MovieChat Forums > Richard III (1956) Discussion > Kids these days... No respect!

Kids these days... No respect!

posted 18 years ago by funkatizer-101
33 replies | jump to latest

Ok, so I finally made my friends watch Richard III.

It was my third viewing, because I adore the pants off this film. My problem is, my pals thought it was the most boring thing in the world!
Now, one of them is wildly in love with Larry. That, i'm sure, would make it pretty easy to pay attention to his bits at LEAST. (aside from the fact that the performance leaps off the screen on its own.)
The other claims to enjoy Shakespeare (not so sure, might just be my boyfriend trying to please me...)
however, after taking a little coffee break right before Hastings' execution, I said 'okay now, this last part isn't quite as interesting as the first part' (my opinion, at least) and they gave each other a look like 'was it supposed to be interesting to begin with?'
I was so horrified that I'd made my friends sit through a couple hours of shakespeare to find out I'd bored them out of their skulls!

So here's a (hopefully) interesting thought:

What could they POSSIBLY have done to engage the interest of ADHD-type kids such as my friends?

The only thing I can think of at the moment is less clothing on Larry, but that might just be my own personal feelings showing ;P
Or, in the middle, they could break into a random tap-dance number complete with high-kicking monks in the background!

I'd love to hear some suggestions (maybe I'll do a remake if I go through film school lol!)

In Soviet Russia, joke over-uses YOU.

[–] martha_tate 18 years ago

They're just stupid. Don't mind them.

[–] funkatizer-101 18 years ago

Hehe yeah, I put it on the next day just to make sure I wasn't going insane ...but dammit it's just too good! I couldn't see the beef with it at all.

But I AM wondering...how many other people saw Richard's death at the end as being an immensely tragic thing? I know it was supposed to be really great, because the tyrant has been vanquished, etc etc...but I really felt for the guy.
To my mind, the 'happiest' ending for me would be Richard lives, gives up the throne, goes off the plotting and scheming thing altogether, and finds himself a damnsome saucy wife (who vaguely resembles myself) lol! OBVIOUSLY that's not the best ending at ALL, because the actual ending to me, is the perfect one. But I'm just wondering if there were more people who felt really quite sad at the end like myself.

In Soviet Russia, joke over-uses YOU.

[–] Birdieluver_gloria 17 years ago

1st of all I did enjoy the film. I thought that it was pretty good and the acting is all well done.

2ndly, I don't think that you should be shocked/or criticize others if they didn't like the film as much as you did. Keep in mind the fact that EVERYONE has different tastes. I know so many people who found masterpieces in both literature and films to be total crap. I didn't really enjoy Shakespeare at all when I started reading in grade 8. I tried to keep an open mind, but I just couldn't make sense at all of the play. I was considered to be one of the "smart kids" as well.

[–] HollyHop 10 years ago

I was surprised at the ending because I'm so used to watching final swords fights as something between two leads in the story. In this film everybody jumped on him rendering him completely defenseless and they killed him brutally. He deserved it but the victory didn't come off as heroic when there where many against one.

Don't tell me, it's no use to me. Tell yourself if you want to but don't tell me.

[–] david_colbourne 10 years ago

That does seem to be the one thing in the film that is true to history. If you're not familiar with history as opposed to Shakesperean drama, Richard met his end when he and his household knights charged against Henry Tudor, apparently in an effort to kill his rival and end the battle. Sir William Stanley changed sides and sent his men against Richard and he and his knights were overwhelmed. Richard is described as being killed 'fighting manfully in the thickest press of his enemies'. A brave man who didn't deserve to die like that. Of course, you may know all this, in which case please accept my apologies.

[–] HollyHop 10 years ago

Until recently I only knew about Richard lll through Shakespeare's play. Since it's a play I took it as not historical correct, all historical dramas have to be taken with a grain of salt I think. I also watched the quite funny Tower of London with Basil Rathbone as Richard.
I watched the documentary about the finding of his skeleton not long ago and that's the first time I heard about the Richard lll society and the belief that he was a victim of Tudor slander. Philippa was a bit odd, I just don't understand why his appearance was so important, I found her teary reaction at the reveal of his scoliosis a bit insulting.
I wasn't very compelled by the version of him in The White Queen, for a long time he was a background figure and then he was manipulated, he was written as someone with no real control, the opposite of Richard lll I'm used to.
I would have liked to watch a film or series about his reign as a duke, of what I've read he did well.

Don't tell me, it's no use to me. Tell yourself if you want to but don't tell me.

