Anyone seriously interested in this film will want to read Ian McKellen's description of how he and Richard Loncraine developed the screenplay.
2/23/09
DISCUSSION: Richard Loncraine and Ian McKellen's Richard III
Anyone seriously interested in this film will want to read Ian McKellen's description of how he and Richard Loncraine developed the screenplay.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Richard III is very different from the other characters in the movie not only because of his unparalleled brutality against this family, but also because he has the ability to talk to the audience. Richard III breaks the invisible wall between the characters in the movie and the audience watching it. This filming technique is not commonly used, let alone in Shakespeare films, but it is effective. By only talking to the audience, Richard is able to disclose secret thoughts to them so they can understand what he’s thinking. This is an interesting thing to do because the audience, in turn, has a rare opportunity to get inside the head of a power-hungry, merciless killer.
ReplyDeleteIan McKellen's portrayal of the infamous Shakespeare character that resembles the notorious WWII Nazi leader seemed to come natural and was engaging in his semi-hunchback movements and strong persuasive manners that he carried out throughout the film. When talking to the audience, we get a glimpse into the mind of an antichrist's struggle for power that has no boundaries and no remorse for life.
ReplyDeleteI loved the fact that the director portrayed the character of Richard III to be like the evil German dictator Hitler. This was a very interesting connection which was made between two monstrous villains who stopped at nothing to become powerful.
ReplyDeleteThe character of Richard III was actually easier for me to understand than I thought he would be. He wanted to be the King and he did whatever he could in order to get what he wanted, even though he had to kill a whole lot of people in order to do that. It didn't matter who he hurt, all that mattered was getting that crown. I agree with what was said above, whoever played the character of Richard III did remind me of Hitler as well. That made this character all the more easier for me to understand throughout the film.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the Lawrence Olivier's version of Richard III, i can say that i thoroughly enjoyed the Richard Loncrain's version of the play better. it was more understandable because it was set during WWII, staring Richard III as an evil dictator, Adolf Hitler. i found this to be so much more powerful to see a not so well known evil king, Richard III, as a well known evil dictator, Hitler. it gave the audience a better perspective of who Richard III is.
ReplyDeleteI liked this film more than I thought I would. It was easy to follow and quite enjoyable. I think Richard III being portrayed as Hitler is what really pulled me in. The actors did an amazing job with their characters and kept me intrigued the whole film.
ReplyDeleteI really did not think that i was going to enjoy this film i was actually going to leave... but it turned out to be my favorite movie yet. I think Richard was a great actor. I really liked when he would talk to the camera about how he was so deceptive he was to his family, it kept me into the movie the whole time.
ReplyDeleteThe relocation of this film to 1930's England made the film much easier to understand. Like a few people above, I also noticed the big similarity between Richard III and Hitler, especially during the scene when he first becomes king and he addresses the people in such a way that reminded me of Hitler. Everything from the symbol that he used to the colors and the way he used his hands during this scene reminded me of Hitler. I also noted the scene near the beginning of the film when Richard was feeding the pig in the pen. I took a mental note because I thought it may be significant. During the scene at the train station, Richard kneels down and makes a strange sound (I don't remember what it was now). Then, one of the characters has a nightmare that takes place in the same scene at the train station in which Richard's face is turned into that of a boar. I definitely saw the connection between these things, but I am not entirely sure of the meaning.
ReplyDeleteWhen the movie first came on I was prepared to dislike it because of it's modern setting. Yet as the movie went on it was the perfect backdrop for the villian that is Richard. Portraying Richard as a sort of Hitler we see how they were both men who knew how to manipulate the people with charming words. I love Ian Mcklellan as Richard from the very beginning when he opens with "in the coldest of winters" we see his evil intent and the souless person that he is. McKlellan played Richard superbly I hated him the whole time and could not wait until he died.
ReplyDeleteThe begining of the movie did a good job of getting your attention and setting the tone of the whole movie. With the tank crashing through the wall and the guns blazing Richard put everyone on notice that he meant business.
ReplyDeletei really enjoyed this movie, unlike anything else i have seen regaurding a shakespeare films. I thought it was very interesting how RIchard was portrayed like hitler, very fitting.
ReplyDeleteMuch like everyone else, I enjoyed the way that this film associates Richard with Hitler. Since we aren't used to Kings and the fight for the crown, it made it more relevant to today's society to paint Richard as more of a dictator. Today's audience is more familiar with dictators than with kings, at least in that kind of a bloody context. I don't expect anything like that to come out of England's current royalty.
ReplyDeleteI think that overall the relocation in time was very successful. They were able to seamlessly transport the story and change things, such as the princes arriving by train instead of horse, and the final battle being with airplanes and machine guns.
This film continuously reminded me of a World War Two setting, in which Richard the Duke of Gloucester was manipulating his way into power. I like this version of Richard the Third a lot because of its fast pace and Richard’s ability to assume so many different personalities. The World War Two era gave me a feeling that Richard was not a good hearted person, and that he may even be symbolized as Hitler throughout the film. One reason for this assumption is at the end of the play when Richard the Third takes his own life instead of being killed by the enemies. This reminded me of Hitler’s suicide before being captured by his enemies during World War Two. The music and old style of beats added to the vibe of the 1940’s, while the cigarette smoking gave me a Pulp Fiction feeling.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching Olivier's Richard III, I would have to say that I enjoyed this version significantly better. Overall the film was just more entertaining, in the sense that it was placed in a historical context with many of us are fimiliar with, but also the Richard in this film acts out on his evil desires. Where Olivier seemed like he was holding back at time, not really being evil to his full potential. Point being, the Richard in this film was a much more evil Richard than in Oliviers.
