Richard III

Plot synopsis:
The play begins with Richard (called "Gloucester" in the text) standing in "a street", describing the accession to the throne of his brother, King Edward IV of England, eldest son of the late Richard, Duke of York.
Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York;
And all the clouds that lour'd upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
("sun of York" is a punning reference to the badge of the "blazing sun," which Edward IV adopted, and "son of York", i.e. the son of the Duke of York.)
Richard is an ugly hunchback who is "rudely stamp'd", "deformed, unfinish'd", and cannot "strut before a wanton ambling nymph." He responds to the anguish of his condition with an outcast's credo: "I am determined to prove a villain / And hate the idle pleasures of these days." Richard plots to have his brother Clarence, who stands before him in the line of succession, conducted to the Tower of London over a prophecy he bribed a soothsayer to finagle the suspicious King with; that "G of Edward's heirs the murderer shall be", which the king interprets as referring to George of Clarence (without realising it actually refers to Gloucester).
Richard now schemes to woo "the Lady Anne" – Anne Neville, widow of the Lancastrian Edward of Westminster, Prince of Wales. He confides to the audience:
I'll marry Warwick's youngest daughter.
What, though I kill'd her husband and her father?
The scene then changes to reveal Lady Anne accompanying the corpse of the late king Henry VI, along with Trestle and Berkeley, on its way to be interred at St Paul's cathedral. She asks them to set down the "honourable load – if honour may be shrouded in a hearse," and then laments the fate of the house of Lancaster. Richard suddenly appears and demands that the "unmannerd dog" carrying the hearse set it down, at which point a brief verbal wrangling takes place.
Despite initially hating him, Anne is won over by his pleas of love and repentance and agrees to marry him. When she leaves, Richard exults in having won her over despite all he has done to her, and tells the audience that he will discard her once she has served her purpose.
The atmosphere at court is poisonous: The established nobles are at odds with the upwardly mobile relatives of Queen Elizabeth, a hostility fueled by Richard's machinations. Queen Margaret, Henry VI's widow, returns in defiance of her banishment and warns the squabbling nobles about Richard. Queen Margaret curses Richard and the rest who were present. The nobles, all Yorkists, reflexively unite against this last Lancastrian, and the warning falls on deaf ears.
Richard orders two murderers to kill Clarence in the tower. Clarence, meanwhile, relates a dream to his keeper. The dream includes vivid language describing Clarence falling from an imaginary ship as a result of Gloucester, who had fallen from the hatches, striking him. Under the water Clarence sees the skeletons of thousands of men "that fishes gnawed upon." He also sees "wedges of gold, great anchors, heaps of pearl, inestimable stones, unvalued jewels." All of these are "scatterd in the bottom of the sea." Clarence adds that some of the jewels were in the skulls of the dead. He then imagines dying and being tormented by the ghosts of Warwick (Anne's father), and Edward of Westminster (Anne's deceased husband).
After Clarence falls asleep, Brakenbury, Lieutenant of the Tower of London, enters and observes that between the titles of princes and the low names of commoners, there is nothing different but the "outward fame", meaning that they both have "inward toil" whether rich or poor. When the murderers arrive, he reads their warrant (issued in the name of the King), and exits with the Keeper, who disobeys Clarence's request to stand by him, and leaves the two murderers the keys.
Clarence wakes and pleads with the murderers, saying that men have no right to obey other men's requests for murder, because all men are under the rule of God not to commit murder. The murderers imply Clarence is a hypocrite because, as one says, "thou ... unripped'st the bowels of thy sovereign's son [Edward] whom thou wast sworn to cherish and defend." Trying to win them over by tactics, he tells them to go to his brother Gloucester, who will reward them better for his life than Edward will for his death. One murderer insists Gloucester himself sent them to perform the bloody act, but Clarence does not believe him. He recalls the unity of Richard Duke of York blessing his three sons with his victorious arm, bidding his brother Gloucester to "think on this and he will weep." Sardonically, a murderer says Gloucester weeps millstones – echoing Richard's earlier comment about the murderers' own eyes weeping millstones rather than "foolish tears" (Act I, Sc. 3).
Next, one of the murderers explains that his brother Gloucester hates him, and sent them to the Tower to kill him. Eventually, one murderer gives in to his conscience and does not participate, but the other killer stabs Clarence and drowns him in "the Malmsey butt within". The first act closes with the perpetrator needing to find a hole to bury Clarence.
