Richard III

"Shakespeare in modern dress" is a concept which I believe sprang forth from the brain of Orson Welles back in the 1920s; but regardless of who gave birth to the idea, it was and remains a very good one. The biggest knock on Shakespeare, usually muttered by high school students, is its incomprehensibility to the modern ear -- the difficulty of actually understanding the meaning of his words, however beautifully they may sound when uttered by British actors of high caliber. The second most popular knock is that it is old, dusty stuff written 400 years ago and set even earlier, and has nothing to do with our contemporary life. With their opulent presentation of RICHARD III in "modern dress," director Richard Loncraine and veteran Shakespearian (even in 1995) Ian McKellen give us a fairly strong and most definitely visually stunning argument that both charges are false, or rather, ought to be false, because the story is as much in the telling as in the writing.The original RICHARD III was a work of artistic propaganda by Shakespeare, meant to flatter the House of Tudor, who had seized power from the last of the Plantagenet kings, Richard III, after a bloody struggle called the Wars of the Roses, in 1485. In the play, Richard is depicted as a Villain Compleat, a total monster with absolutely no redeeming qualities at all -- he's deformed, treacherous, bloodthirsty, Satanically ambitious and completely without mercy or scruple, killing family members, children, and anyone else in his way without any compunction whatever. His story is not so much the story of a character learning and growing (even in a tragic sense), but rather of how pathological ambition and murder create the counter-forces which inevitably destroy their practicioner. In that sense it's rather like MACBETH, the difference being that Richard, unlike Macbeth, feels no tinge of guilt for his many atrocities, even as he topples into the pit. In telling this story, Ian McKellen has his work cut out for him, because watching a man behave this badly over two hours is not easy unless there is a deeper message...and a fine actor (or actors) to convey it. Luckily the movie has both, as well as extremely lavish costuming and production design, which contemporize this old story of treachery and ambition run wild.The film is set in an "alternate" England at the end of the Jazz Age. Richard (McKellen) has been crucial in putting his oldest brother Edward York (John Wood) on the throne of England after the Wars of the Roses. Perhaps he ought to be happy with his rank of field marshal and the fact that he has driven the rival Lancasters out of England into France, but no, not a bit of it. Richard, being deformed and also low on the list of succession, nurses enormous ambitions nobody around him even begins to suspect. And so, with a smirk on his face and a lie on his lips, he begins to plot against his own family, launching a series of intrigues which eventually -- after a lot of teachery and murder -- get him in the big chair himself. Once there, however, he does not relax but grows more authoritarian and paranoid, alienating even his own mother Cecily (Maggie Smith) and various other of his retainers (see below) while turning England into a jack-booted Fascist state. Meanwhile, his dispossessed enemies, led by the charismatic Richmond (Dominic West), are growing stronger with every defection and planning an invasion of England to recapture the throne for the Lancasters. Richard, realizing events are turning against him, utters a line which sums up his entire outlook as he marches his army to meet its destiny:Slave, I have set my life upon a cast,And I will stand the hazard of the die!If this seems like a brusque analysis of the movie, it is, but really, the story is as simple -- despite its many intrigues and plots and schemes -- as all of that. The story is not about how events change a man, but how a man's choices change events, and, if this isn't pushing it too far, how a man brings back upon himself what he sews in life. In a story this bloody, there isn't time for character development, unless it's in the form of sniveling retainers like Sir William Catesby (Tim McInnerny) or the Duke of Buckingham (Jim Broadbent), who vie for Richard's favor at the expense of their nation and sometimes, their own lives. Richard has no moment of epiphany, no Hamlet or Macbeth-like doubts, nor does he shatter when things don't go his way. He's a psychopath, but not a coward. As he puts it:Let's to it pell-mellIf not to heaven, then hand in hand to hell!I said above that there were two knocks on the old Bard -- lack of relevance and difficulty of comprehension. This movie gets around both. First, with its depiction of Richard as a Franco-Mussolini-Hitler type figure who takes his somewhat decadent Jazz Age country and turns it into a flag-bedecked, flood-lighted Fascist temple full of armed men and crashing boots and bulging jails. These are images we can relate to somewhat better than we can Medieval settings. Second, McKellen and his cohorts due a fine job of using facial expressions and tones of voice to convey the emotional meaning of Shakespeare's lovely but sometimes baffling turns of phrase. McKellen in particular excels at this with his winks and smirks, his self-conscious enjoyment of his own villainy, and Tim McInnerney (Sir William Catesby) does good work (as he did as John Clay on "Sherlock Holmes") as a preening lackey. Nigel Hawthorne is very affecting as George, Duke of Clarence, who loves and trusts his brother only to be cruelly betrayed and murdered at his hands. And Maggie Smith delivers as always, especially near the end, when she finally, all too belatedly grasps what she has given birth to and how much his existence has cost her in terms of grief.The film is obviously not perfect. Anette Benning (Queen Elizabeth) and Robert Downey Jr. (Rivers) are curiously miscast in their roles, and were probably brought in for their name recognition and to American-up this otherwise all-U.K. production. On the flip side, some very fine actors like Edward Hardwicke (Lord Stanley) are underused. The convention of having Richard speak directly to the camera, breaking the fourth wall, is one I can't make up my mind about. On the one hand it perfectly fits with Shakespeare's idea of the soliloqy. On the other, given Richard's penchant for smirking, it can perhaps push a bit too far in the direction of "meta" and undercut the drama with perhaps too much in the way of humor.RICHARD III may or may not be the best way to break someone who doesn't like, or isn't familiar with, Shakespeare, into that particular world, but it's a beautiful and well-acted movie and definitely worth a watch regardless, if only to remind you that "power by any means" often comes with the caveat "at every price."