ReplyDeleteMcKellen's Version on Richard III was an interesting way of placing the play into a film. The film is in the time era of the 1920's/1930's and looks to be set around the war era as well. Also what is interesting is when Richard III gives his speeches He looks directly at the audience as if the whole film is in a still except for him. i thought that was interesting tho because it focuses more on his speeches and what he about to do and just captures the viewers eye more.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone who said this film strongly resembles the WWII era, that was a comparison that the director wanted to emphasize. Richard (comparable to Hitler), was obviously being depicted as the Axis forces and sought power through deception, trickery, and force whereas Richmond represented the Allied forces, coming in and putting an end to Richard's reign. Obviously the play was written long before even the fist World War, but maybe the war struck the director as being an excellent and fitting metaphor for Shakespeare's Richard III.
ReplyDeleteI really liked the way this film was adapted into a more modern setting. It helps the modern audience connect with the play better. Personally I feel that Richard III is a hard play to follow because of how disagreeable the main character is, however this adaption showed how realistic and truthful this history is.
ReplyDeleteI agree with those who said Richard III was portrayed to be similar to Hitler and liked that. It gave me a better understanding and feel for how forceful and evil he is in the play. Like Lincoln said I too found it difficult to follow the play due to the disagreeing personality of Richard III.
ReplyDeleteThe ultimate villain comes out of this shakespearean work, being Richard III. The extent of his evil shows through the modern aspects of the play, being geared more around a wartime atmosphere. This helped me understand the movie better than I understood the script.
ReplyDeleteRichard III
ReplyDeleteI thought that Richard III had a very interesting character that I had not seen yet in Shakespeare’s films. I thought what kept the movie going was his agressiveness against his family. I really liked how he talked to the camera about how deceptive he was to his family. His ability to talk to the audience was another thing that made him different that the other characters in this movie. I loved how the director of this movie related Richard III to resemble Hitler, the German Dictator. I really liked how it was set during WWII, and the movie was easy to follow
I totally agree with BC and the statement he said about wartime atmosphere helping him understand just how truley evil and corrupt Richard III really was. I enjoyed this movie a lot and thought it was clever (whether or not the director planned this)that Richard III resembled slight characteristics of Hitler by his appearance and actions. While I said Henry V was sad a gloomy, this was sad and gloomy as well, but it had the creepy element, which kept me wondering what would Richard do next and who would be his next victom! I think my favorite part of the movie was when Richard III died, not because he was a bad man, but because of the symbolism behind his death. I liked how he fell into a firey pit, which represented hell the place he was bound to go to after life.
ReplyDelete- SCC
In response to Anonymous, it had to have been planned that Richard III was portrayed like Hitler. The uniforms, characters and environments was set up perfectly for the comparision. The only problem I had is how Hitler is always used for anyone bad, even people who lived hundreds of years before him! Also I thought it was interesting that this movie left no doubt that Richard was evil, though it did sort of give reasons why. It seems that by portraying him as all in all evil it makes this man guilty of alot of things that were not his fault or never proven to have been so. It sort of proves the saying history is decided by the winners.
ReplyDeleteThe movie was a little scary. It was directed wonderfully, though. And I agree, it had to be planned that Richard III was portrayed like Hitler. In a way it seemed as though he was a lot like Hitler. He had his own family murdered. I thought Richard was a very disturbed and creepy man. Throughout the whole movie I was wishing that he would just die. I am not one for violence, battles, or anything the sort, but someone who would do that to their own family just to rule the nation... They're seriously fucked up. I did like the ending. I am glad that the daughter ended up with Richmond.
ReplyDeleteI think that the part of Richard was cast perfectly, he definately gave us as an audience a feeling of discomfort and evil. On the otherhand he was the one character that, throughout the movie, kept the audience very much engaged by making direct eye contact with the camera and keeping us updated on what evil he was about to stir up. It felt like he was talking to us directly and i really liked that. I think it is obvious to say he resembled Hitler and this provoked even more fear to us as an audience because any image of Hitler or even one that resembles him makes us remember the horror and terror he caused. I think the film gave off an eerie feeling and Richard was fantastic.
ReplyDeleteWe get to see Richard in the light of vindictive dictator.Ian Mckellan appearance from mustache to clothing are in very close resemblance to that of an Adolf Hitler. Dirty politics at its dirtiest is on display through the rise and demise of Richard.
ReplyDeleteI actually found this movie kind of funny, although I felt like I was the only one laughing in class. Ian McKellan as Richard was poetic. I felt like he really portrayed the two sides(good and evil) of Richard. Normally I don't like films where the actors break character and speak to the audience, but it fit well in this film. However, the tone of the film totally changes after he orders the killing of his two nephews. This work by Shakespeare was easier for me to understand on film, than reading it.
ReplyDeleteharatyk said...
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this movie, I was not sure if I would when I was reading about it before hand, but it suprised me by being a great film. I really loved the charactor of Richard III and the fact that unlike the play he got to take more to the audience really showing us his evil side. I agree with many of the other posts becuase this film was much easier to understand than the readings and I did find myself laughing at many differnt parts. I also agree that Richards roll was portrayed much like that of Hitler. The end I found quite funny as well because it took the literal Interpretation of going into the fire filled pits of hell.
This was my favorite movie so far. The idea of killing your way to the top was some what of an uncomfortable idea but it played out to be a good film.
ReplyDeleteJsosine
ReplyDeleteThis movie was a pretty interesting interpretation on Shakespeare’s play. The biggest thing I noticed was Richard III seems really similar to Hitler. This dictator made the film more current and comparable to what has happened in the recent past. Doing whatever he could do to gain and keep power was interesting also.
I enjoyed this movie. I thought it was interesting how it was set in the 1940 ish period. I loved how you grew to have a love/hate relationship with Richard III. It was always funny when he would give you those looks in the camera about how he was really betraying someone but they didn't quite catch on. I did think the ending was a little cheesy with him falling into a pit of fire and all, but other than that the movie was good!