Richard uses the news of Clarence's unexpected death to send Edward IV, already ill, into his deathbed, all the while insinuating that the Queen is behind the execution of Clarence. Edward IV soon dies, leaving as Protector his brother Richard, who sets about removing the final obstacles to his accession. He has Lord Rivers murdered to further isolate the Queen and to put down any attempts to have the Prince crowned right away. He meets his nephew, the young Edward V, who is en route to London for his coronation accompanied by relatives of Edward's widow (Lord Hastings, Lord Grey, and Sir Thomas Vaughan). These Richard arrests, and eventually beheads, and then has a conversation with the Prince and his younger brother, the Duke of York. The two princes outsmart Richard and match his wordplay and use of language easily. Richard is nervous about them, and the potential threat they are. The young prince and his brother are coaxed (by Richard) into an extended stay at the Tower of London. The prince and his brother the Duke of York prove themselves to be extremely intelligent and charismatic characters, boldly defying and outsmarting Richard and openly mocking him.
Assisted by his cousin Buckingham, Richard mounts a campaign to present himself as the true heir to the throne, pretending to be a modest, devout man with no pretensions to greatness. Lord Hastings, who objects to Richard's accession, is arrested and executed on a trumped-up charge of treason. Together, Richard and Buckingham spread the rumour that Edward's two sons are illegitimate, and therefore have no rightful claim to the throne; they are assisted by Catesby, Ratcliffe, and Lovell. The other lords are cajoled into accepting Richard as king, in spite of the continued survival of his nephews (the Princes in the Tower).
Richard asks Buckingham to secure the death of the princes, but Buckingham hesitates. Richard then recruits Sir James Tyrrell, who kills both children. When Richard denies Buckingham a promised land grant, Buckingham turns against Richard and defects to the side of Henry, Earl of Richmond, who is currently in exile. Richard has his eye on his niece, Elizabeth of York, Edward IV's next remaining heir, and poisons Lady Anne so he can be free to woo the princess. The Duchess of York and Queen Elizabeth mourn the princes' deaths, when Queen Margaret arrives. Queen Elizabeth, as predicted, asks Queen Margaret's help in cursing. Later, the Duchess applies this lesson and curses her only surviving son before leaving. Richard asks Queen Elizabeth to help him win her daughter's hand in marriage, but she is not taken in by his eloquence, and eventually manages to trick and stall him by saying she will let him know her daughter's answer in due course.
The increasingly paranoid Richard loses what popularity he had. He soon faces rebellions led first by Buckingham and subsequently by the invading Richmond. Buckingham is captured and executed. Both sides arrive for a final battle at Bosworth Field. Prior to the battle, Richard is visited by the ghosts of his victims, all of whom tell him to "Despair and die!" after which they wish victory upon Richmond. He awakes screaming for "Jesus" to help him, slowly realising that he is all alone in the world, and cannot even pity himself.
At the Battle of Bosworth Field, Lord Stanley (who is also Richmond's stepfather) and his followers desert Richard's side, whereupon Richard calls for the execution of George Stanley, Lord Stanley's son. This does not happen, as the battle is in full swing, and Richard is left at a disadvantage. Richard is soon unhorsed on the field at the climax of the battle, and cries out, "A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!" Richmond kills Richard in the final duel. Subsequently, Richmond succeeds to the throne as Henry VII, and marries Princess Elizabeth from the House of York.

Tags: tragedy, murder

Review:
The games McKellen plays with the changing techniques of warfare in the period, the rise of fascism, realpolitik and the undermining of royalty by the Wallis Simpson affair, push back the boundaries of Shakespeare on film in all directions.For example, at the very moment you're thinking that all this mayhem is a bit much in English period costume, the helmets change, then the uniforms get darker, the red flags appear and Richard's acceptance speech turns into an underground Nuremburg Rally - a stark reminder of just how deeply the country flirted with fascism in the 30s and just how short and steep the descent can be.
Lots of surprises, not the least of which comes as the play's most famous line is perfectly re-engineered and delivered and lots of great players at the top of their form.McKellen, Scott Thomas, Broadbent, Downey Jnr and Annette Bening are all worth the price of admission individually, but there's hardly a flaw in any of the performances.I simply can't see what the detractors are on about at all.
Ever since, Shakespeare adaptations have faced the difficulty of remaining true to the greatest writer in the history of the English language while bringing something new to the table; filmed plays, after all, belong on PBS, not in the cinema.Luckily, the minds behind this adaptation of "Richard III" is more than up to the challenge.
There's just something inherently amusing about Richard sneaking off for a pee after the "winter of our discontent" speech (still rambling on as he, ahem, drains the main), or giving the "my kingdom for a horse!" bit while trying to get his Jeep out of the mud.To be sure, the Fascist England shown in the film isn't very convicing -- from OUR historical hindsight -- but this isn't our world, this is a world fashioned from the imagination that just happens to look like our own, just as Shakespeare's were.
