Richard III is one of the most iconic villains in the Shakespeare universe. The play remains one of the most performed plays in the world. but this time, the Royal Shakespeare Company’s production decided to introduce something different: for the first time, the lead in the play was disabled. While the play does not specify his exact disability, Richard III is described as having a limp, a withered arm, and a hunchback.
Playing Richard is Arthur Hughes, whose right arm has been affected through having radial dysplasia. “Richard is one of the most famous disabled characters in the English-speaking world,” he tells BBC Culture. “To be playing him on one of the largest Shakespeare stages in the world and to be a disabled man doing it – it’s an honour. It’s also a good sign of where we’re moving towards.”
Hughes commented on the play, “Richard III is a political thriller. Shakespeare uses tyrants like Richard as commentaries on power; how power draws people who aren’t suited to wielding it. Once Richard gets the power he desires, he has no idea what to do with it, because he’s so unfit to lead – like many of our current leaders,” he said. “Richard’s paranoia is so like Putin – he expects ultimate loyalty while giving none to anyone else.”
But the big question is, does Richard III deserve all the villainous press? Shakepeare’s story paints him differently to the reality of who Richard III was. In Shakespeare’s version, his journey to taking the throne is a bloody one, including the brutal and gleeful murder of both his young nephews, King Edward V, and his brother. Whether the actual Richard did this is debatable.
A 1984 televised mock trial on the UK’s Channel 4 found Richard not guilty. The Missing Princes Project led by Phillipa Langley – the amateur historian who also commissioned the dig to find Richard’s remains – claims to have found evidence that Edward V was not killed. Instead, it appears that he was sent away under a new name.
The finding of Richard’s bones also showed that he was disabled. Dr José A Pérez Díez, lecturer in Early Modern Drama in the School of English at the University of Leeds and deputy co-chair of the British Shakespeare Association says, “His pronounced scoliosis must have affected his mobility and physical posture quite considerably. Still, he was the last English king to die on the battlefield, not just commanding his troops, but physically engaged in combat.”
The controversy is rooted in his disability being portrayed as a sign of inner evil. From the start, it is shown that he seeks power because his disability leads others to treat him differently. The characters refer to him as looking devilish, and a “lump of foul deformity.”
Ben Spiller, artistic director of theater company “1623” and a disabled artist, commented: “Shakespeare’s Richard is based mainly on historical chronicles that made him out to be a nasty piece of work because he was disabled – a damaging link between body and morality.”
But Hughes sees it differently. Instead, he sees his disability as insight into why Richard’s personality was shaped by the ableist world around him. “Evil people have a reason for why they make their decisions, and Wars of the Roses is full of these reasons. The language that people use to talk to and describe him in both plays is horrible. He’s a man in a society that isn’t built for him. People don’t see him as someone to be feared or desired or of any worth – and some people still think that about disabled people. If conscience is this shared set of values that we as society have about what is good and what is bad, Richard’s reasoning is ‘why should I listen to this conscience, when I’m not welcomed in this society?’” he said.
Hughes also said that Richard is far more than just a disabled man. The king is also intelligent, charismatic and manipulative.
The question now is, should able-bodied actors be casted for this part? Hughes believes that these characters should cast for disabled actors, saying “Richard is written as disabled, so let’s give disabled actors this rich character. Every disability, every disabled actor, will bring something unexpected and new, a different depth that you just won’t get from a non-disabled actor.”
Playing Richard is Arthur Hughes, whose right arm has been affected through having radial dysplasia. “Richard is one of the most famous disabled characters in the English-speaking world,” he tells BBC Culture. “To be playing him on one of the largest Shakespeare stages in the world and to be a disabled man doing it – it’s an honour. It’s also a good sign of where we’re moving towards.”
Hughes commented on the play, “Richard III is a political thriller. Shakespeare uses tyrants like Richard as commentaries on power; how power draws people who aren’t suited to wielding it. Once Richard gets the power he desires, he has no idea what to do with it, because he’s so unfit to lead – like many of our current leaders,” he said. “Richard’s paranoia is so like Putin – he expects ultimate loyalty while giving none to anyone else.”
But the big question is, does Richard III deserve all the villainous press? Shakepeare’s story paints him differently to the reality of who Richard III was. In Shakespeare’s version, his journey to taking the throne is a bloody one, including the brutal and gleeful murder of both his young nephews, King Edward V, and his brother. Whether the actual Richard did this is debatable.
A 1984 televised mock trial on the UK’s Channel 4 found Richard not guilty. The Missing Princes Project led by Phillipa Langley – the amateur historian who also commissioned the dig to find Richard’s remains – claims to have found evidence that Edward V was not killed. Instead, it appears that he was sent away under a new name.
The finding of Richard’s bones also showed that he was disabled. Dr José A Pérez Díez, lecturer in Early Modern Drama in the School of English at the University of Leeds and deputy co-chair of the British Shakespeare Association says, “His pronounced scoliosis must have affected his mobility and physical posture quite considerably. Still, he was the last English king to die on the battlefield, not just commanding his troops, but physically engaged in combat.”
The controversy is rooted in his disability being portrayed as a sign of inner evil. From the start, it is shown that he seeks power because his disability leads others to treat him differently. The characters refer to him as looking devilish, and a “lump of foul deformity.”
Ben Spiller, artistic director of theater company “1623” and a disabled artist, commented: “Shakespeare’s Richard is based mainly on historical chronicles that made him out to be a nasty piece of work because he was disabled – a damaging link between body and morality.”
But Hughes sees it differently. Instead, he sees his disability as insight into why Richard’s personality was shaped by the ableist world around him. “Evil people have a reason for why they make their decisions, and Wars of the Roses is full of these reasons. The language that people use to talk to and describe him in both plays is horrible. He’s a man in a society that isn’t built for him. People don’t see him as someone to be feared or desired or of any worth – and some people still think that about disabled people. If conscience is this shared set of values that we as society have about what is good and what is bad, Richard’s reasoning is ‘why should I listen to this conscience, when I’m not welcomed in this society?’” he said.
Hughes also said that Richard is far more than just a disabled man. The king is also intelligent, charismatic and manipulative.
The question now is, should able-bodied actors be casted for this part? Hughes believes that these characters should cast for disabled actors, saying “Richard is written as disabled, so let’s give disabled actors this rich character. Every disability, every disabled actor, will bring something unexpected and new, a different depth that you just won’t get from a non-disabled actor.”