ReplyDeleteI actually have enjoyed this film the best out of all of them. The time period and aesthetics were very appealing to storyling. I loved how the director represented Richard as an image of Hitler. It helped for the audience to relate to the evilness he exuded. I just really enjoyed the film.
ReplyDeletei enjoyed the analogy of placing an old play into a semi modern nazi filled setting. I thought it was brilliant by the directors part, and I felt that Ian Mckellan did a brilliant job in performing his piece. The movie wouldnt have been the same without him no doubt.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Zach Paulson that the filming of it in a Nazi setting was very interesting. Richard came across very evil and the setting of him as hitler almost made that possible. The movie really portrayed the feelings that they were trying to get across.
ReplyDeleteChemGirl you make a good point, I do think it was planned for him to resemble Hitler, and you make a good point that it is odd that we always compare people to Hitler to make them appear more evil. I think the reason they always choose him because he is someone we are taught is the twin of evil. They portrayed this film in a modern way for the audience to understand, which is again why they used Hitler because he is known through out the world as a bad man. if the movie was to resemble Richard as Maximilien Robespierre an evil man who caused the revolutionary government to murdered the king without trial, not everyone would pick up on the comparison.
ReplyDelete- SCC
Rachael Draper Said...
ReplyDeleteI think the influx of totalitarianism and dictartorship with the new time period imposed on the play really provides further insight to the play. In a way it juxtaposes the two time periods of english history to add a lot of layers to the narrative. the more modern time period also gives the viewer something more familiar to relate too. it makes a story about kings fit into the often studied context of dictors.
I agree with everyone that is saying that in this film Richards character is similar to Hitler. I think that the director sort of made Richard similar to Hitler to show just how mean, betraying, and evil he was. I did not think I would enjoy this film at all when being told about it. But I am glad that I watched it. It was interesting to watch Richard do anything and everything just to get what he wanted.
ReplyDeleteI like how this production of Richard III they use the society of World War II to better fit the Shakespeare play. Richard III definitely exemplifies the dictators of World War II with his ruthlessness and his motivation of revenge to punish anyone who is in his way to the crown.
ReplyDeleteRichard III is the ultimate villain brought upon by Shakespeare. This film adaptation is incredibly interesting because Richard III is supposed to resemble German dictator, Adolf Hitler. Society was supposed to portray World War II. Richard III was evil, ruthless, and would do anything to keep the crown. The nazi-type setting that Zach Paulson mentioned, made the movie a lot more interesting and easy to understand because I am familiar with the history of that time.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with BC. He says Shakespeares ultimate villian is Richard III.
ReplyDeleteWe talked about villians in class, and I have to agree with our teacher that Iago from Othello is one of the most dangerous villians shakespeare has created because Iago is literally destorying peoples lives by not killing people, but by twisting peoples words. Iago is the scariest character to me, because I feel this character is more common in every day life. It almost makes you wonder, could one of my friends be like Iago?
- SCC
Richard III is one of the best dark characters that we have come across this semester. Ian McKellan portrayal of Richard III is awesome. You could not have asked for a better film adaptation. Ian McKellan as Richard III is entertaining yet very disturbing. This movie never boring with a character such as Richard III
ReplyDeleteI did not really like this film version of Richard III because I really like the play. I really like Al Pacino's Looking For Richard because it shows the actors trying to learn about the play at the same time they are acting it out.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Beans about Iago from Othello being the most dangerous villian. Although Richard III kills many people, twisting words around poses a much more dangerous threat to me. I found this film easy to follow and understand but I also found it long and repetitive. I can only take so much greed and selfishness. The entire film, like the play, conisisted of Richard III playing the power hungry family member that secretly plans to murder everyone. I found his character quite brutal, but find the storyline overplayed.
ReplyDeleteAgain, agreeing with Beans, Richard III was one of the darkest characters that we have witnessed this semester while watching Shakespeare films. McKellan did a good job as Richard III, he was very dark and played the part very well. The film was very brutal but that was too be expected since Richard III kills so many people. The film was entertaining but it was definitely not on the top of my list compared to other Shakespeare films.
ReplyDeleteI think this film was very well done. It was everything I expected from the film version of Richard III. It was very dark and I liked the parallels between the play and World War II. I also liked that it was more modern than the play is.
ReplyDeleteThis movie really threw me off guard, not so much because of the characters, but more due to the fact that it really wasn't what I was expecting. That doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the movie. Ian McKellan was dark, mysterious, and just plain interesting to watch. This is honestly one of the few movies that I will most likely go out of my way to watch in the future.
ReplyDeletei really how this movie started it was unexpected and gave good background to the rest of the plot. i really like how in the movie it showed his reoccuring dreams that represent his rise and fall of power. i also agree with tony a, Ian McKellan was interesting as a dark caharacter he was superb. JR
ReplyDeleteThis movie was really interesting because it was totally unexpected. Loncraine and McKellen did a great job in taking Shakespeare's play and modernizing it. I thought it was a cool spin on it, and it was interesting that he changed it so that it took place in the 1930's and dealt with a fascist government.
ReplyDeleteOne of the main components that set this play a part from any other play we have read so far is the language and tone that is used to describe Richard. In this play Richard is a sort of evil character and the language used to describe him and his thoughts makes it easier to understand. Similarly, when Richard woes Anne Shakespeare uses a different tone than in the rest of the play that makes Richard seem like a sweetheart which is completely different from his real self.
ReplyDeleteThis movie not one of my favorites. I thought it was interesting the way that Loncraine and McKellen decided to use Nazi Germany and the 1930s as the time period but other than that I didn't enjoy watching it. Richard III was definitely one of Shakespeare's most intriguing villians however.