From this point of view, the "silly" little touches like the Al Jolson song at the end and even the newsreel of Richard's coronation fit in perfectly.As with most Shakespeare films, the plot has been streamlined -- nearly all of the characters are here, but scenes and speeches have been truncated and removed, but despite what some have said, these aren't fatal to the plot or the characters.
When people praise "Richard III" (the play), it's not for its character depth.I notice I've focused more on answering the film's detractors instead of dilineating its merits; in a way, I guess this expresses how much I like it.
Maggie Smith, Jim Broadbent and Kristin Scott-Thomas are expectedly great, but the truly outstanding supporting performances come as surprises: Annette Benning is all grief and fury, Adrian Dunbar is eerie yet very human as Richard's pet killer Tyrell and Nigel Hawthorne is incredibly moving as the meek Clarence.
This film sets Shakespeare's Richard III in an alternative to WWII era England, where fascists and royalists maintain their own militias and play power games with kings and thrones.
Somehow the cast manages to make the dialog fit the action and setting effortlessly.Richard III is jarringly strange - perhaps the most innovative of the recent Shakespeare updates - very well acted and directed.
There are two definitive film productions of Richard III: - Sir Laurence Olivier's 1955 film version, which he directed and in which he plays the title role, supported by Sir Cedric Hardwicke as King Edward, Sir John Gielgud as Clarence, the delectable Claire Bloom as the Lady Anne and a host of other brilliant performers - and Ian McKellen's 1995 version, screenwritten by McKellen and director Richard Loncraine, in which McKellen also plays the title role.While the Olivier version is the definitive classic presentation of the play on film and should serve anyone who wants to see the play as it was intended to be seen (albeit the Colley Cibber adaptation), McKellen's adaptation captures the spirit of the play in modern context.
The movie opens with the Lancastrians in their war room receiving word of Richard, Earl of Gloucester's holding Tewksbury by teletype, then soon their war room is breached by a tank, behind which swarm raiders in gas masks, one of whom slays the Prince of Wales and then the King himself, before removing his gas mask (one of the old goggle-eyed full-face models the Russians still use) to reveal himself Richard, duke of Gloucester.The scene shifts rapidly to a typical 1930s rich people's fete, complete with mellow-voiced torch singer and live orchestra, at which Richard III delivers the "sun of York" soliloquy as a toast to his father Edward and the assembled party - and then the scene shifts again to Richard completing the soliloquy to the camera, as he does throughout the film.
The uniforms shift from the standard British armed forces' khakis to the blacks and greys of Hitler and Mussolini as Britain slides into fascism under her scheming "Lord Protector."The screen action is taut, visually compelling - even when McKellen bellows "A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!" from a World War II Dodge weapons carrier/"command car," the scene doesn't degenerate into incongruous, unintentional comedy, because by then the viewer is caught up in the tale of this wild-eyed sociopath who has just about run out of rope - and since the truck is axle-deep in sand, stuck, a horse is just what Richard could have used around then.There's just enough realism in the 1930's props to help with willing suspension of disbelief - no more.
What is communicated very well is the senseless welter of fully-joined battle, fiery slaughter and Richard III's lashing out in senseless rage, eventually as much against his own men as the enemy.The Duke of Stanley's last-minute defection against Richard's forces in the final battle is all the sharper for Stanley being the commander of the air force (his loyalty to Richard III in the coming battle with Henry, Earl of Richmond seemingly assured by his young son's being held hostage in Richard III's war train) - so that the viewer no sooner hears the news of the defection in the play's dialogue than Richard's forces are strafed and bombed by Stanley's war planes as Richmond's forces swarm into Richard's assembly area, cutting the Ricardian army to pieces.Lots of interesting touches in the screenplay, such as Queen Elizabeth and her brother Earl Rivers (played ably by Annette Bening and rather indifferently by Robert Downey, Jr - who only manages to convince in the scene when he is assassinated in bed while submitting to the erotic ministrations of a Pan Am stewardess) playing their roles as Americans - using the homage to Wallis Simpson and her husband the Duke of Windsor (who abdicated his kingdom to marry Simpson because she wasn't only a commoner but a divorced American) to bring needed tension among the royals to the play.
QUEEN MARGARET Forbear to sleep the nights, and fast the days; Compare dead happiness with living woe; Think that thy babes were fairer than they were, And he that slew them fouler than he is!"is one of the best-delivered lines in Shakespeare on film I have seen.In closing one compares McKellen's Richard III to Anthony Hopkins' Hitler in "The Bunker" - an eerie channeling of one of history's foulest personalities, so that one feels one's self in his foul presence watching the show.
