Film Review of Richard Loncraine's Adaptation of William Shakespeare's Richard III "Civil war divides the nation" the first caption we see at the onset of this adaptation of Shakespeare's Richard III sets the tone for scenes to come later in the movie. It starts by focusing on Shakespeare's underlying tone regarding Richard as somewhat an outlandish character to be mocked and amused by. Enter Richard to "stab" Edward in his war room at Tewkesbury in his tank. He then fills Edward full of holes with a gun rather than a sword to start the play on words that Richard is known for throughout the play. Set in the midst of a Nazi-like Britain during the 1930's, it provides more art deco and imagery than is actually in the text. It uses this as the opening focus to show Richards' ascent to power and his eventual downfall more as the leader of a fascist regime, than someone cunning for the role of King. Here big band jives lay the groundwork to the victory ball of King Edward where we are introduced to many of the characters not seen until much later in the text, Rivers, King Edward, Queen Elizabeth, Duchess of York, young York, etc. Richard then begins his soliloquy, "Now is the winter of our discontent..." He partially addresses the crowd to show support for his newly indoctrinated King and brother and the first half of his speech is received by warm applause at his play on words. The second half is completed at the urinal of the palaces' bathroom partly mumbled to the wall. His focus on his villainous ways addressed to the camera. Then he meets Clarence on his way to the Tower to await his execution. The Richard speaks of the forthcoming death of Clarence and his need to marry the Lady Anne, addressed to the camera. ... ... middle of paper ... ... rather than being killed by Richmond. 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.
Shakespeare’s portrayal of power reflects the conflicting influences of Medieval Morality plays and Renaissance literature during the Tudor period, demonstrating that the text is a reflection of contextual beliefs. The Third Citizen’s submission to a monotheistic deity in the pathetic fallacy of “The water swell before a boisterous storm – but leave it all to God” qualifies the theological determinism of power due to the rise of Calvinism. Pacino embodies Richard’s desire for royalty in LFR through the emphasis on celebrity culture, as he is determined to film himself in close-up, which although emphasizes the importance of Pacino, leaves out the broader scene. Soliloquies are substituted with breaches in the fourth wall, and his metatheatrical aside to the audience “I love the silence… whatever I’m saying, I know Shakespeare said it”, subverts the cultural boundaries which, deter contemporary American actors in performing Shakespeare. Shakespeare’s breach of the iambic pentameter in “Chop off his head…And when I’m king” strengthens the Renaissance influence, as Richa...
Anne is quite like a modern woman in the way that if a man tells her
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.
Much of the dramatic action of Shakespeare’s tragedy, Hamlet is within the head of the main character, Hamlet. His wordplay represents the amazing, contradictory, unsettled, mocking, nature of his mind, as it is torn by disappointment and positive love, as Hamlet seeks both acceptance and punishment, action and stillness, and wishes for consummation and annihilation. He can be abruptly silent or vicious; he is capable of wild laughter and tears, and also polite badinage.
Gifted with the darkest attributes intertwined in his imperfect characteristics, Shakespeare’s Richard III displays his anti-hero traits afflicted with thorns of villains: “Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous / By drunken prophecies, libels, and dreams” (I.i.32-33). Richard possesses the idealism and ambition of a heroic figure that is destined to great achievements and power; however, as one who believes that “the end justifies the means”, Richard rejects moral value and tradition as he is willing to do anything to accomplish his goal to the crown. The society, even his family and closest friends, repudiate him as a deformed outcast. Nevertheless, he cheers for himself as the champion and irredeemable villain by turning entirely to revenge of taking self-served power. By distinguishing virtue ethics to take revenge on the human society that alienates him and centering his life on self-advancement towards kingship, Richard is the literary archetype of an anti-hero.