ReplyDeleteWhat a great film. Ian McKellan is such a good actor, and he lives up to that reputation in his portrayal of Richard III. The story is soo good, and i love how they set the play in this nazi england that never existed. in revealed themes about the play that one would otherwise miss. it was a masterpiece
ReplyDeleteThis film was awesome! Richard III was portrayed just how I imagined him from the readings. He was arrogant and vicious. He used his charm and intellect to sway people. As far as appearance I thought he wouldv'e been younger and I was shocked to see that his arm deformed. From the readings I thought his eye or something else was wrong but come to find out it was his arm.
ReplyDeleteThis movie kept me interested from the beginning. I enjoyed this film.
I really liked this movie. The actor who played Richard III was perfect for the part, he was able to get into the character of this arrogant malicious man flawlessly and I was able to appreciate the film more. The concept of one man killing his way to the throne was a depressing aspect but even that didnt hinder my liking for this film.
ReplyDeleteJSR
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed how Richard III was potrayed to resemble Hitler. It really helps the viewers understand that he would stop at nothing to gain power. Also it was interesting that Richard III could interact directly with the audience, it really opened a way for viewers to get into his thoughts.
I really liked this movie. I thought that the opening scene really added to the madness that we see later in the play. The portrayal of Richard as a power hungry leader who will stop at nothing is genuinely scary.
ReplyDeleteThis film was good, but strange at the same time. I think Ian McKellen did a good job of portraying Richard, coming of in a creepy dominiant kind of way. Like others, I believe in a way he does resemble Hitler. He comes across normal, but it also makes me worry because then I begin to wonder if there are others out there who seem typical but have a completly crazy side to them. The movie kept me interested but was also hard to follow along. I liked how during certain times (like th script), Richard would look at the camera and sort of talk to himself. The way it ended with him gazing crazily into the camera falling into the fire, I thought was a great way to portray what I believed to be a dominant side of his personality, the crazy side.
ReplyDeleteIan McKellen made the most believable Richard III. He never showed any sign of remorse or regret throughout the film which made him the perfect villain. I also liked that it was set in the 1930's. This made the movie more frightening with the guns and machinery used during the killing scenes and the war. Over all, it was very entertaining and a good portrayal of the literature.
ReplyDeleteHarrison 33
ReplyDeleteMy all time favorite part about this movie and even the reading is when the ghots visit Richard. Richard has done a number of horrible things throughout the film, but doesn't feel the slightest bit of remorse until he his haunted by the ghosts in his dreams. This too is the only part in which Richard exposes another side to himself...a cowardly and scared one. I feel that the ghosts presence the night before the battle, definitely effects the way Richard lost the next day in battle. Overall, I like the battle scene at the end. The underdogs come out on top as victorious and all will be restored in a matter of time.
I really liked the film, but I think they should have put more of an emphasis on the ghosts in Richards nightmare.
ReplyDeletei really liked the time ere that the movie was placed in. I think it fit perfect with it, i also thought they could have done more with the dreams, it would have been cool to see a really detailed dream
ReplyDeleteThis movie was kind of a bore. Though the time period it was set in is more modern, I just felt an overall drabbyness to this movie. I thought that Ian McKellen did a great job playing tyrannical and crazy Richard, but I just wasnt drawn in as I have been with other movies. It could also have to do with the fact that Richard is one of my least favorite Shakespeare plays.
ReplyDeleteid have to say this was not one of my favorites that we have seen this semester. i understood the story and made the distinction between Hitler and Richard the third but i would have to say that was the only thing i found entertaining about this film. although i did not like this film i think ian mckellen is a wonderful director and i appreciated the emotion he put into the characters.
ReplyDeleteNicole r
I thought it was interesting to place this story in a modern environment. In addition, it was very interesting that they chose to make the scene appear as if it is ocurring in Nazi Germany. Richard III does resemble Hitler in a way. He didn't let anyone get in his way. Also, people feared to stand up against him. He was also able to manipulate people to follow him even when his plans were unmoral.
ReplyDeleteI really liked the modern setting of the film. It was a nice change and made me more interested in it. The portrayal of Richard III was great. I liked the opening speech being in a bathroom. It helped me not feel as sympathetic towards Richard III and his hatred of himself.
ReplyDeleteI think Richard is very nazi reminiscent. He constantly has an alternate motive throughout the entire movie. He lies to the other characters and then turns to the screen and tells the audience his true motives which I thought was really interesting. When he dies in the the end he has some sort of evil grin on his face that leaves you with a creepy feeling.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the change in time for this play. Richard III in the 30s allowed for a villian of the past to become a true villian of more modern times. Incredible performances all around.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this film. The update in setting and creation of an alternate historical timeline lent itself to the film very well. McKellan's convincing acting as the malicious Richard III was truly excellent, and he was able to make us like him at one point and hate him at another. Truly an enjoyable film.
ReplyDeleteWhat made Richard Loncraine's film memorable was that it was set in the 1930's, and it had a World War II era feel to the it. The conection that he was able to make between the crazed devotion to reaching power and holding it that Richard III has, and to the rise to power and conviction that Hitler had in Germany prior to the second World War. The manipulation of the leaders of the country compare to how Hitler duped his people into believing in him, and when both men took power, they consolidated t any way they could, murder included
ReplyDeleteLoncraine and McKellen's Richard III is a standout Shakespeare film, I think, for the brilliance in the WWII analogy. Hitler's among the most manipulative minds in history and manipulation is Richard's sport. This comparison highlights Richard's evil and effectively extinguishes any chance of sympathy for him. I can't say I fully agree with the position this film takes on the topic of Richard's villainy but hats off to Locraine and McKellen nonetheless. They expressed their opinion well. It's almost cheating, though, isn't it? Swastikas don't look good on anyone.
