‘Richard II’ Has a Message for Our Times

I was planning to respond to Sylvie Drake’s review of “Richard II” (“ ‘Richard II’: No Great Shakes” at the Mark Taper Forum, Calendar, April 24) before the fires of revolution burned the streets of Los Angeles. Now in the aftermath of what is being considered one of the most significant examples of civil unrest in America since the Civil War, I am concerned more than ever about what is happening in today’s theater. I feel I must respond to Drake.

I sat on the board of directors of the Theatre Communications Group for four years and listeed to the white leaders of America’s regional theaters talk a good game regarding multiculturalism. But that’s all it was--talk.

The Taper, and director Robert Egan in particular, have put their money where their mouths are. Egan has put his head on the chopping block three years in a row by attempting to bring to the stage the voice and face of the “other” in our society. “Sansei,” “Widows” and now “Richard II” show audiences what it means to be a person of color in a world presently controlled by whites.

In each instance, there has not been one word of either encouragement or substantial discourse from Drake about the importance of this endeavor in today’s theater, particularly here in Los Angeles.

Why has there been such resistance to this work? I venture to say that, looking through the eyes of a black man, whites in America and all over the world are afraid of the power shift that is most assuredly on its way. Drake seems to resist the idea that “Richard II,” looked at from a 1990s multiracial perspective, could really in some way represent the change in the balance of power between whites and non-whites in our world.

In fact, Drake states in her review that to bring race directly into the equation of power in “Richard II” makes it “obvious,” “entirely too politically correct.”

Egan’s concept for “Richard II” did not reduce the historical implications of the play but did just the opposite. As I watched the production, a new world of Shakespeare opened up to me that enhanced the historical and dramatic implications of the play. I cheered the character Bolingbroke because he represented me. He was strong, he was a warrior, he was intelligent, he had nobility, he was black and he wasn’t scared of white folks in power.

I don’t see this image very often. His black, Latino and Asian compatriots were swept up into Bolingbroke’s vision--to seize power from people who seem to have lost sense of what true leadership is all about. Bolingbroke tried to look to a new world where people were not wantonly abused by the self-interest and greed of those in power.

The people took to the streets of Los Angeles because they were tired of the abuse and insensitivity of a predominantly white power structure. They wanted their voices to be heard and taken seriously.

To suggest parallels between our world and the world of Richard II, to include the issue of race in a classical play dealing with power--can this really be dismissed as being “too politically correct” and “obvious”? Not to a black man living in 1992 Los Angeles.

When I heard Richard II speak of the “divine right of kings,” I thought of Bush, Reagan, Nixon, McCarthy and on and on. I thought of all those people in power, like Richard II, who bathe themselves in the rhetoric and poetic images of divine authority in order to protect the absolute nature of their power. I thought of those who think it their “divine right” to rob the savings and loan industry, to write bad checks, to plunder the stock market, to swindle the system--and know they will only get a slap on the wrist.

Meanwhile, poor folks must face adversity with a stiff upper lip. They are told their salvation will come in the hereafter.

Indeed, America’s slave owners felt they were put on Earth to save the savage soul of the black man and woman. This was their “divine right.” The “massa” was civilized and truly in touch with God, the slave was primitive and not.

Somehow, after the violence in Los Angeles, like Bolingbroke and his followers, I don’t think the people of color want to hear about “divine rights” in 1992 Los Angeles.

I thank the production of “Richard II” for pointing out the historical continuum of people in power who continually attempt to hide political realities behind the veneer of image and belief systems born out of self-interest. This “Richard II” had a multiple majesty for me.

I’m convinced Shakespeare would applaud the production of “Richard II” at the Mark Taper Forum. It is a play and a production for our times. Theater is now--not yesterday.

Egan’s production was certainly an omen of the unrest that exploded in Los Angeles. “Richard II” became a warning to us all: You cannot take advantage of people and not expect them to respond sooner or later.

The time has come to give credence to people who dance to the beat of a different drummer. As a black artist, I have something different to say from my white colleagues. I see a world that comes from darkness, from the motherland, Africa.

All colors come from the darkness. So let’s stop fighting it.

People of all colors fought the fight in the streets of Los Angeles. Theater of color speaks the unspeakable.

We all need to listen.