Robert Sturua’s Georgian Shakespearian, Richard III, Part I

During the staging of the Georgian works, directors and actors should consider the issue how to make their chosen plays suitable for modernity , whether it answers or not the problems and question, which care and suffer to people. Reflection of epoch existence of defined country can represent the interest for the ethnography museum but not the theatre body and spectator.
Classical works always proves the human advanced ideas. The task and the goal of the director is to reflect these ideas in the art form. At the same time, opening the classic play is the same as finding a huge problems in it, which couldn’t cause the emotion of the passion in spectator today.
Shakespeare is known in Georgia since the first part of the XIX century. Popularity of the English dramaturge is directly connected with the rise of the Georgian theatre culture. Shakespeare’s understanding and staging process was coursing since the early 60s throughout theatre Universe of Soviet Union in a new way. Shakespeare’s modern drama was also seemed from the theatre position of Brekht in the Rustaveli theatre of early 60s.Mikheil Tumanishvili accomplished Shakespeare’s three play on the stage of Rustaveli theatre. “ A midsummer night dream” (1964yr) “King Lear” (1960yr) and “Julius Caesar” (1967yr). Mikheil Tumanishvili was blamed the eclecticism, distancing from the traditions, mixing the different performing manners in one play, changing the art position, being innovating and etc. (these remarks were mainly related
to “ A midsummer night dream”). It is important that actors’ conditionality of playing was being criticized and such playing manners were being denied in the Drama theatre. This play was Mikheil Tumanishvili’s real failure in his creation, but one thing is certainly clear that we should search the leaders of staging and reading the Shakespeare’s Richard III in a new way in “A midsummer night dream”. Consciously or unconsciously
Tumanishvili’s “Chinchraka” and “ A midsummer night dream” are impossible to not have influenced on forming the directing stylistics of Robert Sturua, though exactly eclecticism reigns nearly in all his plays, for what Tumanishvili was being criticized, among them is Richard III also.
Robert Sturua is staging Shakespeare’s Richard III in Rustaveli theatre, 1979. Some personages were disappeared in the play by the Sturua method reconstruction of tragedy. New heroes were appeared, text was specially shortened for this play. Zurab Kiknadze did a new prosaic translation, where Ivane Machabeli took part partially. New texts were added and five action of Shakespeare’s tragedy has been reduced in three acts. A number of scenes what are consistently given in
Shakespeare’s play are merged in polyphonic plastics, that showed mutual communicational line of events, which might have become unknown for viewer. Shakespeare exposed regulatories of struggling towards
power and reflected its essence in his play “Richard III”. Shakespeare showed us so called “locked circle”, where Richard and his partners were acting. In his tragedy Shakespeare performed us the fighters against the Richard. For example, Richmond , who had appeared on the stage at the end of the play, struggled with Richard and defeated him, it was the benefit of kindness. Robert Sturua performed the Richmond as the partner of Richard. I think, director’s such decision more corresponds to the modern epoch. Shakespeare’s struggle by the interpretation of Sturua , which is directed against Richard is derived in the terms of private gain and satisfactory of own interests. Aren’t people close to such degradation exactly in our time?
Cynicism and Violence are basic tools of struggle in Shakespeare. Exactly this was underlined by Robert Sturua in his plays. Robert Sturua presents us Shakespeare’s tragedy in the form of tragic farce. Ofcourse everything what happens on the stage is tragedy . Human living in that way is tragedy as it is shown in the Richard III by Shakespeare, but the director is ironically watching the furious struggle of human for gaining the
power, as if, he is even laughing at them. As if, he is observing everything with cold mind, estimating them their “creation” and creating the viewer the mean of estimation of current story on the stage. Determination of performance characterized in this way is appropriate as for art (I. Mshvelidze) but also musical (G.Kancheli) determination of the play.