[–] david_colbourne 10 years ago

The King in the Carpark was a good documentary, although I agree that Phillipa Langley was a little too personally involved. Full marks to her for getting the dig done in the first place, though. There's a new documentary, just been shown on TV, Richard III: The New Evidence, based on analysis of his bones. Had some interesting things to say about his lifestyle and the change when he became king.

The most interesting part, though, was when they found a guy with the same medical condition, scoliosis, and trained him up to see if Richard could have been the warrior king his is said to have been. The guy did well, learned to ride a horse in full armour and use weapons,although he did tire quickly, so the conclusion is that Richard could have done it. What they didn't appear to consider is that Richard had trained for war since childhood and had actually taken part in much fighting and would probably have had more endurance, so perhaps not really a fair comparison.

[–] delriosong 8 years ago

The King in the Carpark was a good documentary,

Is that the one where they show the archeologist staving in the top of Richard's skull? Horrifying that. I was gobsmacked.

I thought one of the first things they taught you at university about being an archeologist was don't bash the remains to bits.

I've lived upon the edge of chance for 20 years or more...
Del Rio's Song

[–] mike-1730 18 years ago

I watched this again last week after twenty years;still a superb performance from Olivier.
The greatest Shakesperian actor of his generation.
The 1983 version with Ron Wood may appeal to your friends more;a frenetic bustling, and more violent attack on the role.Wood has faded a bit these days,but this is well worth catching.

[–] funkatizer-101 18 years ago

hmm. very interesting. Yes, I might see if I can get my hands on it. Though I might not give it a fair chance because I simply love the pants off Larry's Richard. ;P
God, I wish I'd seen his stage performance in "oedipus rex." I heard it was staggering, and with Larry, I believe it.
Stage Richard would have been ace as well. I'd be interested to see what he did with it, without any edits to the script.

~SPOON: We ain't no forks!~

[–] charlesw-1 18 years ago

Well, the film is a darn good version of the play, and Olivier is riveting, that's for sure. But the problem with the film, and why so many people today have trouble watching it is because its really as if they just setup a camera in a theatre. From a filmmaking p.o.v. its shot worse than a student film these days. Long boring tracking wide shots, etc. They could've punched in more - mids, close-ups, etc. The lighting sucks too, could've been more dramatic - back in those days there was nothing but candlelight indoors, so realistically, the lighting would've been MUCH more dramatic. And those hideous costumes, ugh, terrible, they look like they belong in Disney land. And the production design? Looks like they shot it at some midevil-themed miniature golf course or something, can't imagine what they were thinking with that. All of these aspects are vital in producing a successful film, so, if you're not a Shakespeare or history buff (I am both, however, and enjoyed the film), then i can see why you'd be distracted from the text and performances. Not to mention, Olivier sets the bar so high with his incredible performance, its also distracting when some of the other actors are on screen with him - they seem so fake compared to him. I, personally, can suspend disbelief and enjoy the film very much, but after more than 50 yrs of filmmaking since this movie has been made, I can completely understand why today's generation gets bored with this film - you should give your friends a break!....I think its time for an updated version...?! That's my 2 cents anyway :)

[–] clark789 18 years ago

If certain kids find really good old stuff boring, it is worse than useless to inject so much razzmatazz into the old stuff that ADD kids will watch it. It's worse than useless because it still doesn't get the point and the texture and the wholeness of the classic into the kids' heads, and it just degrades the classic.

[–] funkatizer-101 17 years ago

I actually do agree that they could DEFINITELY have done with a greater variety of shots. Why NOT zoom right in on Olivier, I mean he's Olivier, for the love of god! It would have lent itself to fully showing the nuance of the performance. You can usually catch those little things he does, the occasional twitch or blink, but you need to squint a bit.
Oddly enough, I rather liked the cardboard cutout effect of the settings, and the looney-tunes style costumes. I think they made it surreal enough so that you think "I am watching an acting performance" and it leaves you even more amazed when you're completely absorbed by the character.
I might also fiddle with the sound levels because one minute, there's this great bit of dialogue you nearly miss, then just as you've got your ear pressed to the television speaker, a chorus of trombones and coronets nearly renders you deaf!

~SPOON: We ain't no forks!~

[–] neo_20042005 17 years ago

Well actually not all kids these days are like this but definatly the most of them. Although I am 18 I love this film. It was shot in 1955 so i guess the cinematic creativity wasnt so far back then. But they really should have used more different camera perspectives.
It still was exiting to me watching this although i had read the book before and at the end i really felt for Richard however in real life he decided to not flee from battle and his last words were "I will die a King" according to his followers who fled the battlefield.

When its a question of money everybody is of the same religion - Voltaire

[–] missfunnybone 17 years ago

And let's remember that the 'staginess' of the performances would be in keeping with Shakespeare's original settings. After all, there wasn't special lighting and costumes in his day!
Love Olivier. He could keep me riveted reading a shopping list.

