London. A street.

Enter Richard, Duke of Gloucester, solus.

Nearly 500 years ago, William Shakespeare's chronicle play "Richard III" started with these lines.

Istanbul. A grand theater hall.

In 2023, we witness Okan Bayülgen's take on "Richard III" by Shakespeare, drawing a peculiar portrait of the character that evokes the audience to question the dichotomy between good and evil. He presents a puzzle for the audience to solve. Here we attempt to bring the pieces together to give insight to those who wish to watch the play, which can effortlessly be performed on the world stages thanks to its high-quality stage usage and themes embedded with many theories, presented by prominent names of their fields, such as intellectual Yalın Alpay and psychiatrist Başar Akman.

One 'his'tory, 3 Richard III

Through his play, Bayülgen attempts to read Shakespeare through today's lenses. We are all aware of Richard III's real personality as a historical figure. Then comes Shakespeare's "Richard III," a play written after the Tudor dynasty's ordeal. When we consider the process of recording history as a distorted portrayal of reality and the manipulation of facts to support a particular political or ideological agenda as in Shakespeare's case, we clearly see how Richard's character became a kitsch figure, lost in the pages of the texts.

In Shakespeare's version, he is about to carry out all the murders he allegedly committed at the end. We see Richard's entire "malicious nature fully manifested" and after he stole the crown from its rightful owner (young Edward V) by killing many people, including his younger nephews. As if his pure evil personality were not enough, Richard is physically flawed as well. He had congenital scoliosis in real life, which was hardly noticeable – yet he was usually depicted both hunchbacked and bare or lame.

As the existence of the deformity is a deformity itself by the perception of the era per se, an absolute evil is inevitable for such a character, attempting to reflect it as an inherent feature.

In Bayülgen's version after we read the headlines and forensic reports about the discovery of King Richard's remains in 2012, enter Richard Hell a mysterious man of unknown origin who identifies himself with Richard III, solus in the darkness.

Richard Hell – even with his last name he reveals that he is a symbol of evil – addresses us at the opening of the play: "You immediately believe what those who rewrote history tell. For centuries, theaters have been bringing and leaving the same dark duke Richard III before your eyes."

Not only that, Bayülgen's Richard begins not with the classic tragedy, but with a current, different story that begins with unsolved murders and an official investigation. The story of Richard Hell and a small theater group. Furthermore, the story unfolds in reverse-chronological order.

Bayülgen's version

Bayülgen defines his play as "bringing together all these people in the past and recent history in today's world" and adding his own interpretation. He says that he wanted to give people who knew the lines, and indeed everyone who watched this play, something to talk about the next day. We think he definitely succeeded; we could not get the play out of our minds for a long time and we talked about it for hours.

It must be highlighted the play is not smooth as silk to follow. Between the fragmentation, dream and reality and on the slippery ground of history, the audience attempts to grasp all in nearly two hours. Yet, Bayülgen created wonders with the time transitions, presenting them in a cinematographic manner, with a live band accompanying the actors giving up drum beats as the tension escalates in the play.

The play also is a first in the world by reading and examining the forensic documents related to the discovery of Richard III's bones for the first time. Bayülgen has done unique work in this sense as well. At the end of the play, the actors stay for a conversation session to be held with the audience, which is first for the Turkish audience, to nourish the play in both ways. For that reason, the audience's responsibility is huge in the play as it demands active participation.

As an intertextual play, the story of Richard III as we know it collides at some point with the mysterious story of Richard Hell who sneaks randomly into a theater troupe. Hell explains the situation with these words: "Richard and I touched the same people 500 years later."

Both Richards are actually marginalized. Although Richard III is a member of the royal family, he was ostracized by his family due to his outward flaws and evil nature. He is labeled as a "demon" as well as despised by his mother.

Blending Shakespeare's version we know with a new story helped to remove some of the stagnation in the original. Those familiar with the play and looking for the traditional narrative may be disappointed. Yet, it was nice not to have to watch the long whining and curse of the shortsighted women in the play. Similarly, feminist discourse seems to be randomly interspersed between the lines.

Since the female actors in Bayülgen's Richard are extremely talented, it was really great that they had the opportunity to debut themselves on stage with confident stances and clever lines.

Using post-modern techniques, Bayülgen, in his own words, passed the "boring" scenes to the accompaniment of music. While rock music was preferred in accordance with the dark atmosphere and chaos, the disco genre such as Donna Summer's "I Feel Love" was preferred in the rehearsal scenes. The music definitely had a positive effect on the dynamism of the story as "21st Century Schizoid Man" by King Crimson functioned as a leitmotif throughout the play.

Who is Richard Hell?

This is actually a question that the audience should attempt to answer.

