on the debate. Benson was one of these directors who decided to take Richard the II and structure it to his perspective of the play and King Richard’s personae. Benson liked to play with the idea of imagery and “made use of the full range of performance languages, ensuring that costume, too, contributed to his portrayal” (65). Performance language can also be related to the actual action of the play. Directors like Benson, decided to add little quirks to the characters to give them their unique feel. For instance, the famous scene where King Richard and Bolingbroke interact in the Westminster Hall, “After crowning Bolingbroke, he proceeds to examine himself in the glass and in doing so… ascends the steps to the vacant throne… suddenly remembers himself with a short laugh… (66). This is further evidence of a director putting his own twist on the original version. For in the original King Richard the II, he seems to give up the crown and realize his defeat. This is shown in lines 289- 302 of Act 4.1 where after throwing the mirror down, King Richard says, “For there it is, cracked in a hundred shivers. Mark, silent king, the moral of this sport: How soon my sorrow hath destroyed my face.” This line compared to Benson’s directions seems to contradict the other completely. For with the former version, Benson seems to be saying that King Richard doesn’t believe he has been beaten, reluctantly giving up the crown whereas the latter version suggests Chapman 3that King Richard knew all along and was realized it was his time of dissension. Shewring comments on the interpretation of Benson’ King Richard as “a poet flowering in the face of harsh reality” (68). This proves the point that directors when adapting do just that, interpret the original differently.Along with performance interpretation is the aspect of costume choice, which includes various props, furthe...
