23-26.

The same mesmeric powers which brought Shakespeare's Richard of Gloucester to the throne of England are audaciously employed by John Zuill in his portrayal of the title role of "King Richard III'' which opened at City Hall on Wednesday evening.

From the moment the hunchbacked duke makes clear his evil intent in the opening soliloquy, Zuill's virtuosic approach is cast: dragging foot and withered hand quieten pity as he jokes about his deformities in a voice rich with ironic humour and a face animated with sly but obvious intellect. This display of openly jocose villainy, coupled with his ability to "wet my cheeks with artificial tears'', adding "colours to the chameleon'', brings credibility as well as undeniable fascination to a character of otherwise unbelievable evil. It is, of course, an actor's dream role, since the dissembling instincts of Richard match the essential narcissism of the actor -- a fact implicitly appreciated by Shakespeare who was himself an actor and who probably had the great Richard Burbage in mind when he wrote the play.

This is a monumental performance, daringly walking a tightrope of black comedy which could so easily topple into melodramatic farce. That it does not, is a tribute to John Zuill's intuitive understanding and ultimate command of the role. In a marathon evening of dramatic highlights, his outrageous and hypnotic wooing of the mourning Lady Anne, and the comical spectacle of an apparently unwilling and unworldly monarch, flanked by two mitred bishops and piously preoccupied with his prayer book, will linger in the memory.

His portrayal which, of course is the raison d'etre of the piece, just about justifies what seemed a bizarre choice of play for a Festival production.

"King Richard III'' is hardly the easiest introduction to Shakespeare -- and introduction it must have been for many in the audience. The programme, however, provides no synopsis of the play's complicated plot -- or even a brief explanation of the historical circumstances which reduced 15th Century England to a seemingly permanent battle zone which divided family against family for the 100 years' duration of the Wars of the Roses.

Once you get past the confusion of a plethora of similarly named noblemen, however, "King Richard III,'' which is at once a history, a tragedy and a political play, provides some thrilling moments of theatre. Its importance, on one level, lies in the ever-topical and cautionary message that there are power-crazed individuals who, with Machiavellian disregard for the misery they wreak around them, will stop at nothing to promote personal ambitions.

For director David Perry, accustomed to training the cream of Britain's actors, this must indeed have been a challenge. All in all, he has risen heroically to the task of directing a large cast, many of them unfamiliar with the language of Shakespeare; the stamp of his meticulous regard for the nuances and rhythms of the verse is apparent throughout. He has adopted a classic approach to the play, preferring a minimalist setting in order to focus attention on the spoken word and character interpretation.

The production is visually arresting in that it captures the historic flavour of the period through little more than the admittedly ingenious employment of dramatically lit movable pillars, balcony and throne and magnificent giant banners depicting the white rose of York and red rose of Lancaster. In contrast, the sumptuous costumes, rented from London, evoke perfectly the late mediaeval period in which the play is set.

Among the large parade of characters in the drama, it is notable in this early work of Shakespeare, that there is a curious imbalance between Richard and those around him. It is as if the sheer force of his personality nullifies everyone else on stage so that, although there are important roles, they are oddly lacklustre in dramatic impact.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the roles allotted to the four royal ladies who, despite endless recriminations and curses, seem to remain removed from reality. The ladies of this production do little to revise this impression.

Surprisingly, it is Jeanette Freestone in the cameo role of the Duchess of York and mother of Richard, who understands best the rhythms of the language without sacrificing dramatic realism. So too, does Jean Hannant who, as the vitriolic old Queen Margaret, looks every inch the royal dowager. A mere shadow in this play of the pivotal role she assumes in the preceding King Henry VI, there are, nevertheless some glorious lines. These she delivers with fine understanding, but her voice lacks the strength to do them justice.

Couldn't she have been "miked?'' Rebecca Lamont is an elegant Lady Anne who certainly makes the most of the wooing scene but, in general, paces her delivery so fast that half the lines are thrown away. In the role of Queen Elizabeth, Annette Hallett's voice sounds monotonously flat and totally unsuited to the melodic and rhythmic demands of Shakespeare.

Of the main male roles, Nigel Kermode -- born, it seems, to speak Shakespeare -- brings his customary professionalism to his portrayal of the Duke of Buckingham, abettor in Richard's crimes, until even he balks at the idea of murdering the young Princes in the Tower.

Richard Fell, for whom Shakespeare is also a second language, brings a convincing dignity to the luckless Duke of Clarence and also played Sir James Tyrrell.

There is a new talent in the form of Arthur Lugo who has returned to Bermuda after a long absence. A magnificent voice brings the requisite air of climax to the play as he steps forth, the victorious defeater of "the bloody dog'' Richard, and taking his crown as King Henry VII.

In lesser roles, Sean Dill towers above the rest, his professional training clear to all, in a superb portrayal as Clarence's murderer.

All in all, an enthralling evening of theatre justified, if any is needed, by John Zuill's remarkable and ultimately chilling study of one man's descent into evil.- Patricia Calnan .