In the play, we know Richard Hell as an anonymous man who tore up his passport, an immigrant. Mind you, as not an "expat." A witch, barbarian or savage, they have been named for centuries if you are not a white European man. Embracing a nihilist ontology, Hell starts to his new identity as tabula rasa and he starts reading books randomly in the theater's library, most of them belonging to the great literary canons of the West. After reading Shakespeare's "Richard III," Hell ends up thinking that he becomes that historic figure driven by hate and lust.

As he is an immigrant yet we don't know where is he from but are sure that apparently a law profile person with a criminal background, the theater group and the cops are more than willing to suspect him for the murders going on in the theater.

Ultimately, the feeling of marginalization caused by being constantly blamed and excluded evolves into arrogance and creates terrible anger. Hell, who sees nothing but seizing power with that ambition, is taking over the whole theater just as Richard III seized the crown and took over the kingdom. Moreover, with the self-confidence and arrogance that this influence gives him, Hell gains the respect of those who humiliated him at first, even if it is not loyalty. He also wins the hearts of all women who initially did not find him attractive at all.

This is in a way, Hell's revenge that he takes from his existence. A man who is disadvantaged in many aspects, with a visible physical defect as he calls himself a "rat," finally confronts all that derogated him throughout his life.

With his unsystematic and excessive readings, he takes his share from every writer, every character, every geography and every time. He sees himself above "all" since he can be "all." At this point, the play directly corresponds with Friedrich Nietzsche's "ubermensch," a grounded human ideal, through the figure of Richard Hell. His transformation is quite systematic. He infiltrates the system first, becomes one of the theater group's members, then tears off the identity of the past and at the end, he rejects all of the values, even the Western canon, which disruptively formed his new identity.

2 creepy doll props

As you enter the great hall, two creepy white children's sculptures greet the audience on the stage before the play starts. Frantically, we got caught on the looks of the figures, unsure if they were real or not, moving or stationary.

As the play proceeds, we realized that they were the Princes in the Tower, two young princely brothers, Edward V of England and Richard of Shrewsbury, who were famously imprisoned in the Tower of London by their uncle, King Richard III. The circumstances surrounding the princes' disappearance and deaths have been the subject of much speculation and controversy for centuries. Some believe that they were murdered on the orders of King Richard III, while others argue that they may have died of natural causes or were killed by other parties. Regardless of the truth, the fate of the Princes in the Tower remains one of the most intriguing and enduring mysteries of English history, and their story continues to captivate historians and the general public alike.

Banality of evil

Throughout the play, we attempt to understand the true nature of evil. The play does not hesitate to say: evil is evil. Accordingly, we do not think there is any illusoriness here. However, the main issue is not the devilishness of evil as the play tries to show us that evil is right next to us and it does this without marginalizing or alienating it, without justification.

It also corresponds with Hannah Arendt's concept of the "banality of evil" that make us say Richard Hell is indeed pure evil. With his deviant physical look and deviated nature, he also seems extremely conducive to doing evil. Therefore, it is not hard to believe that he committed the murders happening in the theater. However, the real evil does not come from that "sadistic monster," but from normal, even frighteningly normal people. With the loss of the ability to think and reason for the sake of some gains, it is revealed once again how evil has become commonplace.

The play also touches on the concept of "beauty" and "the natural privileges" it brings. Hell says: "If it is impossible for me to enjoy the pleasures of this world except to oppress and rule those who are more handsome than me, I will seize the crown and make the world a haven."

The handsome Richard, who is asked to play Richard III, naturally becomes one of the targets of "revenge" here for being good-looking. However, this Richard gives the devil his due, pun intended, by criticizing Shakespeare's and Thomas More’s firmly placing the monarch in the category of villain.

Yet if Hell is really evil is debatable. Yet, at the end of the play, Richard Hell goes through the audience, making them shout "Richard is guilty."

Deux ex machina

Handsome Richard says that Richard Hell is at least an honest villain and exists on his own without needing any subjects to worship him. In parallel with this, Hell regretfully asks the Angel – played by Bayülgen's daughter – to take her life at the end of the play. The Angel is a really convenient deus ex machina here since it is actually Hell’s own conscience, we think. Hell confronts its own conscience at the end of the play in an unexpectedly realistic way from a tragedy.

In this play, which chose to rely too much on the intelligence of the audience, Bayülgen aimed to "draw the audience to the play and tell them my real issue. Richard writes his story like a diary throughout the play."

"It is debatable whether this is all just the delusion of an immigrant who was put through a rapid education in a theater library," he added.

Despite having a large cast and set in multiple venues, the props and space were well-used. It must be said that it is a very rich play from a technical point of view. The appearance of actors from time to time in the audience also made the story active and interesting, but it could cause some scenes to feel dizzy.

The play deserves a shot because it is a wonderful reinterpretation of the namesake Shakespearean epic. The play has very successful storytelling, the actors’ talents were obvious to the audience and the writing is top-notch. Bayülgen’s Richard will be a memorable experience for years to come.