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
59 comments:
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.
Ian 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.
I 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.
The 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.
After 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.
I 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.
I 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.
The 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.
When 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.
The 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.
i 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.
Much 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.
I 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.
I somewhat dislike the storyline here when I see Richard's evil side that is not surprising at all. I agree that back in the old days, it's all about getting wealth and power. Everyone fought for the crown within family generations. Yet, I didn't really see this film as much enjoyable as Shakespeare's other films. I felt that Richard didn't really have pride for his country. He seems more selfish than I thought.
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.
After 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.
McKellen'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.
I 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.
I 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.
I 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.
The 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.
The 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.
Richard III
I 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
Ughhh i really don't like this movie. I can not stand richard everything he does is creepy and he drives me crazy. It is hard for me to watch when he kills half of the cast in cold blood with no remorse. I think that he is cast well and reminds me of hitler. I also think it was a good time shift to more modern world war twoish tmes and helps the reader identify what is going on in this thick plot,but i just hate the character of richard so much that it is hard to watch him.
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.
- 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.
The 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.
I 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.
We 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.
I 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.
haratyk said...
I 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.
Jsosine
This 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!
I 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.
i 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.
I 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.
ChemGirl 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.
- SCC
Rachael Draper Said...
I 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.
I 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.
Richard 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.
I have to disagree with BC. He says Shakespeares ultimate villian is Richard III.
We 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
I 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.
I 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.
Again, 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.
I 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.
This 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.
i 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
This 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.
One 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.
This 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.
What 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
This 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.
This 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.
JSR
I 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.
This 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.
Ian 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.
Post a Comment