Free King John & Henry VIII by William Shakespeare Page B

Shakespeare’shistories, says something important about how the play was regarded at that time. However, equally telling about how it was regarded during the second half of the twentieth century is the fact that the Royal Shakespeare Company did not produce
King John
from the date of the ensemble’s foundation in 1961 until nearly a decade later in 1970, while both
As You Like It
and
Hamlet
were produced in the RSC’s inaugural season and had been produced at Stratford a total of three and four times, respectively, by 1970.
    The 1970 production, directed by Buzz Goodbody, and the 1974 production, directed by John Barton, each departed significantly from the text, 36 although Deborah Warner’s experimental 1988 production returned to an uncut and unadapted text. The RSC next staged it in 2001, directed by Greg Doran, and then again, as part of the Complete Works Festival in 2006, directed by Josie Rourke. A common feature that unites the RSC productions is the modern political relevance of the play. Much of the play’s language appears to be borrowed or adapted from contemporary Elizabethan political anti-Catholic pamphlets. A further political aspect of the play is its general warlike tone, especially toward that perennial enemy of the English, the French. This, together with what audiences and reviewers have perceived as the play’s patriotic message, has generally increased its popularity in time of war. 37
    Buzz Goodbody’s 1970 “Theatre-go-round” production, which toured schools and community centers around the country, as well as being performed at the RST, was a much simplified, pared-down version of the play. Goodbody took an extreme satirical line by presenting the main characters as shallow and childlike as they charge around the stage, frequently shifting their positions and allegiances, cheerfully indifferent to the carnage they are wreaking. Patrick Stewart’s John was, in particular, presented as a childish character taking an irresponsible, whooping glee in the political process. The Goodbody production received some support from contemporary reviewers, with Hilary Spurling in the
Spectator
, for example, arguing that the childlike presentation of the play and deliberate artificiality of the production revealed the futile nature of war and grand politics by likening them to the cruelty and recklessness of children’s games, a world in which entire battalions are cheerfully and “boisterouslyslaughtered between one line and the next.” 38 However, a number of contemporary reviewers suggested that the play owed as much to A. A. Milne (quoting Milne’s
Now We Are Six
poem about King John) as to W. Shakespeare. Benedict Nightingale, in the
New Statesman
, for example, suggested that Patrick Stewart’s John was “a sort of perverted Tigger” in a world in which “War is a hilarious trip to the seaside, and [the nobles] giggle and nudge one another as they prepare to knock down the sandcastles of Angiers. Push, kick, stamp, and then back home for tea.” 39 Even more trenchantly, another influential reviewer argued that it was “a pity that this production of
King John
took place at all. Its flippancy was ill judged and often puerile. Buzz Goodbody … imposed on [the play] a single simplified view of politics as a dangerous game incompetently played by caricature kings and councillors who can give and take a giggle but defy respect.” 40

    3. 1970, Buzz Goodbody’s “Theatre-go-round” production. Patrick Stewart’s John was, in particular, presented as a childish character taking an irresponsible, whooping glee in the political process.
    While Goodbody’s production was simplified and pared down, John Barton’s 1974 RSC production was largely rewritten and incorporated two other plays about King John. In the 1974 programme, Barton explained why:
    Whenever I have seen
King John
on the stage I have been fascinated yet perplexed. When I read it again … I was struck by how much the