The undeniable pursuit for power is Richard’s flaw as a Vice character. This aspect is demonstrated in Shakespeare’s play King Richard III through the actions Richard portrays in an attempt to take the throne, allowing the audience to perceive this as an abhorrent transgression against the divine order. The deformity of Richards arm and back also symbolically imply a sense of villainy through Shakespeare’s context. In one of Richard’s soliloquies, he states how ‘thus like the formal Vice Iniquity/ I moralize two meanings in one word’. Through the use of immoral jargons, Shakespeare emphasises Richard’s tenacity to attain a sense of power. However, Richard’s personal struggle with power causes him to become paranoid and demanding, as demonstrated through the use of modality ‘I wish’ in ‘I wish the bastards dead’. This act thus becomes heavily discordant to the accepted great chain of being and conveys Richard’s consumption by power.
The task which Shakespeare undertook was to mold the hateful constitution of Richard's Moral; character. Richard had to contend with the prejudices arising from his bodily deformity which was considered an indication of the depravity and wickedness of his nature. Richard's ambitious nature, his elastic intellect, and his want of faith in goodness conspire to produce his tendency to despise and degrade every surrounding being and object, even as his own person. He is never sincere except when he is about to commit a murder.
Shakespeare constructs King Richard III to perform his contextual agenda, or to perpetrate political propaganda in the light of a historical power struggle, mirroring the political concerns of his era through his adaptation and selection of source material. Shakespeare’s influences include Thomas More’s The History of King Richard the Third, both constructing a certain historical perspective of the play. The negative perspective of Richard III’s character is a perpetuation of established Tudor history, where Vergil constructed a history intermixed with Tudor history, and More’s connection to John Morton affected the villainous image of the tyrannous king. This negative image is accentuated through the antithesis of Richards treachery in juxtaposition of Richmond’s devotion, exemplified in the parallelism of ‘God and Saint George! Richmond and victory.’ The need to legitimize Elizabeth’s reign influenced Shakespeare’s portra...
Instead of a powerful physical image, like Queen Elizabeth I, Richard implements elegant soliloquies, engages in witty banter, and attunes the audience to his motives with frequent asides. This flexibility demonstrates Richard's thespian superiority and power over the rest of the play's cast, making him a unique character in the play, but why does he do it? This constant battle between characters to claim mastery over a scene leaves the audience with a seemingly overlooked source of power for an actor [clarify/expand].
According to many, Shakespeare intentionally portrays Richard III in ways that would have the world hail him as the ultimate Machiavel. This build up only serves to further the dramatic irony when Richard falls from his throne. The nature of Richard's character is key to discovering the commentary Shakespeare is delivering on the nature of tyrants. By setting up Richard to be seen as the ultimate Machiavel, only to have him utterly destroyed, Shakespeare makes a dramatic commentary on the frailty of tyranny and such men as would aspire to tyrannical rule.
Casting a darkly mythical aura around Richard III, supernatural elements are intrinsic to this Shakespearean history play. The prophetic dreams of Clarence and Stanley blur the line between dream and reality, serving to foreshadow impending doom. The ghosts that appear before Richard III and Richmond before their battle create an atmosphere of dread and suspense, and they also herald Richard's destiny. The curses of three female royalties are fulfilled at the end, serving as reminders that the divine powers are stronger than Richard's malice. Together, the supernatural elements of dreams, ghosts, and curses unify the plot of Richard III and allow the divine to triumph over evil.
It seems that modern Hollywood filmmakers are as much in love with Shakespeare's plays as were the 16th century audiences who first enjoyed them. Recent updates of Hamlet (1996) and Romeo and Juliet (1996), both highly successful movies, bear this out, as well as the two best film versions of Richard III; Sir Laurence Olivier's 1954 "period piece", and Ian McKellan's more modern interpretation (1995).
Richard had weakened since he had become king and was no longer ruthless as he had no reason to be ruthless. He had got what he wanted and was pleased with himself. He thought he was invincible, and he was too confident, which cost him his life. If he had been more careful, he would have been aware of the danger that lied before him. But, he did use some similar techniques in both the scenes.
In the sixteenth century the most powerful form of literature or drama was non-religious and more concerned with the inner workings of the human personality. Shakespeare's writings were tragedies that focused on human actions without thought to the consequences of these actions. There are two examples in this movie that come to mind, illustrating this humanistic approach. First, Shakespeare falls in love with Viola, his muse, and follows his heart knowing that she has already been promised to marry someone else. Second, is the theatrical representation of Romeo and Julie and the tragic love story it entails.