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: murder

Review:
. .":  and the movie wouldn't be right without it.The other actors, Britain's elite of the time, seem to be tyrannized by the boss; and the text should have been edited better, because if you don't know the play and practically the whole history you'll get lost.
Because "Richard III," like "Patton" or "Scarface," is essentially a one-man show, and Olivier was the best Shakespearean actor of his time or since, we are in good hands.
Finally, he finds the ample stores of humor Shakespeare gave this, one of his darker plays."A sweeter and a lovelier gentleman...the spacious world cannot again afford," Richard says of one man he killed, and Olivier invests moments like this with a firm tongue in cheek.
Surely Olivier could have set more up as part of the opening text narrative, and gotten down to business with that famous opening soliloquy.A worse fault is the woodenness of some of the actors, like the ones who play Catesby, Brackenbury, and especially Lord Hastings.
Seen to better advantage are Claire Bloom as the woman Richard woos, Michael Gough as a murderer, and Patrick Troughton as the nasty child-killing nobleman Tyrell.Ralph Richardson gives the second-best performance in the play as the Duke of Buckingham, a half-step behind Richard in guile and cruelty, but trying to catch up in his own cold-blooded way.
Also, you have to mention Pamela Brown's Mistress Shore, who has no lines (because Shakespeare wrote none for her) but manages in Olivier's direction to play a central role by currying the bedside favor of King Edward and of Hastings.But Olivier of course is the only reason this movie is still watched.
Yes, he may have won World War II making his movie version of "Henry V," and his "Hamlet" was when he became Hollywood's favorite emissary of high culture, but "Richard III" is still the thing to catch the conscienceless of the king, his moment of highest dungeon and merriest perversity.
But I suspect that most people would say his greatest Shakespearean film (both as star and director) was this one - his performing the greatest villainous role in the English language, King RICHARD III.One can carp about the historical accuracy of RICHARD III from now until doomsday.
The Duke notices this, and soon is off on his ill-fated rebellion.RICHARD III was a first rate film - in my opinion it may be the best filmed version of a Shakespeare play made before 1980.
The eccentricity of the ambitious, crippled and sadistic, Richard of Gloucester makes for a surprisingly funny yet dark tragedy.Olivier's expertise in stage technique, married with an exceptional talent, makes for shots that last for more than a minute before the cut while he delivers the goods to camera.Set mainly in a castle ,simple but true to stage, with powerful monologues from all concerned.The dialect used is easier for the novice Shakespearian to understand than it is in some other such plays.The ultimate treacherer who can,"add colours to the camelian and set the murderous Machiavelli to school".He makes no secret to the audience of his villainous disposition.Likewise the role makes no secret of Sir Larry's brilliance.
But he certainly does cover it well.In fact this production boasts the talents of five knighted thespians in its cast, Olivier as Richard, John Gielgud as Clarence, Ralph Richardson as Buckingham, Cedric Hardwicke as Edward IV and Stanley Baker as the Earl of Richmond.
I think Olivier like Shakespeare wanted to emphasize the evilness of Richard as opposed to the tormenting doubts that Henry and Hamlet suffer.
is Richard the only Shakespeare film she did????Geilgud is wonderful as the doomed Clarence, done to death by the scheming Richard; my only disappointment was in Buckingham, played by Ralph Richardson.
The costumes I liked, the settings I liked, the music by william walton was great (olivier had good taste in music though he was definitely not a musician himself) and really suited the swiftly changing reflective to agitated moods of the characters.That said, I believe Laurence Olivier's Richard III to be (with perhaps the exception of his Henry V) the most worthily majestic film ever made in England.
The greatest of course, would have been to see such a master of his incandescent talent on stage as Richard since Olivier was finest on stage live, but to be realistic, there is not much of his stage performances recorded, if any, and to be left this masterpiece that Shakespeare himself would have been proud to see performed, is a tribute to the most incredible actor of this century, and most probably, of all time..
This excellent production of "Richard III" features a terrific performance by Laurence Olivier in the lead role, plus a fine supporting cast, good color photography, and plenty of color and pageantry to set off the action.
It's especially enjoyable if you get the restored widescreen version.Olivier is unsurpassed at performing Shakespeare, keeping the balance between giving life to his characters while making sure that they remain part of the play as a whole, rather than drawing all the attention to himself.
Playing Richard gives him a chance to be charming, devious, tyrannical, and more, and the role offers some choice solo speeches plus other scenes that have excellent give-and-take with the other characters.The rest of the cast also deserves praise.
When an actor, like Laurence Olivier, it makes all his performance in the movie (or it is better to speak about a pure stage?) a complete treatise of the perfect actor: soliloquies of several minutes in crescendo', looking at the camera and sharing with the audience his diabolic tricks, one and more time and making captivate to us...
It is kind of sad to know that this was Lord Laurence Olivier's last film by the works of William Shakespeare simply because it failed in the movie theaters.
I am sure William Shakespeare is proud of the work done by actors like Olivier, Gielgud, Richardson, Welles, Hardwicke, and hundreds of others.