Overall:At 104 minutes and changed in setting to England in the early 1930s, this film makes little pretense to be Shakespeare's Richard III, with the exception of maintaining the dialogue from the Folio text. As for the quality of the film, I do not believe that modernizing the setting enhanced the film adaptation much, except perhaps for people who would be bored by setting the film in the 1400s. Therefore, it may have created a broader appeal to a cinematic audience. Perhaps, also by starring Ian McKellen as Richard III, the film will appeal to Lord of the Rings fans and/or fans of McKellen's performance as Macbeth in the minimalist "Macbeth."I personally have based my 4 star rating on how well the film communicates the THEMES from Shakespeare's original play, as well as the acting performances [McKellen is excellent]. Of course, as I have previously written, this film adaptation compares Richard III with Hitler and England with Germany (ex: the red, white, and black flags, the military attire, the chants, etc).Below I have listed some technical issues pertaining to the adaptation (for those who really want to know how this film adaptation differs from the Folio text).Characters Eliminated:- Dorset- Gray- Queen Margaret (Duchess of York and Queen Elizabeth speak some of her most famous lines)Alternations:- Lord Hastings is the Prime Minister - not the Lord Chamberlain- Some words and sentence structure are changed [of course, nearly 2/3rds of the dialogue is eliminated]Film opens with Richard's attack against King Henry VI and Prince Edward. [In total, there is 9 minutes of introductory shots/material not included in the actual text of the play.]Act 1, Scene 1 is greatly condensed. [All act and scene number refer to the Norton Shakespeare based on the Oxford text.]- Film clearly portrays from the beginning, Richard's brilliant verbal abilities to woe a crowd when he delivers his first lines in a public speech.- Film shows Richard using the restroom to urinate while continuing the less favorable portions of his introductory speech.Act 1, Scene 2 is greatly condensed.- Anne hovers over the body of Prince Edward in the morgue.- Richard pulls a ring from his mouth for Lady Anne to wear after proposing to her.- In 1.2. 215-250, Richard gives a condensed version of his victory of Anne speech as he walks through a hospital while seeing many wounded people about whom he does not seem to care.Film adds a scene between 1.2. and 1.3 in which Richard burns Clarence's letter of pardon, which King Edward IV had signed.Act 1, Scene 3 with the exception of some of the first 20 lines is excluded until later in the film.A scene is added between 1.3 and 1.4, where Richard meets James Tyrrell. As Tyrrell feeds the pigs rotten apples, Richard asks Tyrrell if he can confide in him.Act 1, Scene 4 is split by Richard telling the murders (Tyrrell and one another) to murder Clarence quickly. Film then covers some of 1.3. 25-85 before shifting momentarily to the murders again, who have arrived at the Tower of London.Film then returns to 1.3.85-110 & 285-320. [Note: Queen Elizabeth speaks some of Margaret's lines, such as those when Margaret warns Buckingham against Richard.]Scene shifts to 1.4. 104-260. Clarence is in bathtub. Murders dunk Clarence's head under the water while slitting his throat with a knife.Short scene is added where Richard receives Clarence's broken glasses, a sign that Clarence has been murdered. Another short scene is added to show that Richard does not talk with his wife Anne.Act 2, Scene 1 is considerably condensed.Act 2, Scene 2 begins at line 38.Act 2, Scene 3 is excluded.Act 2, Scene 4 is largely excluded. (The few parts that remain are considerably altered.)Instead of Act 2, Scene 4, a short scene is included in which Rivers is stabbed through the chest from under the bed as a woman is (probably) giving him oral sex.Act 3, Scene 1 is changed and considerably condensed.Act 3, Scene 2 is greatly condensed.Act 3, Scene 3 is excluded.Act 3, Scene 4 is condensed.Act 3, Scene 5 is condensed.- Richard views 9x12 inch black and white photos of Hastings' head in a noose. [Recall that in play, Hastings is beheaded.]Act 3, Scene 6 is excluded.Act 4, Scene 1 is reduced and included before Act 3, Scene 7.Act 3, Scene 7 is reduced- Richard's prayer book is not really a prayer book.- Richard's two priests are two attractive young ladies.- Lord Stanley [played by Edward Hardwick] urges Richmond to flee England.At the end of 3.7, Richard publicly accepts the kingship in front of a massive audience. The scene is very Nazique.Act 4, Scene 1 is greatly reduced.Between 4.1 and 4.2 while traveling in an automobile, Anne injects herself with a needle. [One gains the impression that Anne is a drug addict.]Act 4, Scene 2 is slightly condensed.- For example, Richard calls Tyrrell right away rather than relying on a page. [Also, unlike in the text of the play, Richard already knows Tyrrell at this point.]Act 4, Scene 3 is slightly condensed.- Princes are suffocated.- It appears that Richard admits that he is going to kill Anne. [Note: In the text of the play, one does not really know whether Anne just died or if Richard was the cause.]Act 4, Scene 4 is relatively condensed (begins around line 145)Act 4, Scene 5 is slightly condensed.Act 5, Scene 1 contains only line 1 before Buckingham is strangled to death.Act 5, Scene 2 is eliminated.Act 5, Scene 3 is slightly condensed.Act 5, Scene 4 is eliminated.Act 5, Scene 5 is largely eliminated- Ghosts do not visit Richard. Instead, Richard, as he dreams, hears the accusatory words of those he had wronged.- Unlike in text of play, Ratcliffe appears genuinely loyal to Richard.- Richard's forces are surprised attacked by Richmond's forces.- Richard and Richmond get into gunfire fight with one another, exchanging bullets.- Richard commits suicide by jumping off a building, just before Richmond can shoot him with a pistol.Final Image:Final scene shows the powerful image of Richard falling back first into a raging gasoline inferno.Overall:I recommend the film, although as I have previous described, the film is definitely NOT a good representation of Shakespeare's text.