ReplyDeleteI did not like this film at all. I thought it was slow and just weird. At points, I did not understand what direction the film was going, or what the story was revealing. The only positive side to this film was Richard III himself. Ian McKellen did an amazing job playing this vicious and arrogant role.
ReplyDeleteI like how the director moved the setting to WWII time period. This made a large effect on how the audience viewed the character of Richard. The setting of this film correlated Richard and his followers to the Nazis during WWII. This increased the evil perception of Richard my making that comparison.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was a great idea to have the setting of this film be around WWII time frame as well as have Richard the Third be affiliated with the Nazi party. I feel that affiliation adds to a substantial amount to the aura that Richard the III has as being as the biggest/ baddest bad guy of all time.
ReplyDeleteI thought this was a good movie and overall, but I do not like the story line. I'm not to into malicious characters or story lines and this was just not the kind of Shakespeare that catches or sparks any interest with me.
ReplyDeleteThis movie was a very interesting twist on Shakespeare's original work. Portraying Richard III as a Nazi dictator was a great idea. McKellan plays his evil soaked character with vivacious intensity and a wicked smirk on his face. The film maintained an aura of evil by keeping the colors mostly red and shades of grey. The music added to the malicious vibe, and went hand in hand with watching Richard wander the kingdom he slowly conquers, wiping out any person in his way.
ReplyDeleteSo Richard III... this man puts shame to all villains. Richard is one of the most untrusting characters Shakespeare has ever created. I feel like McKellen did a great job portraying Richard's thoughts to the audience. The timing of the film could not have been any better since it was when hitler, stalin, and mussolini were being the dictators that society hates. Overall great movie!
ReplyDeleteThis film had a very evil mannerism to it. Mckellan's character was very intense when it can to evilness. The camera work and the music were both very ominous and really made me feel the intesity of the film.
ReplyDeleteThis film was good but twisted at the same time, and not one of the best ones to follow. I love how Richard speaks to the camera as if he is speaking to the audience about his evil intentions. I thought that the film was very intense and kept me wondering what was going to happen next. I love how it mirrors the time of Nazi Germany for it is a time of evil and corruption well known my everyone. Great way to modernize!
ReplyDeleteThis film was not your typical Shakespeare play. It revolves around a gready man who has a lust for power, and will take out anything that gets in the way of his goal. The overall movie was enjoyable although I saw some major similarilties between this story and nazi germany in the early 20th century.
ReplyDeleteThe best representation of Richard Loncraine and I believe that it was way more powerful with the use of the Nazi era. How the use of Richards betrayl almost make you want to believe the things he is doing are good. You can almost feel bad for him because of his bad hand and very kind attitude he plays twords everybody.
ReplyDeletethe movie was a great way to show the reenactment of the play and showed how a greedy man in the end will never prosper. With the movie based in what looked like the 1903's made it very easy to understand what was going on throughout the film as Richard climbed to power and became a king. The ending was quite sudden but got right to the point where King Richard walks off the beam and falls to his death. The movie reminds me a lot of Hitlers reign.
ReplyDeleteThis is by far the most engaging movie we have watched so far in class. This due partly because the year it was made, making it more up to date, but the evil Richard kept me watching. As horrible as he was, this character truly kept me engaging and wanting to see him DIE! I felt all the actors did great in their roles and the movie made me understand Shakespeare's play in more depth!
ReplyDelete-brigg
Richard III was an interesting movie with a lot of twists. I think the fact Richard was an evil and mean person kept people intrigued. I couldn't relate with his character at all so I think taht is why it kept me guessing. It was also nice that it was a more recent movie so I saw actors/actresses I regonized
ReplyDeleteIn this movie I really liked how Richard would talk to the audience and tell us his evil plans. Not only did it make the movie easier to follow but it also allowed us to see his true character and how evil he really is.
ReplyDeleteI Love the cast of this movie. This movie really cracked me up how Richard would tell his plans to the camera. That was one of the main reasons that i kept wanting to watch, just to see what richard was up to. this was my favorite shakespeare movie so far.
ReplyDelete-slightlystoopid
I like how this was put in a different time period, like the Romeo and Juliet movie we saw. Ian Mckellan was amazing and played a great portrayal of the evil King Richard.
ReplyDeleteI thought that Ian Mckellan's performance as Richard III was a great performance. He was great at being evil and cruel, but at the same time seeming harmless because of his calm demeanor. I also thought that changing the time period the movie is set in was a great way to make the story more relevant to our generation.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was clever how this film portrayed Richard III hitler-like. I was surprised to see so many familiar actors like Robert Downey Jr, Annette Bening and Maggie Smith. Ian Mckellan did a great job as Richard III, making the character evil yet somewhat intriguing. The ending was a little strange, with upbeat 1940's swing music playing in the background while Richard falls to his fiery death... Overall a successful, interesting adaptation of Shakespeare's play.
ReplyDeleteThis movie is another example of a Shakespeare play taking place in a more modern setting. The fact that this play was made with a more modern feel made it more relevant to audiences of our age group. Richard III was trying to do whatever it took to become King. He did this in a very careless manor. He was willing to kill anyone who stood in his way, even if they were his family members.
ReplyDeleteThis is possibly my favourite Shakespeare film and I think Ian McKellan portrays Richard III brilliantly. I also found the modern adaptation of the film to be a success, adding to the overall enjoyment of the film. The film cleverly drew in ties with the political situation in 1930s Europe which helped, I think, in making Richard III into a real villain
ReplyDeleteWell after watching this film, I also find this film to very disturbing. It was a very intense yet a great film. The film had my attention through out the whole entire play. I felt that Locraine did a very good job by having this film taking place in the 1930's. I felt that with all of these kind of wants and need of power from an individual was perfect time frame due to the historical events that took place in the 30's. It was a very well directed film. Also I felt that it was very easily to fallow along with, which for me is very important
ReplyDeleteWatching this film was like being the witness of a bad car wreck. I had to follow it to the end, even though Richard was destroying everything he touched. It was painful yet entertaining. Ian McKellan did a wonderful job as a machiavelle- his disfigurement made him appear harmless, yet he knew what he was doing and took pleasure in every minute of it.
