It is not terribly odd to see directors adapt Shakespearian plays to a different era. In fact, contemporary elements in films like Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo and Juliet and the most recent Much Ado About Nothing by Joss Whedon have definitely bring valuable new readings to the text. Embracing this trend, Richard III (1995) by Richard Loncraine shifts its background to 1930s Britain. Starring Ian McKellen as Richard, the movie makes an undeniable connection to Nazi Germany; very details include costume design, set and prop, and cinematography choices all closely relate Richard to Hitler, an equivalent villain from modern history. The choice of blending Hitler into Richard puts viewers now into the shoes of audience from Shakespeare’s time to better understand Richard’s evil; although Richard III is quite ancient, Hitler is still a new scar. The déjà vu of Nazi dystopia becomes interesting when comparing the general background of the movie to the original play. Richard III (1995) came out during the last decade of twentieth century, which, for many individuals, was ten years of compounded fear; the collapse of Soviet Union in 1991 ruins the socialism faith in millions, whereas global economy tsunami in 1998 foils capitalism as troublesome too. For the worst part, rumors about the doomsday of 2000 remain haunted. This typical collective fear also deeply roots in England when Shakespeare creates Richard III: Elisabeth I was rapidly aging without any heir. In both cases, fear of social stability comes with no promised solution. Therefore, under similar circumstance, it is necessary to recall the living demons like Richard and Hitler to remind people the horror of war. To start with, Richard and Hitler are such charismatic figures full ... ... middle of paper ... ...to help present audience better acknowledge Richard’s monstrous mind. Even McKellen himself admits that “Shakespeare is up to date. I don't think of him as an old playwright. […] Once you shift the costuming, you're just borrowing the period. […] We weren't pretending that Shakespeare had anticipated modern tyranny, but just saying that he would have understood it” (Crowdus, 47). There is definitely an Indeed, Shakespearian classics are eternal because they are, like stories from Bible, stories about humanity. By stretching the motifs of Hitler into Richard, Loncraine and McKellen’s adaptation of Richard III in 1995 is mainly making efforts to make Richard more tangible that people could correlate to, for example, and digest Richard’s characteristics by hearing their grandparents talk about Hitler , like how audience in Shakespeare’s time hear about Richard III.
Anne is quite like a modern woman in the way that if a man tells her
Before reading Peter S. Donaldson’s article, "Cinema and the Kingdom of Death: Loncraine’s Richard III," I slept eight hours, ate a well-balanced breakfast, and ran a mile to warm up. I knew from reading "In Fair Verona," that Donaldson writes for fit athletes of an intense analytical and intellectual field. Focus, pacing, and especially composure are essential to navigating his intricate and challenging course of connections, allusions, Shakespeare, media, history, past, present, future and beyond. I was prepared, though, and began slowly, but confidently, on another one of Donaldson’s awesome paths. And this time, I just may have created some of my own.
The Effectiveness of William Shakespeare's Use of Supernatural in the Final Act of Richard III
Shakespeare, William. Richard III. The Norton Shakespeare. Ed. Stephen Greenblatt. (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1997), 515-600.
Kenneth Branagh creates his own individualistic adaptation of this classic through the use of visual imagery, characterization, and setting. Branagh cut many lines and speeches from the text to better support his interpretation of a more open and informal society of warm-hearted, affectionate characters. Though Shakespeare's mood is more formal, Branagh remains true to the essence of the play as all of the same characters and most of the dialogue are justly included in the film. Although distinct differences can be made between Branagh’s film and Shakespeare’s written work, they both share a common denominator of good old-fashioned entertainment; and in the world of theater, nothing else really matters.
The director's interpretation of this film focuses more on the use of metaphors in a comic state of humor amongst the villainy in a Hitleresque setting with Richard at the helm of this tyranny. Loncraine uses Shakespeare's play on words to make scenes more memorable, (i.e., trains, spiders, food,). He shows the abuse of power, greed and corruption of Richard with flare. The actual dialogue heard is true to the original text, as nothing was added, it is only severely out of order. Loncraine took an ordinary, simple play and made it into something enjoyable to watch. Although the scenes tend to be out of order and cut, this is still a successful adaptation of Richard III as the overriding theme is developed and enjoyable to watch. Richard is humorous in life as he lies, cheats and steals the throne from anyone in his way.
Henderson, Diana E. “A Shrew for the Times, Revisted.” Shakespeare the Movie II, Popularizing the Plays on Film, TV, and DVD. Eds. Burt, Richard and Boose, Lynda E. New York: Routledge, 2003. 120-139. Print.
Shakespeare, William. Richard III. The Norton Shakespeare. Ed. Stephen Greenblatt. (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1997), 515-600.
Shakespeare, William. Richard III. The Norton Shakespeare. Ed. Greenblatt, Stephen. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Inc., 1997. 515-596.
But McKellan's version, while radically different in presentation and style, is true to the spirit of the play, bringing the intrigue and violence to life in a way undreamed of in Olivier's time. The point I am trying to make is that the new version really is very good, and appeals to modern audiences.
Baz Lurhmann’s creation of the film Romeo and Juliet has shown that today’s audience can still understand and appreciate William Shakespeare. Typically, when a modern audience think of Shakespeare, they immediately think it will be boring, yet Lurhmann successfully rejuvenates Romeo and Juliet. In his film production he uses a number of different cinematic techniques, costumes and a formidably enjoyable soundtrack; yet changes not one word from Shakespeare’s original play, thus making it appeal to a modern audience.
I would like to add just a little fun fact: while I was doing some research for my presentation on Richard III, I discovered that the Disney movie The Lion King was partially inspired by Shakespeare’s Richard III, especially when it comes to the character of Scar. In fact, both Scar and Richard are physically deformed and both are ready to do anything to become king ‒ even to commit some terrible
The plays of William Shakespeare are generally easy to categorize, and the heroes of these plays are equally so. However, in the history play Richard II, Shakespeare’s king is more ambiguous than Hamlet or Romeo– there is no clear cut answer to whether Richard II is a tragic hero... or simply a tragedy. Historically, Richard II was crowned at a very young age, forced into the role of monarch, and thrust without hesitation into the murky world of political intrigue, which perhaps lends his character sympathy because he had no choice in his fate. However, despite his forced role in life, Richard II seems to rely on the concept of divine right to secure his throne, making no effort to sustain it once it is “irrevocably” his. Richard II is both the tragic hero and the tragedy– simply playing the role of King for the majority of the play, but only coming into his own after he is deposed, and only then to fight for his own existence.
William Shakespeare and the new millennium seem to be diametrically opposed, yet his works are having a renaissance of their own after 400 years in the public domain. Why have some major film producers revisited his works when their language and staging would seem to be hopelessly outdated in our society?Perhaps because unlike modern writers, who struggle with political correctness, Shakespeare speaks his mind with an uncompromising directness that has kept its relevance in this otherwise jaded world.
The depiction of Richard III in Al Pacino’s Looking for Richard doesn’t stray far from the twisted, manipulative nobleman described by Shakespeare hundreds of years ago, however it is more dependent on film techniques to build characterization than the actual portrayal of the character himself. Richard is a notably cunning and charismatic character and traditionally, because of the limitations to naturally charm by appearance or stature imposed by his deformities, Richard has perfected his use of words and the manner in which he delivers them in order to persuade the necessary people on his path to power. This unique quality Richard possesses is shown at its maximum potential in the scene where he attempts to convince Lady Anne to marry him, despite him having murdered her father and husband, which presumably would be a deal breaker. Al Pacino makes precise and deliberate cinematographic decisions to emphasize not only Richard’s talent to charm, but also the process in which a person is