Al Pacino's "Looking for Richard" gives attention to Richard III, from a far different perspective, but both that film and this agree that it has all the key elements of great drama: evil ambition, betrayal, rivalry.The casting is tremendous with Ian McKellen (from his own stage play) and Kristen Scott-Thomas in the leads-thankfully there is no Kenneth Branagh to be found.
Only Annette Benning seems a little overmatched in her portrayal of Queen Elizabeth, but that's hardly surprising.The accessibility of the current version, the setting in 1930's Fascist Europe, gives the story a vibrancy that is present from the first frame to the last.Challenging, fun, and educative-far more than most films deliver.
While it might seem like an unusual concept to take the classic play of deceit, betrayal, seduction, and cold-blooded murder out of the 1400's and into an alternate history 1930's version of England, the cast and production designs make that concept seem not only believable but so realistic you might find yourself wondering if this could really have happened if events had played out like they do in the film.Ian McKellen plays the title role, the youngest brother of the royal family of the York's, who is determined to take the throne at whatever cost.
From the moment he is introduced in a classic introduction to the battle sequence at the end of the film, McKellen makes the character of Richard seem to be the most evil villain ever to grace a movie screen as he is able to literally become the character in the vast web of deception via acting like he has no interest in taking the throne.
McKellen sells Richard and he grips your attention to where your focus is entirely on him, making the trailer line about Richard being the "greatest villain of all time" ring very true and it's a shame that McKellen didn't even get an Oscar nomination for his performance.Annette Benning plays Queen Elizabeth, the American wife of Richard's brother Edward.
But with the performance given by Ian McKellen, production design, battle sequences, and the score by Trevor Jones, Richard III easily counts not only as a must see but as a modern classic..
(Must every character smoke cigarettes in every scene?) And I just couldn't picture an aging, feeble Ian McKellen as a brutal rampaging tyrant like Richard III.Over time, though, I've come to appreciate the little things.
Richard III is not Shakespeare's greatest work but nonetheless it deserves more attention and less pseudo-intellectual indulgence: there is no dramatic tension and the language---which is so crucial in Elizabethan theatre---is lost in the elaborate sets (which would have been quite good elsewhere), and the absolutely deplorable acting.
Set in the 1930s, the Yorkists are clearly aligned with the Nazi/Fascist movement of the era and yet at the same time the Bard doesn't seem out of place at all in the setting.Indeed, McKellan's script is excellently written and the director, Richard Loncraine, has done his best to turn an ideal script into an ideal representation of "history's greatest villain." The movie is not just a production of the play, it is a real world, a very real world.Unlike Branagh productions which, while excellent films, retain a certain aloof quality that remind us we are watching Shakespeare, Richard III seems perfectly natural.
Wonderful acting, costumes and production, and the ideas of time - shifting "Richard III." a couple of centuries forward to the 1930ies works very well.OK, the battle scenes could have been a bit beefier.
His flags and rallies look like something right out of Nazi Germany.I should admit that I've never read Shakespeare's original play or seen a production thereof - I don't even know that much about the War of the Roses - so this is my introduction to it.
Because on its own terms, this Richard III is excellent, not as good as Olivier's film but then again it is always a tough act to come up with something equal to film as amazing as Olivier's.The only things that I didn't like so much were that Edward's speech being cut meant that John Wood had literally nothing to do and Rivers' death scene for me didn't make sense.
As well as the fact that it's clear what the period is, the sets and costumes are beautiful and evocative, and Richard's entrance in a tank through the wall is incredibly dynamic even for a film adaptation of Shakespeare.Trevor Jones' music fits perfectly with the mood, haunting, poignant and tense all in one.
And for those who know Shakespeare as the master of extensive characters that are difficult to keep track of, "Richard III" (both the play and the film) are reasonably compact and easy to follow.
This dynamic adaptation of the Shakespeare play is reset in a kingdom that looks suspiciously like 1930s Germany and depicts Richard III as a ruthless fascist.The film looks marvelous, and it's got a great cast.
A similar small, great film that people have never heard of is "Glengarry Glen Ross." I am a Shakespeare fan, and think updating the period to the modern era should have made this more accessible to the general populace, but unfortunately it didn't register with them.Everyone knows the plot--about a deformed man with an insatiable lust for power who is able to overcome his physical handicap with a silver tongue (hmmm, I think I met some of these people before...).There are many superlatives about this film--the cast, the cinematography, the music--but what can't be said of Ian McKellan's performance?