ReplyDeleteRichard was an evil man who wanted to break down everything around him to raise himself up. It made me realize that I strongly dislike people who only want to gain power, and do not care what or whom they destroy along the way. Regardless, this film was interesting and entertaining to watch.
ReplyDeleteThis film is disturbing, violent, intense, beautiful, crazy and very in yer face...It has brilliant script, and marvelous acting. This Richard III set in England during World War II. It gives a fresh view on Shakespeare in a different setting.
ReplyDeleteI really liked this movie a lot, there was a lot of interesting scenes and tons of action scenes! The violence was crazy and kept me interested. another great movie from this class
ReplyDeleteThis film had a great pace that kept me interested as well as engaged throughout the entire film. I also found it to be interesting that the director decided to change the film's setting to more of a Nazi era Fascist England. This made for a more modern interpretation of the film. Also it was entertaining seeing Ian McKellen play an evil character because I am so used to seeing him as Gandalf the Grey.
ReplyDeleteMP said...
ReplyDeleteI thought that this film was entertaining and not boring. I thought that Ian McKellen was the perfect person to play Richard. Mc Kellen's portrayal of an evil tyrant was exactly how I imagined the real life Richard to look like/act like. However, I really thought that Richard was a horrible person, but he was a great example of a 'Machiavel' character. Richard was evil but he knew how to manipulate people to give him what he wanted. Even though what he was wrong, he was successful and was good at what he did. I thought that it was ironic that Richard died in the end of the play, I feel like he got a taste of his own medicine.
Locraine and McKellen's version of Richard III was one of my very favorite Shakespearean films. I loved how the film drew comparisons between Richard III and Hitler/Nazi Germany. It was very creative and I thought it helped me understand the plot better because I had a modern event to compare it to. Overall, I thought both the film and the acting in it (Ian McKellen as Richard III) was terrific and it definitely made watching the movie a much better experience.
ReplyDelete-Jordan Williams
As much as Richard was ambitous and evil I couldnt help but feel bad for him sometimes. I personally felt that McKellan did a fanstastic job of bringing this character to life.
ReplyDelete+MJH+
This wasn't one of my favorites... I admit that while I sat through the film, I couldn’t help but hope for Richard’s triumph, even though I was well aware that he was an evil tyrant. Had I been alive at the time of his rule and was a common folk under his decree, I would feel very differently. I would obviously despise him and be joyous when he died. Luckily, I was only watching the film. I was sad at the end when he was killed, because I had become so invested in his character over the course of the play. I think it’s very interesting how Shakespeare portrayed Richard’s character and manipulated his audience into connecting with him and understanding his motives. It’s amazing how much perspective can influence a observer’s point of view.
ReplyDeleteThis was a very good movie but for me was a little too confusing. Throughout the whole movie i was trying to keep up with all of the ties between the families and how everyone was connected. I dont really know what they could have done differently to try to help people say on top of that but it should have been done. For me it was too hard to know who was who throughout the film.
ReplyDeleteMckellen's portrail of richard iii was perfect in my opinion.the parallel to the militaristic leaders of the 1930s/40s was an interesting way to relate richards evil heart to events in recent history.
ReplyDeleteI felt like Richard was the best villain in all of Shakespeare's plays. The disfigurement of Richard made him look like the monster that he really is. And in the dream when he is seen as a pig actually scared me as I was watching. But it is Richard's twisted acts of cruelty as in killing his own family that makes him a truly twisted character.
ReplyDeleteI really liked this movie. Richard was a great villian and I enjoyed watching his ways on how he got his revenge, all he wanted was to power all.
ReplyDeleteThe best Shakespearean villian, and yet he dies such a pitiful death in the end. When he cried right before the final battle, I actually los respect in him, I liked him more as a manipulative evil dicator
ReplyDeleteAaa the ‘Machiavel’ is truly Shakespeare’s greatest contribution, the villain we all love to hate as he rubs his evil plans right in our face. McKellan’s portrayal of the hunchback dictation was superb no complaints on the entire film, perfect as is.
ReplyDeletePortraying richard the III to be similar to Hitler really interested me. I thought it was a cool aspect on the directors part to show how evil he really is by comparing him to probably the worst man in history. The beginning of the movie really grabbed your attention with Richard coming in showing everybody what he’s there for.
ReplyDeleteI really liked how this film is set in post war era Europe. I felt that the setting was very appropriate because the war like era that its set in directly relates to the war England was having with France when Shakespeare originally wrote this. The director did a great job of connecting the past to the more modern setting, which added to the films quality immensely.
ReplyDeleteThis film, I would have to say was not one of my favorites. I like the action scenes and everything, but it was hard for to watch a Richard kill his whole family just so he could rise to power.
ReplyDeleteThis film was so different than the other shakespeare films I've seen. This movie seemed to have pure evil being portrayed in it throughout every scene and dialogue. The most unerving parts about this movie were when Richard would speak directly to the camera in some of his monologue. Some of those speeches I felt really uncomfortable listening to his acts to be performed on his family and friends.
ReplyDeletei particularly enjoyed this film and thought it was a better modernization of shakespeare then Romeo and Juliet by luhrmann. The movie plays upon my own prejudice against political power plays and yet does give Richard some room to be a sympathetic character.
