(Some Mild Spoilers)
In all fairness, this film was neither excellent nor atrocious (as previous, conflicting commentaries have stated). It is mediocre for many of the same reasons Olivier's critically popular 1956 version was.
Most notably, Richard Loncraine has made the grave error of removing the character of Queen Margaret COMPLETELY. The only thing dumber than doing "Richard III" without Margaret is doing "Richard III" without Richard!!!
Sans Margaret, the dark sense of fate, destiny and curses fulfilled is obliterated. Instead, it becomes the story of an ordinary madman who goes on a politically motivated killing spree. Ho-Hum.
The 1930's costumes are elegant beyond belief in what is, essentially a grand cinematic joke; a highly conceptual "let's try it this way" approach to a legendary play. And, thankfully, the highly talented and prestigious cast is game. Too bad that the supporting characters are shredded to such a threadbare and skeletal state that most of these exceptional actors are given bloody little to do!
Example: What a waste to cast the great John Wood as Edward IV and cut the only speech of any significance that he has ("Have I a tongue to do my brother's death? And shall that tongue give pardon to a slave?") With this speech gone, the character is left with a paltry dozen lines at best. Wood deserved better.
It is unfair to complain too much about McKellen's hamminess since the tongue-in-cheek nature of the whole approach demands a somewhat over-the-top interpretation. On the other hand, to point out that Olivier was even hammier in comparison does not turn McKellen into the new Brando.
As for the seduction of Lady Anne showing inconsistencies in Richard's character? Loncraine filmed that scene pretty much as it was originally written. Don't blame him. Address your complaints to Mr. Shakespeare.
The complaint about this film being untrue to its period is technically accurate but I also agree with its refutation that this film is clearly set in a fantasy world. We already know this because England was never a Fascist state. If we object to a building that is obviously not the Tower of London being referred to as the "Tower of London," then we must also object to a man who is obviously not Richard III being referred to as "Richard III."
Ultimately, the film is clumsily done. Omitting certain predictions but then carrying them out makes for a singularly unsatisfying entertainment. However, it was, at least, interesting to watch. More than you can say for some previous interpretations of the play.
In all fairness, this film was neither excellent nor atrocious (as previous, conflicting commentaries have stated). It is mediocre for many of the same reasons Olivier's critically popular 1956 version was.
Most notably, Richard Loncraine has made the grave error of removing the character of Queen Margaret COMPLETELY. The only thing dumber than doing "Richard III" without Margaret is doing "Richard III" without Richard!!!
Sans Margaret, the dark sense of fate, destiny and curses fulfilled is obliterated. Instead, it becomes the story of an ordinary madman who goes on a politically motivated killing spree. Ho-Hum.
The 1930's costumes are elegant beyond belief in what is, essentially a grand cinematic joke; a highly conceptual "let's try it this way" approach to a legendary play. And, thankfully, the highly talented and prestigious cast is game. Too bad that the supporting characters are shredded to such a threadbare and skeletal state that most of these exceptional actors are given bloody little to do!
Example: What a waste to cast the great John Wood as Edward IV and cut the only speech of any significance that he has ("Have I a tongue to do my brother's death? And shall that tongue give pardon to a slave?") With this speech gone, the character is left with a paltry dozen lines at best. Wood deserved better.
It is unfair to complain too much about McKellen's hamminess since the tongue-in-cheek nature of the whole approach demands a somewhat over-the-top interpretation. On the other hand, to point out that Olivier was even hammier in comparison does not turn McKellen into the new Brando.
As for the seduction of Lady Anne showing inconsistencies in Richard's character? Loncraine filmed that scene pretty much as it was originally written. Don't blame him. Address your complaints to Mr. Shakespeare.
The complaint about this film being untrue to its period is technically accurate but I also agree with its refutation that this film is clearly set in a fantasy world. We already know this because England was never a Fascist state. If we object to a building that is obviously not the Tower of London being referred to as the "Tower of London," then we must also object to a man who is obviously not Richard III being referred to as "Richard III."
Ultimately, the film is clumsily done. Omitting certain predictions but then carrying them out makes for a singularly unsatisfying entertainment. However, it was, at least, interesting to watch. More than you can say for some previous interpretations of the play.