OK, the line, "I can smile, and murder while I smile," while spoken by the right character comes from the wrong play (it is actually from Henry VI Pt3, Act 3 Scene 3), but I still like this film and think it works pretty well.
Anyone who tries to perform Shakespeare's history plays in their original setting today has somehow to solve the problem of making a modern audience feel the same sort of horror, otherwise you just end up with a lot of people in funny clothes running around doing funny things.
Setting the play in a fascist England helps usrealise how truly shocking Richard III's murders were.The film also gives us a chilling reminder of how narrowly England escaped from fascism (and I am English).
Olivier delivers a great performance; the BBC version deserves credit for being a complete version with an excellent, slimy Richard; but for an evening's pleasure, Ian McKellon's work is best.I normally don't care for modern dress versions of Shakespeare, but this one was transformed to 1930's England quite satisfactorily.
To witness the limits of McKellen's malevolence, you must rent ``Richard III'' (1996).It's a 1940-ish interpretation of the Shakespeare play, with England depicted as a fascist state awash in the blacks and reds symbolic of Nazi Germany.
Ian McKellen adapts this strikingly original update of Shakespeare's classic play about the murderous king who kills his way up the family tree to get the crown.
Supporting performances to mention are Kristin Scott Thomas' pretty but agonized Lady Anne, Nigel Hawthorne's doomed Duke of Clarence ,Robert Downeys' ill-fated playboy Earl Rivers, and Edward Hardwicke's sympathetic and steadfast Lord Stanley.Too many film makers update the setting of Shakespeare's plays without good reaon,Loncrane and McKellen's reasons are clear..and it makes the piece all the more powerful.
The film version of the Royal Shakespeare Company's 1992  production of "Richard III" is a masterful retelling of the classic Shakespearean tragedy, updated to the 1930s.
Happily, Richard Loncraine's version of 'Richard III' works very well, being set in a surreal WW2 era setting, more reminiscent of Terry Gilliam's 'Brazil' than London as it actually was at that time; an alternative world is suggested which adds a touch of nightmare-fantasy to the film.I think this sort of intelligent interpretation of the text, placed into the mouths of people we can relate to more readily than we do to Elizabethan personages, is valuable and helps people otherwise unfamiliar with, or daunted by, Shakespeare's strange language is a good thing.
In the end she is a powerful foil to Ian McKellan's riveting Richard III.The use of '40s swing tunes works wonderfully, I especially enjoyed the tune that accompanies Richard to his death, it's very funny, and horrifying all at once.Even if you don't like Shakespeare I recommend this film.
Jim Broadbent and Annette Bening also deliver stand-out work, as the scheming Buckingham and the elegant Queen Elizabeth, and all the supporting cast make their mark - in particular, Nigel Hawthorne as Clarence giving his "...broken from the tower" speech, and Robert Downey Jr. arriving drunkenly on an airplane.On the whole, this film is a great translation of the play, and certainly one of the most enjoyable Shakespeare films out there - 9/10..
As I said in my review of Laurence Olivier's 1955 film version, "Richard III" is my least favourite of the Shakespearean plays with which I am familiar as I don't think that its language and exploration of themes are on the same level as his best work such as "Hamlet" or "Macbeth".
Inasmuch as one can "spoil" one of the most famous plots in literature.)Everything you have heard about this movie is wrong.There was nothing wrong with the idea of setting RICHARD III in a 20th-century Fascist state; while I have never seen much good  in moving Shakespeare's plays out of the setting for which they were written, it can be done without actually harming the story.
This is a filmed adaptation of Shakespeare's Richard III.
I would not call this the definitive version of Shakespeare's Richard III due to its relatively brief length, but it is one of the best film adaptations of the play, if only for Ian McKellan in the title role.McKellan brings devilish glee to the part of Richard.
I'm not familiar with Richard Loncraine, the director, but the cast includes such luminaries as Ian McKellan, Annette Bening, Jim Broadbent, Robert Downey, Jr., Kristin Scott Thomas, and Maggie Smith.McKellan adapted the play to a modern England where it has become a fascist state.
The language of Shakespeare is beautiful, and the cast here is equal to the words.McKellan is a superbly evil and maniacal Richard as he murders his way to the throne, and his death is one of the best on film.
I have not seen Olivier's "Richard III," but it gets high marks as the best on film for the true play, not an adaptation..
BAFTA and Golden Globe nominated Sir Ian McKellen is fantastic as Richard III, he also helped produce and screenplay this well crafted film, based on the play by William Shakespeare.