iconic Tower Bridge directly in view, is a lovely venue. The interior when you first walk in is open-concept and beautifully decorated. My only note would be that when it’s busy in the lobby area, you can really tell, as a ton of people are milling about at any given moment. But I recognize this is par for the course, especially for a theatrical show’s intermission, and they had a handful of seating options as well as two bars, one to the right when you first walk in, and one downstairs by where you enter the stage area. Bathrooms didn’t have a wait, either!

Abby and I opted to forego alcoholic drinks, sticking to waters, and grab playbills (for five pounds each) before finding our seats. To the production team’s credit, the playbills were indeed incredibly detailed and intricate, and they even included a family tree with the actors’ pictures and the characters they played, which proved super helpful. When it comes to Shakespeare, there tends to be a lot of names and faces to juggle!

The theatre layout is a thrust stage, meaning that the stage juts out from one wall from which actors enter and exit, with seating for the audience on the other three sides. Actors also came up from the floor via moving platforms and from other entrances around the theatre, making for dynamic blocking. The atmosphere itself was surprisingly intimate, and Abby and I both noted how surprised we were that our seats, which were in the closest of the three sections—a floor section and two balcony levels—were really close to the stage. Considering how many people were socializing before the performance, the theatre was actually quite small, but it was comfortable seating-wise and this closeness caused a striking effect once the show began.

The performance begins

The show itself lasted about 2 hours and 40 minutes and had a 20 minute intermission (which seemed to go by in the blink of an eye), so it’s certainly not for those who are looking for a quick or particularly light production. Without going into too much detail, the show centers around what the Bridge Theatre refers to as “two startlingly modern figures: Richard, an autocrat who believes he is divinely sanctioned, and Henry Bullingbrook, a hard-headed pragmatist who has genuine authority.”

It is really no surprise, then, that Bailey’s Richard and Royce Pierreson’s Bullingbrook are both absolutely remarkable. Both actors employ a compelling and contrasting mixture of delivery choices, blocking, and line interpretation to give the audience a true understanding of the story unfolding. As London Theatre explains, the production’s deeply embedded themes of “leadership, identity, and the cost of ambition,” illustrate how “King Richard’s dishonesty and poor political decisions harm the country he’s supposed to be leading.” From here, Bullingbrook has no choice but to intervene and progressively challenge Richard’s authority as it wanes.

The initial setting and costuming reads very much Succession for those familiar with the HBO series, with suits, drinks, a dash of drug use, intense meetings on tarmac, and an overall aura of luxurious irresponsibility. The rash, ostentatious energy and sporadic decision-making Bailey brings to the role feels reminiscent of both Kendall and Roman Roy, as though a hybrid of the two is reading off Shakespearean lines with snappy depth and questionable intentions. Pierreson brings forth a more formidable, grounded energy to juxtapose this, with motives more measured, vetted, and clear throughout the course of the production.

Things quickly get dystopian once battle is unleashed, and the set, which is enhanced by the onstage platforms rising and dropping, is soon reduced to litter and dust. The costuming for this part of the play feels inspired by zombie apocalypse movies, with rough-and-ready military gear indicating a very hasty and real essence to the entire ordeal. 

I was particularly struck by Richard’s poignant decline in the latter half of the performance, made complete by Bailey’s powerfully lamenting and tearful monologues. You feel bad for Richard, as one might pity someone who undoubtedly made all the wrong decisions out of delusion but certainly got what was coming in the end. Every edge of remorse in his delivery is balanced by an edge of entitlement.

Vinnie Heaven, who plays the Duke of Aumerle; Phoenix Di Sebastiani, who plays Thomas Mowbray and Duke of Norfolk/Groom; Christopher Osikanlu Colquhoun, who plays the Earl of Northumberland; and Michael Simkins, who plays the Duke of York; all gave particularly standout performances that added to the corporate yet apocalyptic vibe of the on-stage circumstances. But the entire cast did a great job bringing the story to a more modern place.

One thing I might have changed about the production is, unfortunately, something that can’t really be changed at all—the length of certain scenes. At some points in the performance, dialogue seemed to keep going relentlessly despite the essential point already being made; of course, this isn’t necessarily a fault in direction or acting, but rather just how the play was written. Perhaps there are changes that could have been made to alleviate the heaviness of these sections, but I also understand why they had to happen.

The unexpected humor of the show certainly helped to bring the more dire and serious aspects of the show to a more comedic place. Bailey masterfully wove comedic delivery into scenes where we least expected it, and even in eliciting a light chuckle, Bailey brought a temporary solace that kept us going as actively engaged audience members.

Is it worth it?

To my dismay, as well as Abby’s, Bailey unfortunately didn’t do a stage door signing after the show on the night we went, which seemed to be part of a broader decision about signings. A brief online search confirmed this as well. Of course, I’m not sure why the decision was made, but I’m gathering that the crowd presence after the show could have gotten really overwhelming, especially considering that the play has been running since February 10 and will continue until May 10.

If you find yourself in London before May 10 and have a free afternoon or evening, I’d highly recommend seeing Richard II at Bridge Theatre. Bailey brings together a talented cast of actors in an intense—albeit at times slower and harder to follow—Shakespearean production.

For more information and to grab tickets, please visit bridgetheatre.co.uk/whats-on/richard-ii/.