I love the play too, it is not my favourite of Shakespeare's plays but it does have some memorable scenes and lines and Richard III himself is a character you are unlikely to forget.
For me, this film version, with the great Laurence Olivier in the role of Richard 3rd., is far superior to any otherinterpretation.
Although I liked this movie, I still prefer the McKellen/Loncraine version of 'Richard III'.First of all, Olivier is more of a stage actor and director than a filmmaker.
It remains a mystery how this Richard could successfully woo a widow over her husband's dead body and how he could be haunted by the specters of those he killed.Nevertheless, the performances of Ralph Richardson and John Gielgud are good, and Olivier's monologue on 'the winter of our Discontent' is great.
Yet the king's Machiavellian younger brother Richard (Olivier) plots to revive old hatreds and scheme and murder his way to the crown.After tackling "Henry V", in a slightly overwrought way, and "Hamlet", for which he was more than a bit too old, Olivier relies on the fruit of past successes and failures for his screen Shakespeare apotheosis.
The play itself is indisputably among Shakespeare's finest, using the wonderful plot elements woven together throughout Henry VI (part1 through 3) and offering an epic conclusion that stands on its own, thanks to the wonderful character that is Richard.Using some almost theatrical staging at times, Olivier immerses us into the tale by including late scenes from Henry VI to great effect, allowing his audience to understand the context and characters before embarking on his roller-coaster ride.
what might outrage in principle works wonders on screen, as Olivier's reworking only serves to make the story more clear and cinematic.At 160 minutes, "Richard III" gives us a compelling, baffling story that never outstays its welcome, a wonderful edifice marrying Olivier's direction with Shakespeare's art, and propping it up on four sturdy pillars of acting excellence: Olivier of course, but one mustn't forget the superb work by Claire Bloom, John Gieguld, and Ralph Richardson as Richard's confidant Buckingham (whom, rumor has it, Olivier once wanted Orson Welles to play).A must-see!.
Aided by his cousin the Duke of Buckingham (Ralph Richardson) he soon replaces King Edward IV (Cedric Hardwicke), rids himself of his other brother George (John Gielgud) and dispatches his young nephews to the tower and then brings their tender lives to a premature end.The deformed, despicable hunchback even seduces the widow of a man he murdered for his own purposes, Lady Anne (Claire Bloom).Once Richard ascends to the throne he finds that he has to do battle with a rival who also stakes a claim to the hollow crown.This is a chance to see Olivier, still in his pomp speaking the Bard's verse.
His portrayal by Sir Laurence Olivier in the 1955 film version of Richard III] has left a lasting impression of a bitter, crippled, and deformed man who murdered Henry VI, Henry's son Edward, his brother Clarence, and his nephews Edward and Richard, although the historical truth remains in doubt.
It is here that the director introduces the king (Cedric Hardwicke) and queen (Mary Kerridge), their two young sons, Gloucester (Olivier) and brother Clarence (John Gielgud), his cousin Buckingham (Sir Ralph Richardson) and his friend Hastings (Alec Cunes).
Well, this is the first Shakespeare movie I've seen that was done by Sir Laurence, he's done others of course, and probably was the first actor to seriously take a shining to filming the Bard's works, before Branaugh, Pacino et al.
Richard III is of course about one of the more despicable Kings in Shakespeare history, killing men, women and children to get to his throne and stay there.Olivier is fabulous in this role, looking exactly like a crow, he is stubborn, cruel, selfish and barbaric, and Olivier seems to be having a ball reenacting this play for the screen.
"Richard III" was the third, and last, of the three Shakespearean films directed by Sir Laurence Olivier, after "Henry V" and "Hamlet".
The film opens with a scene not found in the play, the coronation of King Edward IV who is accompanied by his wife, two sons and adult brother Richard.
Similarly, Edward's death and Richard's seizure of power took place in the spring and early summer of 1483, but here these events are shown as occurring during a bleak, snowy winter, to emphasise that the brief "glorious summer of this sun of York" is now over and that England faces a return to the "winter of our discontent".Olivier does correct one of Shakespeare's inaccuracies by removing the character of Queen Margaret who, at the time of the events depicted, would either have been in exile, or dead.
Most of it was shot on stylised Gothic sets in the studio, although the final scenes depicting the Battle of Bosworth Field were for some reason filmed on location in a region of Spain that looks nothing like Leicestershire.Olivier's Richard is not just a pantomime villain; he is also a consummate hypocrite, able to be all things to all men as the occasion demands, so Olivier has to call upon the full range of his acting skills to play the parts of loyal brother, ardent lover and man of the people as well as ranting tyrant.
Olivier dominates the play, but there are other good contributions, especially from John Gielgud as Clarence (a far more sympathetic figure than the treacherous drunkard of legend) and Claire Bloom in the thankless role of Lady Anne, Richard's wife, who should have every cause to hate him but who inexplicably marries him.The film was not a great box-office success when first released in 1955, particularly in America where its prospects were harmed by the curious decision to broadcast it on American television on the day that it opened at the cinema.
Of the three Shakespeare plays that Laurence Olivier directed and starred in, Richard III is my favourite, though I think both Henry V (1944) and Hamlet (1948) are more filmic and wide-reaching visually.
