Armand
more than an innovative adaptation of the Shakespeare's play, it is an experience. an exercise of memory, a lesson of history, an admirable work who presents slices from a WWII in a special manner. story about power, it becomes testimony about the illness of a century by each of its dictatorship. story about tyranny, it is a warning and remarkable tool for remember the universal message of Shakespeare work. the cast, the music, the image - all is perfect. in few moments , the only problem becomes the forced context for the Shakespeare words. but the situation is saved by the spirit of play. more than an eccentric adaptation, great performances, it is pure history lesson. few scenes - strong and touching - are necessaries proofs.
classicalsteve
King Richard III didn't live in the 1930's, and William Shakespeare didn't write in the 20th century. This historical figure lived in the the late Middle Ages, and Shakespeare wrote in the very late 16th and early 17th centuries near the end of the Renaissance. To snatch an historical figure 600 years out of his historical context and a corresponding play 450 years out of its theatrical and artistic context I believe loses the entire point of Shakespeare's original play. Taking bona fide masterpieces of theater and setting them down into another period is certainly in vogue these days, and victims have included other masterworks, including those by Wolfgang Mozart/da Ponte and even Richard Wagner. It is a practice I question, if only to say they simply are not the original works as intended by the artist-creators. They may be compelling and interesting but exist as a new work with elements of the original but they are NOT equivalent to the original. In this case, Richard III is set in the early 20th century during the period when the Nazis ruled Germany.Now, certainly any artist is free to do whatever he or she wishes with a play or opera which is in the public domain. But just because these things can be done, the question is whether they should be done, or at least to acknowledge they are fundamentally altering the original. Unfortunately however, this practice of "contextual re-appropriation" for lack of a better term is often rationalized in such a way to make it more real for contemporary audiences. Again, that's fine, but it is a morphing of the original work into something else. Making Richard III into a European Nazi-sympathizer of the 1930's is reshaping Shakespeare's original vision into something quite distinctive from a 16th-century interpretation of a 15th-century historical figure. The bottom line: no matter what it is, and not matter how well it works on its own terms, it is not really Shakespeare anymore. Now granted, I am not saying it should never be done, but it is not Richard III as conceived by William Shakespeare.Consider the following: Could Tennessee Williams' A Streetcar Named Desire be transferred to early Colonial America? Or how about Neil Simon's "The Odd Couple" set in Elizabethan England, with Oscar as a tavern owner and Felix as a cobbler? Gilbert and Sullivan's "The Mikado" could be easily set in a host of other eras, such as the Middle Ages or even Antiquity. Or maybe a film version of Mark Twain's "Tom Sawyer", keeping all the dialog, but set in the ghetto of New York in the 1970's. Again these "morphings" could possibly work on their own terms, but they wouldn't be Williams, Simon, Gilbert-Sullivan, or Twain anymore. They would be something else, and I think something would certainly be lost by placing them outside their contexts. Part of what makes them rich and appealing has to do with their original eras. Funny, though, no one would dare do this to Williams or Twain, but Shakespeare, Mozart and Wagner are constantly being re-contextualized. Maybe for myself after watching this film is that I never saw King Richard III of England. I saw a new character possibly inspired by Richard III but not Shakespeare's Richard III. Richard III lived in the late Middle Ages. He didn't have access to machine guns, tanks or telephones. He wouldn't have understood the terms fascism or communism. And he certainly would not have been smoking a cigarette. And to add one further point, there are a myriad of films set during World War II. Is it really necessary to take a Shakespeare play and put it there as well? As it is, there are not as many big-budget productions of Shakespeare plays produced after 1970 set in their original context as their should be, barring the wonderful BBC productions. There are plenty of films depicting Europe before, during and just after the Nazis.Because I prefer my Shakespeare, my Mozart and my Wagner produced in ways more closely adapted into what the authors had intended, which includes their historical context, I am not a good judge of this kind of material. Richard III to its credit may work on its own terms. But the use of the original Shakespearean language for a setting in the 20th century doesn't make much sense to me, and I don't really see the point. West Side Story, which was Romeo and Juliet set in 1950's New York, is a perfect example of how Shakespeare can be updated without messing with the original. Instead of the actors saying lines in Elizabethan English, new dialog was written which was contextually more appropriate for the mid-20th century, particular white gang members and Puerto Ricans in New York City. I think I would have preferred a newly written work with the plot inspired by Richard III rather than thrusting Shakespeare's blank verse across several centuries and putting it where it really doesn't belong.
crooow-2
First the good: the movement to modern neo-fascism was interesting, the twist on many of the speeches was fascinating (which is one of the pleasures of re-doing Shakespeare - viz. the interpretation), McKellen is great, and most of the supporting cast is solid.What I didn't like as much: some of the choices regarding what dialogue to keep and what to discard. Losing some of the opening soliloquy was unnecessary and a crime to Richard III fans. Benning and Downey Jr are not good in this - I like them in other films but here they sounded as if they were reciting lines that they had carefully memorized - very unnatural. But mostly where I think this falls short of the Olivier version is in the believability of Richard as a charmer. Olivier makes you believe that Richard could fool people. In this version, Richard is so blatantly evil that nobody could be deceived by him. Maybe they aren't supposed to be in this version but Richard III is one of the all-time great villains because he could charm people (a la Hannibal Lecter). Not here.
Niv-1
In this version of Richard III the action has been moved to England in the 1930's. The move to this time period is flawless. While not as good as Titus (which is similar) this is a great film with fine performances. Maggie Smith as the Duchess of York steals this movie with her expert handling of Shakespeare. The scene she has with Ian McKellan (Richard III)by the stairs is amazing. Maggie Smith should have been a candidate for an Oscar for Best Supporting actress, a truly flawless performance. Annette Bening is very moving as Queen ELizabeth. Her best scene is in front of the building where her sons are being held prisoner by Richard. Krisitn Scott-THomas is riveting as Lady Anne. Ian McKellan is astounding as RIchard III. This is probably his best performance (even better than his performance as James Whale in "Gods and Monsters.") THe costumes and sets are also expertly done. Richard III is a near masterpiece.
