MovieChat Forums > Richard III (1956) Discussion > Terrible!

Terrible!

posted 21 years ago by Laura_Krycek
67 replies | jump to latest

This is a positively horrible version of "Richard III". It's dry, witless, and I feel nothing for any of the characters. I found myself laughing and shaking my head in disbelief at almost the entire thing. This play is so much more than what they put into it! Richard is a fully formed, three-dimensional character, not the Snidely Whiplash portrayed in this horrid film. And please, what was up with Lady Anne? She's attracted to the man who just slew her husband and father? In the play, she's given some degree of reason, at least, but in this, she seems to have liked him all along. It doesn't go with the lines OR anyone's sensibilities. And Mistress Shore was just unnecessary.

Ian McKellen's version of Richard is at least closer to the mark. However, if anyone had the grand luck to have seen Kathryn Hunter's portrayal of Richard in Summer 2003 at the Globe in London, then they know how great Richard can be. The Royal Shakespeare Company did a far more than decent job, though it paled in comparison with the Globe's fine work.

I suppose someone's going to see this and wonder why I feel I can be so bold. For almost a year now, I have been drowning in research of Richard's life and times, the history and myth, traveling, going to the sites that he lived (and died) at, etc. While I don't consider myself the authority on the subject, I feel that I have some scope to speak on the matter. Yes, Olivier's supposedly this great actor. But instead of *living* the character and lines, he makes it too Shakespeare. Everyone acts in that archaic, stylistic way that so many "Shakespearean Actors" do, overacting and make it almost kabuki-like in the process. Shakespeare speaks the same language we do, he just uses more words in his sentences. I'd like to see a much better version of Richard done, one that serves the text well and also doesn't try to change it to their will. Maybe Olivier was great in his time, but his version has been growing mold for quite some time now.

[–] carlgt1 20 years ago

Go see "Men In Black" again, I think that's more your speed!

[–] Laura_Krycek 20 years ago

I don't see how that remotely relates to anything said here. I was simply sharing my opinion of this film, as a continuing Theatre practitioner and student. I think that if people are going to view films instead of actually exposing themselves to the material, they shouldn't rely on this tripe. I disagree with the production values of this piece, not the story or the time\situation in which the film was made. As someone who feels more than a little spiritual connection with both Shakespeare and Richard III, I simply believe that this portrayal was nowhere near the mark. I just wish that there was a better, more true to the script\characters, and not boring version of the play available.

[–] skiop 14 years ago

Now, now. Men in Black is a good film.

[–] angel_de_tourvel 20 years ago

Uhh.... ok I kinda see your point. Perhaps for the purist... I haven't scrutinised each line of the play myself but COMEON!!! Olivier's my very favourite actor and this is one of my very favourite films but that's besides the point... a matter of opinion. But there was a TERRIFIC cast and I thought Claire Bloom was exemplary as Lady Anne. And what's with the "snidely Whiplash" stuff?? Olivier's richard had it all: he was imperative and regal, as well as devious and evilly remorseless. But in no WAY is this a "horrid" film, as you put it.
Only one positive agreement and "friendly" thing to say.. a friend at school said he saw the all-women production of Richard at the globe and said it was great. But so was Olivier, most probably ten times better.

[–] Laura_Krycek 20 years ago

I'm sorry, I just don't see it. I've seen far better portrayals of all of the characters, and much better presentations of the script as well. I don't disdain your liking the film, I just don't agree with it. But as far as the Lady Anne thing... well, I've yet to see a portrayal of Anne that I'm actually happy with. I pretty much have hated every one that I've seen so far.

[–] ral_8103 20 years ago

I really like this film; Olivier is awesome as Richard. It's the only version I've seen though.
The only thing I don't like about it is the poor picture and sound quality on my particular videotape!

"I haven't got time for this Mickey Mouse bulls***"

[–] RexDartEskimoSpy 20 years ago

Buy the Criterion DVD. Definitely worth it.