[–] funkatizer-101 17 years ago

Ditto. I mean, almost every Shakespearean role he takes on...it pretty much defines it. Case in point being Richard, of course. This movie alone made me fall completely in love with Shakespeare, Olivier, AND british history. How good is that?

I pride myself in the fact that Richard III had no knob-gags and I can still get into it...and yes, laugh at the occasional humour. Most of my friends my age are into Superbad...BUT I've learned to enjoy watching movies alone. yay! lol
Olivier is best appreciated alone, I've found. Otherwise, there's too much "Aww man he's hawt" from the peanut gallery. I entertain similar thoughts, naturally, but I don't have to articulate them to myself.

~SPOON: We ain't no forks!~

[–] RetroChic1963 17 years ago

I have to say your comments Re: Richard crack me up. Mainly because I agree with everything you say (glad someone else finds Richard hot).

Olivier is best appreciated alone, I've found. Otherwise, there's too much "Aww man he's hawt" from the peanut gallery.

LOL, If I said something like "Aww man he's hot" my friends would look at me like I'm crazy! They don't have the same appreciation for Larry as I do.

It's so difficult to explain to my friends why I love this film (and play) so much, so I completely sympathise with you.

Richard III is simply the best thing ever.

[–] funkatizer-101 17 years ago

My goodness, how can your friends not go insane over Larry? [le GASP]...He's the epitome of beauteous old-school men! My buds think Larry is ultrahot, but not actually AS richard, sadly. I, on the other hand, think Richard is Larry at his very schmexiest. I must have a thing for wigs and hunchbacks...wait no I think it must be the tights...

either way, I find myself chillin' with Larry alone most of the time, then I can come here and rant about his excellence...lol I find the movie is interrupted far less that way. I remember there was another thread on this board that basically consisted of myself and another lady drooling shamelessly over our dear Rich...aahh now I think I need to watch the movie again!

~SPOON: We ain't no forks!~

[–] RetroChic1963 17 years ago

My friends have no taste for the finer things in life (Larry included).

When I told my friends in Shakespeare Studies that I thought Richard was sexy they gave me this odd, horrified look. They all think I'm quite mad but I don't mind, I'm used to it.

I stand by what I say, Richard is hot, and Larry as Richard is just indecently sexy. (I sympathise with Lady Anne!)

It is nice to know that I'm not completely alone in this though lol.

[–] funkatizer-101 17 years ago

Shakespeare Studies, yesss! I can't wait. I'm just in my first year of university now, but I'm pretty sure I'll be able to take a shakespeare class in 2nd or 3rd year.
I totally get ya, though. I find the character himself INCREDIBLY sympathetic...to the point of saying "you know what he needed? a hug. a good hug. and maybe ome naughty business. that'd take care of the whole evil thing!" and to my mind, it would! One person who was nice to him, that's all it would take. If he even remotely resembled Larry, all the better!

~SPOON: We ain't no forks!~

[–] RetroChic1963 17 years ago

I'm in my second year now and we've finally got around to Richard. I should probably remain objective but I keep defending him, even though his actions are purposefully written as indefensible. Sorry Mr Shakespeare, I'm not buying any of it!

I agree with you, the guy needs love. Some "naughty business" would have been best for all concerned. I might suggest this theory to my seminar tutor lol.

She'll take one look at the picture from the film on the front of my folder and think "Christ, another Olivier fangirl!"

[–] funkatizer-101 17 years ago

Oh. My. God. I have a picture of Larry's Richard in my room! Haha! He was in my locker for my senior year of high school but I don't have one now, so in the room he goes...wow that's an awesome, if slightly creepy coincidence. Which one do you have? Mine's this one where he's smirking from a doorway, looking very plotty and smarmy. It's the point in the film RIGHT before he says "Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous..."etc. Yay screencaps!

~SPOON: We ain't no forks!~

[–] RetroChic1963 17 years ago

Wow! That's a bit weird that, but what can you expect from two obsessives like us? lol.

The picture I have is a massive one I found in the Olivier section at simplyclassics.net; he looks a bit tragic in it actually, thus proving my tortured soul theory! There are some great pics there. There's one with "Richard III" written on it and he looks so evil, but so wonderful. I have that one in my room.

I know the scene you're talking about. I love that bit! I have dozens of screencaps as well, I love technology.

