In the journalists’ row at the front pew of St Martin-in-the-Fields, I get the first question at the end of the talk between Nicholas Hytner and Helen Castor. Hytner, the legendary theatre director, and Castor, a best-selling historian and Cambridge fellow, are both titans in their fields, so naturally my question is about the elephant (unfortunately) not in the room with us: Jonathan Bailey.

Hytner’s production of Richard II at the Bridge Theatre, starring Bailey in the lead, runs until 10 May. His dialogue with Castor, whose latest book The Eagle and the Lion covers the reigns of Richard and his deposer Bolingbroke (later to be crowned Henry IV), provides a nice balance of expertises – one historical, the other dramaturgical (because, as we all know, Shakespeare’s histories are the furthest thing from the truth).

"the Bard’s contributions have arguably done more to hinder than help our broad cultural understanding of many English kings"

In fact, the Bard’s contributions have arguably done more to hinder than help our broad cultural understanding of many English kings. Images of the spoilt Richard II, or the lily-livered Henry VI, or the conniving hunchback Richard III, have proven difficult to scrub from the world’s consciousness, and there’s some interesting deliberation between Castor and Hytner on where Shakespeare’s king, and the one known to scholars, diverge.

At one point in the discussion, Hytner mentions waiting for the right actor to headline a play so heavily dependent on its lead (although I’d argue Bolingbroke, played in his production by “future star” Royce Pierrson, has equal footing in Richard II). My question to the director, once I finished stammering to get it out, having never been in the company of a Tony winner before, asks what about Jonathan Bailey specifically made him right for the production.

Hytner answers by referring to Bailey’s gift for speaking Shakespeare naturalistically, almost conversationally – fitting for a modernised production (most of Hytner’s history plays are) in which the king snorts cocaine and faces off against field guns. Part of what I was really looking to get out of him, though, had already been answered earlier in the discussion. Richard II marks Hytner’s first Shakespearean history at the Bridge, which he founded in 2017. Before then, his last venture into the genre was Henry IV (Parts 1 and 2) at the National in 2005, where he was artistic director. I suspect, and Hytner all but confirms as much, that this return to a history – a genre traditionally less marketable than the Bard’s other works – has everything to do with the financial viability provided by Bailey’s star power.

"Jonathan phoned him one day, sheepishly, to announce he’d been cast in a little-known musical adaptation called Wicked"

Hytner and the Fellow Travellers star have enjoyed a close relationship since Bailey played Cassio in 2013’s Othello, something the actor has called his “big break.” As Hytner put it to us audience members, Jonathan phoned him one day, sheepishly, to announce he’d been cast in a little-known musical adaptation called Wicked. Fearing backlash over taking a blockbuster role and what it might do to his standing as an actor, Bailey apparently asked (and this astounds me just thinking about it): “Is my career over?”

No, came Hytner’s reply – he just needed rehabilitating straight afterwards with a good Strindberg to restore him to the high-brow scene. Of course, this was before Wicked proved a hit for Bailey commercially and critically, netting him a SAG Award nomination. But Richard II reminds us, between Wicked installments (and ahead of his upcoming Jurassic World film), that he is first and foremost a stage performer. It’s no Strindberg, but it has packed out the aisles, something an actor with less visibility would have struggled to do – and something theatre producers, at a time of crisis for the industry, might not have agreed to put to stage had the titular role not been taken up by a Bridgerton veteran.

"they alone have the financial baggage to draw in crowds and keep a lesser-known title afloat"

In this, I think there’s something telling about British theatre today, where A-listers dominate new productions not necessarily because West End producers are ‘pandering,’ but because they alone have the financial baggage to draw in crowds and keep a lesser-known title afloat. Richard II is hardly obscure, but the fact that even plays by Shakespeare – history’s best-selling name – are becoming increasingly reliant on renowned actors to ensure they’re put into production doesn’t suggests great things about the state of the industry and its ability to take risks in a time of spiralling inflation and production costs.

Call it Stockholm syndrome from reading so much Renaissance drama for my Tragedy paper, but I can’t help but worry whether certain precincts of Shakespeare are becoming less viable to put to the public – to say nothing of his contemporaries (Marlowe, Lyly, Kyd, Middleton, Rowley) who aren’t just great playwrights but also an important part of our cultural heritage who deserve to be fully realised on stage. It’s a shame – as the financial state of Britain continues to cudgel the arts sector, I imagine we won’t be seeing Arden of Faversham or Women Beware Women at the Bridge for the foreseeable future, unless Bailey wants to come back for an encore.

Want to share your thoughts on this article? Send us a letter to letters@varsity.co.uk or by using this form.