ReplyDeleteHow this movie opened is what won me over for this movie. When the tank crashes through the wall, the movie really grabs you, and lets you know the mood of the movie.
ReplyDeleteThough it was quite evident that Richard was an evil tyrant, I couldn't help but find him amusing and very interesting. I liked how the film was set in the WW2 time period. It was a bit of a refresher compared to all the other films in regards to scenery and time period. It was much more realistic than mythical fairies or tree branches growing out of people's arms. Overall I enjoyed it.
ReplyDeleteNicola Lore
Richard III as a Nazi dictator was a great idea for this film and Mckellan plays a great evil character. Throughout the whole movie they kept the mood of evil in every scene. Richard played a great villain and i enjoyed watching him get revenge on everyone.
ReplyDeleteRichard III was an interesting movie. I think the director did a good job at making Richard seem especially evil by having him resemble Hitler. He played a great villain by his cruel actions and with him talking directly into the camera just made it even more captivating.
ReplyDeleteRichard has to be my new favorite villain. I believe the director did an excellent job not only in casting but the films style worked perfectly. When Richard confesses his true plans to the audience in a narrative way makes you feel his like your apart of his evil plans. The ending had to be the climax for me, relentless to have control Richard ends up losing it all. Even to his last steps Richard remains such a villain.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of the movie I thought it was funny how the actor would pause and start embracing his evil actions but then later on he started becoming more evil and I didn't care for it. The more the movie when on the more I became disgusted with this man and his morals and actions he was crazy!
ReplyDeletethis movie was pretty intense and Richard the 3rd started out as a bad man that seemed cool, funny, and just someone who you wanted to watch but in the mid part of the movie I found myself just disgusted with his actions actually wanting him to die it was kind of a funny feeling, so far in class I have not found myself getting to into the movies but in this one I was.
ReplyDeletethis movie was by far the most bad-ass out of them all. it was very action packed and random. i loved it!
ReplyDeleteok, this is sexy!!
ReplyDeleteRichard the third has been one of the most eccentric Shakespearean characters I have come across so far in the class. I felt Ian McKellen did an outstanding job portraying the two-faced maniac of Richard the III. He most effectively did this in his conversations with the audience where you can see his true underlying motives, followed with actions that are essentially polar, but very convincing. It is very interesting to see how he had everyone wrapped around his finger.
ReplyDeleteI noticed that the symbol for Richard was a pig. The pig was shown many times throughout the movie and I think that the pig was a symbol of Richard's character. He was a pig in the way that he tried to woo multiple women. He was very evil and not a pleasant character.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the flim, I actually liked the film more then I thought I would. Also, I like the fact that the director portrayed the character of Richard III. The movie started unexpected and then later gave a good background to the rest of the plot.
ReplyDeleteI liked the way the character of Richard III was portrayed as as Hitler. Richard III was brutal, yet he had a way of persuading everyone around him to obey him as he tries to brutally conquer more people. It was engaging to watch as Richard III rose to power and fell to his death-literally.
ReplyDeleteWhat can I say about this film? It was good because it had Richard III. Now Richard the III is very complex because at one time, he is the protagonist of the play while at the same time the villain. One thing that kept on also making this play interesting is how Richard III did his actions like when he seduced the ladies after he did horrible things to them.
ReplyDeleteI thought the comparison of Richard to Hitler made the movie more relatable to modern audiences. It shows the correlation between tyrants of the recent past, such as Hitler, and king tyrants of Shakespeare's age. It shows how timeless the themes in Shakespeare's plays are.
ReplyDeleteThis was a good movie, but i didn't think it would be good in the beginning of the movie. i was contemplating leaving 20 mins into it but i'm glad i didn't.
ReplyDeleteThis movie was amazing, Ian McKellen portrayed Richard the III with so much passion it took my breath away. He really shows how corrupted and evil a human being can become and how willingly he was to betray his family, friends, and loved ones for greed. Also how they depict the film in a World War II era really helps bring this film to life and helps create this connection of Richard the III and Hitler.
ReplyDeleteThis was one of my favorite films of the semester. It was very action-packed and thought provoking. The movie was very interesting because the main character was the villain character as well, which I thought was unusual.
ReplyDeleteI thought Richard Loncraine and Ian McKellen's version of Richard II was pretty good. The use of setting in the movie helps the viewer understand the sort of turmoil and chaos that is going on. Also, setting up the movie to resemble a war torn nazi Germany helps to visualize this chaos. They also do an excellent job modernizing parts of the play. A good example of this can be seen when Richard recites his famous "my kingdom for a horse" speech. Instead of reciting his speech from horseback, like readers have experienced it for years, the viewer portrays this scene with Richard reciting the speech from a disabled Jeep in the mud. Overall I thought this was an excellent movie and would highly recommend it.
ReplyDeleteI liked this movie a lot. it liked how Ian McKellen is portrayed with Nazi's undertones. Having the Nazi undertones really gives a sense of urgency and conflict. I thought that it was interesting in how the director made the movie modern, so many different people could relate to it. He was defiantly the right actor to play Richard III.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting how most people in the class linked this setting to the nazi germany with the killings of the characters being the early gestapo. I however had the thought that the change in power was more similar to the The Rise of the USSR and the great purge.
ReplyDeleteThis movie was very shocking, with Richard III's bloodlust for power and his ability to slaughter all of the family members and nobility who stood in his way. Ian McKellan played an excellent Richard III, though for me personally it was a shock to see him playing such a violent and heartless role. He clearly showed his grasp on Shakespeare and proved he could stretch himself as an actor, but with his character's cruel and rapid rise to power combined with the vaguely reminiscent Nazi takeover of Europe, it was just a shock to the audience throughout the film.