[–] funkatizer-101 17 years ago

Hmm...that site looks phenomenal, but I have no idea how to register. How'd you sign up?...Maybe message me? I'd be very eager to get my hands on some decent photos.
My screencaps, while handy, usually turn out less-than-great...sadly. But ah well. It may indeed have something to do with the aformentioned overuse of wide-angle shots in the movie...lol! Wow, finally I have a real problem with the film. also, many of the scenes I've wanted to capture have been marred by skipping and crap because the library has a VHS and DVD of the movie, both of which are in horrible condition. But, I know that once classes are out at the beginning of December that's the first thing I'll sign out!

~SPOON: We ain't no forks!~

[–] buzzerbill 15 years ago

I agree. There is something dramatically wrong with our educational system when kids does not have the minimal patience to sit through a classic film without car chases and explosions and hip hop types in bad clothing speaking unintelligibly, waggling fingers, and wearing back fashions and too much jewelry. My partner's nephew, with us on a visit, had no respect whatsoever for Casablanca.

Richard III would not be improved with modern technique. It helps to realize that Olivier's style as a director alternates between film vocabulary--cuts, close shorts, and the like--and theater vocabulary--stage pictures designed to be seen as a whole. Works for me.

As for the quality of the perforances--wonderful, of course. The only thing comparable--very different in concept--is the Ian Mackellan Richard III. Which do I like better? Hard to say......

Are we raising a generation of ADD unsophisticated illiterate brats? I fear so many times.

[–] LinusW 10 years ago

Richard III is a bad example of something today's generation would not like. I'm 39 and I love old movies and classics but did not enjoy this. It's Shakespeare for Pete's sake! It's not everyone's cup of tea.

[–] Kitty_fortay 16 years ago

eh, i get the same problem with alot of my friends. I only show them things I KNOW they'll like. problem solved, meanwhile i contiuning indulging myself in things i like with no complaints :)

[–] Captain_Augustus_McCrae 15 years ago

You mean like simplify the dialog with modern idioms, expressions, and lots of "like" verbal tics inserted? Or adding car crashes, explosions and nudity? Take your friends to see "Dude, Where's My Car", instead.

[–] skiop 14 years ago

My problem is, my pals thought it was the most boring thing in the world!

I take it that they've never seen 2001: A Space Odyssey.

The other claims to enjoy Shakespeare

I don't know how one "enjoys" Shakespeare. I mean, the plays of his I've seen have been somewhat interesting, but he has serious problems with plotting, exposition, and dialog. The big problem is that he's overly concerned with death and destruction, making it seem weird to say you enjoy it.

If you want the truth, I think if anything, the pace was too fast. It jumped from scene to scene (and seemingly, skipping entire scenes altogether) without giving much of an explanation of what was going on.

What could they POSSIBLY have done to engage the interest of ADHD-type kids such as my friends?

Has it occurred to you that some people might just not like it and there might not be a problem with them? I know a lot of people who don't like Star Trek and I know that no matter how much I explain what's great about, they'll never like it. I suggest you just let it go.

[–] marilynnewman 10 years ago

I totally love Shakespeare & Olivier. When I was 7 I bought the Complete Works of William Shakespeare, I own several DVDs including Henry V (Olivier again). I just about had a heart attack when they first showed Olivier in closeup, he was gorgeous! But, even though I love the play, I found this boring, first of all the DVD I watched on Amazon had subtitles, which was a good thing, because I had a terrible time telling what they were saying, and secondly, as someone pointed out the sound did go up and down. They did leave out scenes, I got lost and had to figure it out. I guess I have to go read the play again, it's been a while. I also loved Othello with Orson Welles.

[–] foxxyboxes 13 years ago

I'm quite, quite late in responding, so if you miss my post, my feelings won't be hurt :)
I find that most young people today find Shakespeare rather dry; the language too stiff, the plotting too slow, and even Olivier rarely can "save it" (in their opinion). I've been reading Shakespeare since the 6th grade, so I've grown up learning the theatricality of it all and find Larry to be one of my favorite thespians. I have many friends like yours, ones who just can't seem to grasp the magnitude of Will's plays and are incapable of being sucked into them. It reminds me of when my Honours English class (freshman year) studied Romeo&Juliet and watched both the 1968 and the 90's versions. The '68 one had me dabbing away tears at my eyes while everyone else was either
a) asleep
b) listening to their iPods
c) laughing at the movie and praying it would end

When I mentioned Larry's narration for the film, no one knew who he was. Not even the teacher. Even then, the fast-paced 90's version only elicited one response: "Damn, DiCaprio's hot!" That certainly made my day :/

In any case, I'm glad to know I'm not the only young person out there with an interest in good-quality work! And if you're a Larry fan, I have a recommendation for you: check out Wuthering Heights! He was at the peak of his beauty in that film, and he's bound to make you swoon! Ah, the perfect Heathcliff....