Anyway, this is definitely an outstanding Shakespeare adaptation. Olivier's greatest performance brings Richard to life unlike anyone before or after. How can you complain about Richard's deformities (I assume this is what you're referring to)? Have you studied up on the real Richard like you said you have? Shakespeare was the one who created the legend of Richard being a hunchback and a deformed person, a popular legend throughout the time of the Tudors. You need to go back to your theater studies.

Olivier's performance is "Shakesperian" because that's what this is: An adaptation of a Shakespeare play, and not a biopic on the life of King Richard III.

[–] ActorMan22 18 years ago

Maybe the problem is you are comparing the same work, but in two different mediums. Stage acting and film acting are almost two completely different art forms. Viewing film and stage work objectively requires using different perspectives, and judging by different criteria.

[–] AndrewH20 19 years ago

Well, I have to say, I don't know what your deal is. You seem to be very negative regarding every movie you've commented on. Since this films production, hundreds of thousands of high school students and college undergraduates and graduates have viewed this film to better understand Shakespeare's play _Richard III_. If you don't like it, I can respect that, but there is a reason it has won many awards. Yes, it is not a complete text, and that can be verified by looking at any of the folios or quartos, but this is Olivier's interpertation, and you seem to be the only person who minds it.

[–] jonodeans 19 years ago

Yes, shocking that Olivier would dare to make one of Shakespeare's plays Shakespearean. How dare he!

You might like to consider that you were not the intended audience for this production; to contend that he should have done things differently is ridiculous. It was a production by Britain for Britain.

Sometimes I wish that Shakespeare had never been taken across the pond.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] M4rrec 19 years ago

laura, for it's time, this movie was brilliant. it's easy to look at it now with our 21st century eyes and see it as horrid, but for the 50s these actors and this production were the pinnacle of shakespeare! with what we know now, this production IS primitive, but 50 years from now, what will future shakespearean actors say about the productions of OUR day? shakespeare is fluid and dynamic, hence it's possible for us to produce it in a variety of ways--this version is just one form among many...

[–] ArmandFancypants 19 years ago

I find Olivier hard to dislike, but, however, he is not to everyone's taste. I personally think that this film is brilliant, only surpassed in the "Olivier - Shakespeare" collection by Hamlet.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ArmandFancypants 19 years ago

Who?

"...They only lack the light to show the way. For that reason, I send them you...my only son."

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] the_joberon 18 years ago

This movie sucked so bad! Richard III is my favorite play. Certainly my favorite of Shakespeare's. And this verson was simply awful. It lost me right away when it cut up my favorite scene (act I scene II) and split up the two halves for no good reason. I guess they thought it wasn't realistic enough. WRONG! It was the best scene I've ever read of Shakespeare's. And Olivier ruined it. Plus they cut out most of Clarences death scene. UGH! Frustrating!

I have a plan that's so cunning you could brush your teeth with it.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ArmandFancypants 18 years ago

Yeah, this is one of my favourite movies too, and pretty much all because of Olivier, but with a little bit from Richardson and Walton.

That Anne scene is WAY more realistic split in two. It's just preposterous in one scene. Olivier was the bomb.

__
"Tahiti is not in Europe! I'm going to be sick!"

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ArmandFancypants 18 years ago

I would say that without Olivier, the film would be lacking, but he IS in there, and my god, what a performance. Should have tied the Oscar with Brynner that year.

Richardson was excellent also, and William Walton was in fine fettle.

__
"Tahiti is not in Europe! I'm going to be sick!"

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ArmandFancypants 18 years ago

Yeah, I just liked the main theme and all. What's ridiculous is it's the only Walton Score of Olivier's Shakespeare Trilogy that wasn't Oscar nom'd.

__
"Tahiti is not in Europe! I'm going to be sick!"

[–] shockeroo 18 years ago

I agree with Laura, I think that if this film was ever great it has suffered greatly at the hands of time. Lady Anne was totally unbelievable and all the women were simpering and pathetic. Olivier was good if "overly Shakespearean" (yes, there is such a thing and it's one of the cliches of bad acting.) Richardson and Gielgud were also good, as was Hardwicke, but no-one else had a chance and all in all this film bored me.

To fend off any more 'Men in Black' comments I love Shakespeare and act in at least one of his plays every year - it is this production that failed for me, not the text.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]