This is not necessarily a bad thing, for it captures probably one of the finest, most delicious performances ever in a context that respects its theatrical heritage (Olivier famously played Richard on stage earlier), and there is something about the very construction of the play that is very theatrical – essentially it is a series of small dramas or set pieces: scenes that in themselves are works of art, and beautifully crafted that way by Shakespeare.
The staginess works best when Olivier speaks directly to us, because then he is using an unconventional film device (actors don't normally talk to the camera) to improve upon a common theatrical device, creating a bond between role and audience.
That this is not employed throughout the play is as much Shakespeare's fault as Olivier's, because it is written that way –we get no direct address from Richard in the crucial demise at the battle, and are thus relegated back to being observers rather than "confidents".Upon re-watching it, I was struck by how much what seeing was itself an historical document –of a style of acting and staging that perhaps to us now seems dated, but which at the time was perfectly relevant and true.
Michael Gough does wonders with his small part, and Claire Bloom is marvellous –the scene in which her character is wooed by Richard is one of my favourite in both the film and in all of Shakespeare.People have remarked upon the unevenness of the final act, with a sunny Spanish landscape so clearly standing in for soggy England that it distracts our attention away from the narrative; the theatricality is gone and we are suddenly made of this being a film location.
The way this necessary shift from studio to outdoors is handled is much more deftly achieved in Olivier's earlier "Henry V", which also has a more satisfying battle scene, but that was written more precisely too; the battle scene in Shakespeare's Richard III only has a few lines and few directions so any film version will have to expand upon these.
Richard III begins with Olivier breaking the fourth wall and delivering his gleefully atrocious plans to camera, boasting of his strategy to usurp his brother King Edward IV (Cedric Hardwicke), but not before ridding himself of his other sibling George (John Gielgud).
He seduces the widow of the man he slew during the War of the Roses, Lady Anne (Claire Bloom), and conspires with his cousin the Duke of Buckingham (the astonishing Ralph Richardson).Shot in wonderful Technicolor and opting for minimalist set design, Richard III is a treat for the eyes.
Hamlet and Richard III are the hardest characters to play and Olivier nails both, but is slightly better in this.
Very, very, very few film performances are superior to Olivier as Richard III..
Sir Laurence Olivier is "Richard III," a film produced and directed by him.
Just before he meets his gruesome death, RICHARD III utters those immortal Shakespearean lines--and, as delivered by LAURENCE OLIVIER, they are spoken in a highly melodramatic manner--as is most of the other prose whenever someone has a "big" scene to play.But Olivier gives most of the big moments to himself--and he does them with great finesse and dramatic flair.
He almost seems like an innocent victim of Richard's machinations at times.CLAIRE BLOOM is lovely as Anne, but her sudden switch from mourning widow who spits at Richard to a woman who listens calmly to his loving talk and accepts an engagement ring is slightly ridiculous.The British cast is uniformly excellent, as always in these Shakespearean things, and JOHN GIELGUD is especially convincing as the ill-fate Clarence who gets drowned in a vat of wine.The killing of the two boys in the Tower could have been handled with more high drama than it is, but all the highly dramatic moments seem to go to Olivier only.Best acting job in the cast is done by ALEC CLUNES as Lord of Hastings, the only actor in the whole show who knows how to underplay effectively rather deliver bombastic shouts.
CEDRIC HARDWICKE chews quite a bit of scenery in his death scene.William Alton's music is quite impressive, as is the color photography, vivid and affording many striking visuals of interiors and exteriors.The device of Richard speaking asides to the camera is a bit overused at times and is a bit distracting until the viewer gets used to it.Summing up: A good film, but not a great one--could have been so much better..
I always feel a little cheated watching Olivier knowing that we, as a film audience, are really getting a second-rate performance from a brilliant actor.
Laurence Oliver, one of the kings of cinema, directs, adapts, and stars in what is William Shakespeare's RICHARD III.I would like to make clear right off the bat that THIS FILM IS NOT INTENDED FOR THE SIMPLE MINDED.
So much for Buckingham!") and other stage directors from between Shakespeare's time up to 1955.One can't discuss a movie like this without mentioning the acting -- which, in this case, means Olivier, solely.
A very disappointing end to Laurence Olivier's time as a Shakespearean film director.
The best actors in the film are the only ones who give consistently subtle performances such as Andrew Cruickshank as Brackenbury, Alec Clunes (Martin's dad) as Lord Hastings, Laurence Naismith as Lord Stanley, Norman Wooland (who previously played Horatio in "Hamlet") as Sir William Catesby, Stanley Baker as the soon to be Henry VII and the great John Gielgud as the Duke of Clarence.
Perhaps Orson Welles (whom Olivier originally wanted for the role) would have done better, but I think Richardson does just fine.All of the other actors do great, but I wanted to single out Claire Bloom as the tragic Lady Anne Neville, who is seduced and later murdered by Richard.
However, with Lord Sir Laurence Olivier directing, producing and acting in the lead role, with a BAFTA win and Oscar nomination, no-one can complain that he is a good Richard III/ of Gloucester.