ReplyDeleteRicahrd III is definitely one of my favorite Shakesperian films. I, like many, really thought it was cool how Loncraine connected the play to WWII and the Nazi Germany. Doing this made it a lot easier to follow and to connect to. Also, I think the Ian McKellen's performance in this film was near perfect. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, except the end was one of the most absurd ways to end a movie ever.
ReplyDeleteI had an Extremely hard time getting into this movie, I thought it was a little bit to fast paced for myself, I couldn't really follow the story well enough to catch everything I would want to. I thought the Director did a fantastic job and should be applauded. Many scenes we made so very powerful by the drama set up in the filming. One scene when Richard is giving a speech the camera focuses on his lips and nothing else, hinting at what I took to mean that they were just words and thats all the people saw. I think this because the scene is followed by Richard retreating to the bathroom and essentially disregarding everything he had just said.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this film. I thought it was interesting that McKellen decided to have Richard III portrayed as Hitler in Nazi Germany. I think this was a good artistic twist to the play. This connection between Richard III and Hitler did a great job at showing how evil Richard was and how he would stop at nothing to gain more power similar to Hitler.
ReplyDeleteI had a hard time catching up with this film. I couldn't understand what was being said. Although reading the synopsis of the film did help. Overall, I thought it was an interesting film. I liked how the director added a different setting or a different twist to the play/film.
ReplyDeleteThis movie actually turned out to be quite interesting and it was like Shakespeare's other films in a way and it was also different as well. It was well shot and it was better than i thought it would be. Overall this movie was ok, and it was better than the last one, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI am not a fan of modernized Shakespeare films, however for the most part i thought it worked in this film. I loved the allusion to world war II in the film. It fits well because the viewer begins to see Richard is as vile as Hitler himself. My main gripe though, is that the best line of the play, "my kingdom for a horse", doesn't really fit if the characters are in jeeps.
ReplyDeleteRichard III was definitely a compelling film. I think his character is the most interesting Shakespeare role created, as he is the embodiment of pure evil. The actor that played Richard did an excellent job of emphasizing the mesmerizing charm and charisma that Richard uses to manipulate his enemies and reason with the audience to forgive his deeds. The premise of being able to kill a woman's husband and his father then marry her is ridiculous, but Richard makes it work with a silver tongue and the pity of the other characters. Changing Richard into a Nazi was also a cool director's decision, as it made his evil all the more believable....in fact, Richard is very comparable to Hitler in a way. Overall it was an entertaining film.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely loathed this movie. Don't get me wrong, it was a well written play and very provocative in the sense that it stirred emotions, but it was absolutely painful to watch. The entire time i wanted to jump in the screen and hit Richard over the head with his limp hand. His Machiavellian character really disturbed me. I just don't do very well with movies that have the villain as the main character. So much death, so much destruction. Glad the movie's over.
ReplyDeleteI really did not enjoy this movie or the play in general. I know that Shakespeare was trying to create a historical story but it doesn't fit into the modern world. People don't go around killing anyone that gets in their way anymore so it was hard to watch the movie in a more modern setting because it didn't make sense. I do like the comparison he made to this malicious leader and Hitler I think that made the movie a little more relatable but other that nothing about the movie really captured my attention.
ReplyDeleteI thought this story was insane! It was captivating, in a very creepy way. I think Shakespeare did a great job of finding a way to make Richard extremely cruel and maniacle, yet still believable.
ReplyDeleteIt's almost scary how this story keeps the audience engaged. We hate Richard, yet, we still love to watch what he will do next.
Reminded me so much of hitler. Good film and it's modern day portrait
ReplyDeleteThe story of Richard was great but i dont think the modern portrayal of it was great. The comparison of Richard to Hitler was a little too much and i don't think Richard's action matched the modern setting the director tried to prtray them in.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed this film and the mere fact that it did not hold back on the violence/gore and pure evilness of Richard III. This made the movie very intriguing and un-sugar coated. In addition to the inclusion of the violence, the Nazi Germany type setting made the movie more relatable to a modern audience which made it very engaging.
ReplyDeleteThe character of Richard in this film was done perfectly. He was the perfect evil, heartless, power-hungry dictator that Shakespeare had intended. I also liked how Richard was shown as a Hitler, because this made this film seem more relevant to our time.
ReplyDeleteSeeing Ian Mckellen as a villian is weird being as how a lot of people from my generation view him as Gandalf. This is a nice change of pace. It shows the depth he has as an actor. I enjoyed seeing Britain as an autocratic government in the style of Nazi Germany. It proves a point of how very different this world would have been.
ReplyDeleteThis movie was very different than other movies based on Shakespeare plays. This film was integrated into a current event making the movie that much easier to interpret. This film kept me at the edge of my seat the whole period and I believe it was a very good representation of Shakespeare's Richard III.
ReplyDeleteRichard III, directed by Richard Loncraine and Ian McKellen, was an interesting rendition of Shakespeare’s Richard III. Loncraine and McKellen attempted to make a historical relation between Richard III and Nazi Germany which I found interesting, but not sure if Shakespreare would have been proud had he known about Hitler and his political party.
ReplyDeleteThis movie centered around a lot of violence and the quest for power. Richard betrayed his own family, secretly manipulating and killing people just to get the throne. My favorite part was how in the end, he gets what he deserves by falling into a pit of fire
ReplyDeleteI was skeptical at first, but the modernization of this play is what made this movie. Normally portrayed in a century far gone, it made the movie more relative to the audience. The similarities to Richard III and his England to Hitler and his Third Reich were absolutely striking.
ReplyDeleteWhile watching RIchard III, I immediately connected the Richard's character to that of the German Nazi Hitler. The portrayal of Richard III as Hitler was very apparent in the sense that they both had a drive to become extremely powerful and would stop at no cost.
ReplyDelete