A powerful portrayal by a brilliant actor. Set in a 1930s era with the foreboding threat of war all around. One of my favourite retelling of a familiar story. Excellent film. Chilling.

This is an ingenious modernisation of Shakespeare's play. However the translation to echos of a fascist dictator fails to be sustained for the length of the film. Worth comparison against Olivier's version but on the whole Olivier comes off best in conveying the villainy in my opinion.

Why was Richard III with Sir Ian McKellen never reissued on DVD with English subtitles? It looks so much like a rights dispute as this play is just pure magic. Bought the German - subtitle version as it was the only one available on the market for a reasonable price. And I don't regret it.A must have for any Shakespearean

This is an excellent film. I remember when it first came out enjoying it immensely. I am now hard of hearing and rely on subtitles. I bought this DVD from the UK because it has English subtitles. The US DVD does not. I can get around it being a Region 2 DVD by playing it through my computer with a dedicated Region 2 external drive.

Absolutely wonderful production...for anyone interested in Shakespeare plays this one a must. Ian McKellan's performance mesmerising along with many fine performances from the supporting cast. This particular dvd was bought for my sister as I had already viewed it and recommended it to her. In terms of the play itself to shoot it during the period of WW11 Nazi germany was indeed inspiring. My only regret is that it has not been released in a region 4 format for those in that area to enjoy.