Comrade Shakespeare – no more game

Ten years are a long time in the theater. And almost ten years ago, it was almost ten years since it celebrated on Lehniner Platz, Berlin’s pseudoelegant Ku’damm, “Richard III.” His premiere. Celebrate – this is the right word here; A celebration of the intrigue took place on stage. It is rare that a staging stays in the repertoire of a German theater (and is always sold out well in advance). On the Schaubühne, this “Richard III.” Is trumped by another piece of the comrade Shakespeare: “Hamlet” has been on the schedule since 2008.

Directed by the artistic director of the house, Thomas Ostermeier, directed in one case; The title figure was occupied twice with the at least as much worshiped as far -loved by other Lars Eidinger. While the almost three -hour “Hamlet” reveals less about the Danish prince and much more about the main actor, Eidinger in “Richard III.”, Despite the other claims, is definitely in the service of the work.

Genosse Shakespeare

As you like it: Every two weeks, Erik Zielke writes about great tragedies, political lubricating theater and the fools from the past and present. He finds inspiration from his comrade from Stratford-Upon-Avon.

You can find all columns here.

You can lead a lot into the field against the staging. First to the director: Too often Ostermeier is also called Biedermeier. And the Shakespeare language has made a seat here to make a vague overwriting, which can also be regretted. The dramaturgical structure of the piece was extremely pointed on the title hero and the leading actor, which is a controversial decision, it leaves a lot in the dark. Nevertheless, we see a Richard who appears as a tormented tormentor, humiliated with the unconditional will, in short: a big drama.

However, if one came to speak on this Schaubühnen “Richard” in recent years, one could be sure that someone with interest in “discourse” and far less interest in stage art brought the decisive argument against this staging: “Cripping Up «means the keyword that comes from the anglophone, which is troubled by all the political correctness and is blessed with completely other theater history. This describes a problematic stage practice in which a non -disabled actor mimics a person with disabilities.

Eidinger’s hand is connected to his head is a strap. A black cap covers its head. A neck corset makes him a hunchback. Another unevenly laced corset makes it bent. His foot is glued several times. Half -naked and disfigured, he is on stage for two and a half hours. Eidinger turns – and shows us the means of transformation. We see a Shakespeare in post-Brecht times.

Ultimately, the accusation is a banality. But he stems to the foundations of the theater: here one plays something that he is not. Does the Oedipus actor actually have to take the eyesight himself? Does Woyzeck first have to be placed on the inheritance diet before being allowed to enter the stage? How much royal blood does the actor need to give Don Karlos? And can anyone who has refused to serve the weapon is a prince of Homburg?

The occupation of the role of Richard III. With a player with disabilities (but not mandatory with a parent from York), a auditor’s experience -free spectator experience is intended to ensure. How strange it is, however, that individual characteristics of the literary figures should also be completely authentic to the actors and that actors, such as those with disabilities, are to be set to certain roles completely in an arterial Theater not in mind.

nd.kompact – our daily newsletter

Our daily newsletter nd. compact Bring order to the news madness. You get an overview of the most exciting stories from the Editorial team. Get the free subscription here.

One critic even came to the conclusion that the Eidingen is “the caricature of a person with body disability”. The particularly pronounced sensitivity to discriminatory representation becomes a popanz here. Because acting is not necessarily caricature. Anyone who makes the line -up for the caricative character alone is a misunderstanding.

Despite his own gender, Robert Beyer skilfully gives Queen Margaret in the same staging; That doesn’t work either. What is revealed here is not a discriminatory staging practice, but the discriminatory look of the allegedly critical viewer, who wants to override the rules of the game among certain groups of people, suspects the suspiciously caricatures and who wants to make itself paternally the protector of individual roles.