The Tragedy of Richard III

1983
8.3| 3h50m| en| More Info
Released: 23 January 1983 Released
Producted By:
Country:
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

Richard Duke of Gloucester, youngest brother of King Edward IV, will stop at nothing to get the crown. He first convinces the ailing King that the Duke of Clarence, his elder brother, is a threat to the lives of Edward's two young sons. Edward has him imprisoned in the Tower of London; killers in Richard's pay then drown Clarence in a barrel of wine. When news of Clarence's death reaches the King, the subsequent grief and remorse bring about his death. Richard is made Lord Protector, with power to rule England while his nephew (now King Edward V) is still a minor. Before the young king's coronation he has his two nephews conveyed to the Tower, ostensibly for their safekeeping. Richard's accomplice, the Duke of Buckingham, then declares the two boys illegitimate and offers Richard the crown, which after a show of reticence he accepts. After Richard's coronation, he and Buckingham have a falling-out over whether or not to assassinate the two children.

... View More
Stream Online

Stream with BritBox

Director

Producted By

Trailers & Images

Reviews

bkoganbing That period known in the 15th century as the War Of The Roses ended with the reign of Richard III who has come down to us through a well written play and a host of great actors playing one of the great Machiavellian villains of all time. Was Richard really as bad as all that. He was no saint, but he was living in a time when one of the few saints around was Henry VI of Lancaster and he paid as dearly for sainthood as Richard did for villainy.If you can get over the fact that Ron Cook who plays Richard III bears an uncanny resemblance to Dudley Moore, you will enjoy this BBC production of The Tragedy Of Richard III. Richard III in his time was called 'Crookback' because he was supposedly a hunchback though it never affected him on the battlefield, even his enemies conceded he was quite the man at arms. That was a bit of Tudor propaganda as spun by the court favorite William Shakespeare.The two roles that really make this production are that of Rowena Cooper as Elizabeth Woodville, the commoner who married Edward IV and bore him the two sons who were killed in the Tower in 1483. She spent a lot of time making sure her generous and indulgent husband took care of his many in-laws. She transforms remarkably as the Queen enjoying privileges to the distraught mother whose sons were taken and murdered, probably on Richard's wishes if not unwritten orders.One thing that should be clear. This incident with the murder of the child king Edward V and his brother Richard plays more shocking for today's audience than back at the Globe Theater in Shakespeare's day. People had an abundance of kids because the majority of them died before reaching their majority. And child monarchs mean regencies and regencies always mean court politics on steroids and dynastic challenges. People in those time need only look in Scotland to the north which had a series of child monarchs which weakened the realm so totally that it's only remedy was union with England which happened not long after people saw the first production of this play. And the three parts of Henry VI that led up to the events here began with an infant king and the struggles for power which turned into the War Of The Roses.The other female role that stands out is Margaret Of Anjou, late the Queen consort of Henry VI who singlehandedly for her husband and son kept the Lancastrian claims going. She was and is a controversial figure in English history still. Julia Foster played her in all the stages of her life in the three parts of Henry VI and in Richard III. Ironically enough this role was eliminated in Laurence Olivier's acclaimed big screen film of this play. But seeing it now that kind of diminishes Olivier's work somewhat. Foster is a bitter figure of passion, grief, and revenge in equal parts as she curses all the new Yorkist royalty and nobility and most especially Richard of Gloucester.For Richard it was a case of what went around really did come around for him.
Flash Sheridan Unlike some of the earlier BBC plays in this tetralogy, this version of Richard III is reasonably well done and fairly watchable, though it suffers from some of the usual BBC efforts at trendiness. The last scene, which some of the favorable reviewers seemed to like, has nothing to do with Shakespeare, and is a crude attempt to undo Shakespeare's intended effect with his genuine last scene. But most of the text is present, unlike Olivier's or McKellen's versions, though this version is both less competent and less enjoyable than either. Most of the actors do reasonably well, and Ron Cook has grown in the role. Julia Foster is less dreadful as Queen Margaret here than in the earlier plays, but mercifully doesn't have many scenes, and doesn't manage to ruin most of the ones she does have. Peter Benson finally gets it right, and plays Henry VI considerably better dead than alive. Most of the minor actors are very good, though the role-doubling can be distracting. Until Mark Wing-Davey speaks, for instance, it was not at all clear to me that he was portraying a new character; but his accent eventually made that sufficiently clear.
Alain English At four hours long, and requiring two DVD discs to take it in, this is the longest and probably most faithful of all the BBC Shakespeare adaptations.This sees the end of the civil War of the Roses that plague England, and the rise and fall of the tyrannical Richard III (Ron Cook). It is one long watch but worth it.Most of the actors who have appeared throughout the tetrology reappear here with the addition of Zoe Wanamaker as Lady Anne, and Annette Crosbie as the Duchess of Gloster.Ron Cook, as the central character, keeps his performance controlled and understated, never feigning to theatrical style or pretension. Wanamaker and Crosbie are relative newcomers, but still excellent and all other actors acquit themselves well.Richard's inevitable demise is a little too gory for my DVD's U certificate, but it is well played and fits his performance. Most of the supporting actors double in various roles but the story remains comprehensible throughout.The concluding image, with Richard confined to hell in the arms of Lady Margaret, above all that have been slaughtered in England's bloody feud, is a fitting and enduring finale.
Hardylane In 1982, the BBC, in their undertaking to produce all of Shakespeare's plays, assembled a company of actors which would take us, in one logical arc, from Henry VI part one right through to Richard III. This is notable in that through all four plays, the principal actors keep their roles (although smaller roles are also undertaken). This gives an unparalleled clarity to the events as you see the chaste Margaret descend to Machiavellian plotting to destroy challengers to her grip on power, and then her downfall as Edward and then Richard take power. It is fitting that she, in a horrific scene at the end of this play, is seen atop a mound of dead. This was, after all, her legacy.In a simple, but effective, set, with authentic costumes and asides taken directly to camera, this brings your closer to Shakespeare's work than much of the praised films and productions in the past.If you found Olivier's version just too hammy to bear..... try this one.