GusF As I said in my review of Laurence Olivier's 1955 film version, "Richard III" is my least favourite of the Shakespearean plays with which I am familiar as I don't think that its language and exploration of themes are on the same level as his best work such as "Hamlet" or "Macbeth". When it came to the Olivier film, I think that he forgot that he was a great actor and director while he was making it as his performance is too over the top and hammy and his direction is pedestrian. He failed to live up to the high standards that he set for himself on both fronts in "Henry V" and "Hamlet". Thankfully, this is a far, far superior version which has served to increase my appreciation for the play. As with most Shakespearean films, it makes changes to the play, the Bard's longest after "Hamlet". It only incorporates about half of the text, conflates several characters, cuts out others and reorders some of the events. At only 100 minutes, it's a very fast paced film.Of the eight Shakespearean films that I have watched this year, this is the first in which the lead actor was not also the director. However, Ian McKellen did play another important behind the scenes role as he and the director Richard Loncraine wrote the screenplay. Loncraine does a wonderful job in the director's chair. The film has a great atmosphere and I love the cinematography. The film takes place in an alternate history fascist version of 1930s Britain. This is an excellent creative decision as Richard's rise to and consolidation of power is highly reminiscent of the Night of the Long Knives and, on the other end of the political spectrum, Stalin's Show Trials, given that he frequently uses trumped up charges to get his enemies out of his way. In the visual sense, many of the costumes are obviously based on Nazi uniforms and the scene in which Richard's accession is announced looks like something out of "Triumph des Willens". On an even simpler level, Richard has a moustache! In reality, Elizabeth Woodville belonged to a minor aristocratic family and was the first commoner to become queen. In the film, she is depicted as an American socialite reminiscent of Wallis Simpson and she and her brother Lord Rivers are looked down on because of it.As the title character, Ian McKellen is absolutely remarkable. While Olivier's Richard was too obviously villainous, McKellen portrays him as a Machiavellian manipulator who skilfully moves all of the pieces into place to secure his accession to the throne without ever tipping his hand. He uses guile and subtlety to achieve his ends, playing the role of a loving brother to Edward IV and Clarence and a loving uncle to Edward V and the Duke of York. As in real life, it's not the villains who wear black hats and twirl their moustaches that you have to worry about; it's the one who take a more subtle approach, at least initially. In private, however, he relishes his status as a villain, delivering his soliloquies to the camera with a smirk. He even jumps for joy after he asks the Lady Anne, the widow of Henry VI's son the Prince of Wales whom he murdered days earlier, to marry him.The film has a very strong cast overall. After McKellen, I thought that the strongest performer was Annette Bening as his sister-in-law Elizabeth Woodville, who has a large role in the film as opposed to the character's fleeting appearances in the Olivier version. She is a very strong woman who, in one of the film's best scenes, openly accuses Richard of murder and refuses to allow her daughter Elizabeth to marry him. Bening is more than a match for McKellen in their scenes together. Another strong female character is Richard's mother the Duchess of York, whose role is merged with Henry VI's widow Queen Margaret. She grows to despise her son as the film progresses and his villainy becomes all the more apparent. I have to admit that I've never thought of Maggie Smith as highly as I think of other British actresses of her generation such as Judi Dench, Vanessa Redgrave or Glenda Jackson but she is excellent in the film. Kristin Scott Thomas has less screen time but she excels in the aforementioned scene in which Richard proposes to her, delivering a wonderfully understated performance in contrast to Claire Bloom's caterwauling in the 1955 film. Jim Broadbent, in particular, and Tim McInnerny were cast against type as Richard's lackeys Buckingham and Catesby but they're both very good. Nigel Hawthorne is downright brilliant as Clarence, who is blind to his brother's true nature until it is far too late. He particularly excels in his monologue in the rain on the roof of the Tower of London. John Wood is excellent as the easily manipulated king Edward IV who trusts the wrong brother. One thing that is quite funny about the film is that Maggie Smith plays McKellen, Hawthorne and Wood's mother in spite of the fact that she is not only a mere five years older than McKellen but five years younger than Hawthorne and four years younger than Wood! Bill Paterson, Donald Sumpter, Jim Carter and Edward Hardwicke (whose father Cedric played Edward IV in the 1955 version) are all very effective in comparatively small roles. The weakest link acting wise is Robert Downey, Jr. I don't think that Shakespeare is really his forte but he's quite good. It's certainly not a disaster on the same level as Keanu Reeves' performance in "Much Ado About Nothing".Overall, this is a brilliant film which offers fresh insight into both a 400 year old play and some of the worst moments of the 20th Century. It's a shame that McKellen and Bening didn't receive Oscar nominations for Best Actor and Best Actress.

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.

evanston_dad This dynamic adaptation of the Shakespeare play is reset in a kingdom that looks suspiciously like 1930s Germany and depicts Richard III as a ruthless fascist.The film looks marvelous, and it's got a great cast. Ian McKellen of course deserves the most praise for his performance as Richard, which he throws himself into with plummy gusto. But strong performances are to be given by all, including Annette Bening, Robert Downey, Jr., Kristin Scott Thomas and Maggie Smith. What I like most about the film is that it's very cinematic; it takes a stage property and actually ADAPTS it to the screen, rather than making a filmed version of a stage play.The "my kingdom for a horse" line gets quite a laugh in the context it's given here.Grade: A-

loudprincess Most versions of Shakespeare plays that attempt to bring a classic story into a more modern setting fail. This film is a rare exception.Sir Ian McKellan plays Richard III with such dead-on artistry that it was hard to shake off the impression that he really was a power-hungry cretin with a hunch. Furthermore, Richard is usually played as either so evil the audience can't stand him, or so pitifully desperate that his plots and schemes don't seem plausible. But McKellan portrays him on the fine edge of the sword; evil enough to be repelled by his actions, but sly and funny enough to almost root for him.Of course, part of why one begins empathizing with him is because he's surrounded but the shrill Annette Benning, who's not close to being McKellan's equal, and other characters that give the audience excuses to believe that they don't deserve to live. However, that simply adds another dimension to the story that is often ignored in varied productions of the play.It's a slick, stylish film that sucks it's audience in, even in the most loathsome moments.