Essays
- Clotilde Lamy
- Richard III: The shadow images
in Olivier's Richard III
In Olivier's Richard III, shadows are a striking visual motif, extensively
used throoughout the whole movie. As an object, we can consider they are
specifically filmic, because theit essential visual quality could not be
achieved on stage, because of the nature of the space. And they partake
to the "horizontal" elements in so far as they help the narrative
being developed. But their function is also similar to the one of a pervading
metaphor in a text. How do they work then, and are they specifically filmic?
what do they translate or stand for? We will first examine the shadows as
a metaphor for Richard's nature, then as a symbol for his plotting activity,
and finally as used in a borader scale.
- Elizabeth A. Allen
- Richard as Director and Actor
in Olivier's Richard III
In Laurence Olivier's 1956 film version of Shakespeare's Richard III,
Richard's (played by Olivier) performative and directorial personality is
exemplified during a long take wherein he reveals how he will get rid of
his brother the Duke of Clarence by making King Edward suspicious of Clarence.
Here the setting and camera shots, as well as Olivier's blocking and expressions,
demonstrate that Richard is in control of not only Clarence and Edward,
but the audience as well.
- Sam Folk-Williams
- More Drama, Less Talk:
Sacrificing Authenticity in the Name of Efficiency
The only way in which the Loncraine version of Richard III can be viewed
is on its own terms. Divorcing the text from the film, one can analyze scenes
for their particular strengths and weaknesses as they hold within the film
itself. Loncraine has his own ideas of how to generate pathos, follow motivations,
and build causal relationships between events, using the conventional Hollywood
film as his template, that may or may not coincide with the text we think
of as Shakespeare's. By example, we will examine Loncraine's rendition of
Act 1, Scene 3, in which Elizabeth laments to Rivers and Gray her fears
that Richard will become Lord Protector if the king should die. Loncraine's
departures from the text will be noted and discussed throughout, allowing
us to confirm the viability of the film for its own ends.
- Flavio Bollag
- A Villainous Glance: the use
of Direct Visual Contact to Represent Richard's Invitation to Conspire
William Shakespeare's "Richard III" has provided centuries
of audiences with a thrilling, chilling and thoroughly intriguing villain.
Certainly his action through the play, and his bewitching power of speech
contribute to his intense portrayal, but one of the most appealing and most
sinister aspects of Richard is his overt invitation to the audience to experience
the plot as a co-conspirator, an insider. This alluring opportunity, seen
most clearly near the end of Richard's opening soliloquy, profoundly affects
the audience's experience.
- M. Donlon
- Meaning Behind Murder; Hollywood
and Elizabethan Stage: Depiction of Violent Acts in King Richard III
It is obvious that television and movie violence in our culture has numbed
our sensitivity to the psychological pain associated with death, thus further
distancing our understanding of the meaning of loss (of human life) and
devastation. Shakespeare's texts, on the other hand, use language to examine
the deterioration of moral conscience that are the basis for, and the result
of violent acts. In Loncraine's rendition of King Richard III, certain filmic
devices are used to accentuate the physical act of the murders rather than
the psychological progressions that lead up to them, or the struggles of
conscience that Shakespeare emphasizes in his original text. This results
in a 'flat' pacing throughout the film, in which the visual impact of the
murders overtakes the viewer's attention at the very moment of their occurrence,
at the expense of an awareness of the larger transformations and character
de-evolutions that transpire throughout the play.
Ivana Budin
The play in 'Looking for Richard': Do
its actors vanish into thin air?
How Al Pacino's 'Looking for Richard' in its entirety uses the potential
of film as a medium of communication or an art form is not the burden of
this essay. Rather, it is the purpose of this essay to examine how the
fragments of Richard III, the play, as enveloped in Pacino's film, have
transcended their seemingly inherent theatricality to become a living play
beyond the film. Two scenes are considered as an example of a pattern that
occurs throughout the film, which consists of blending the documentary reality
of 'looking to understand' and the end-product of the quest as played by
costumed actors in a historic setting. The two scenes are the last scene
of Act I (murder of Clarence) and the first scene of Act II (the reconciliation
scene).
- Chat Ortved
- Dreams in Richard III: The Rise
of the Subconscious in Filmic Dreams
Dreams play a major role in the text of Richard III. Often premonitions
of tragedies to come visit characters in their sleep, as well as ghosts
to tell of their approaching revenge. Both Clarence and Richard himself
experience these forms of dreamy prophecy, respectively. The means of their
experience and their reactions thereto, however, vary widely between the
play's text and the film versions of Olivier and Loncraine. Film possesses
the capability of showing a dream as it happens in the subconscious mind
of the character, whereas a play must use other means to display this. This
allows film viewers often to relate more closely to the characters, establishing
a connection less likely in the theatre. However, when the theatrical element
is completely removed from a film, some of the most important and beautiful
parts of the text disappear, essentially pushing the viewer away. Therefore,
the two film interpretations of the dreams of Clarence and Richard display
a need for a necessary balance of filmic and theatrical elements in order
to keep the beauty of the text without alienating the audience.
Lucas Klein
My Movie for a Line
According to Shakespeare's text of Richard III, Gloucester's famous last
words are "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!" (5.4, 13).
While historians now believe Richard's last words to be a somewhat less
mysterious "Treason! Treason!" Shakespeare's line has nevertheless
entered anglophonic cultural lexicon (searching on the Internet for sites
with the line on the page, I found many links to equestrian URLs where Richard's
words serve to glorify horsemanship). As in the production of any Shakespeare
play, the relationship of a given line to popular culture's use of the words
as a cliché must be considered so that the speech retains its freshness
and vibrancy. In Richard Loncraine's film Richard III Ian McKellan voices
the line in a decidedly original manner: bringing the play forward into
a modern, alternate England suffering a fascistic monarchy would result
in a war-horse being anachronistic, anomalous, and absurd; Richard drives
a car into battle and calls for a horse only when the vehicle is stuck in
the mud. The line's reinvigorated meaning notwithstanding, Loncraine's film
still risks using a line that does not make sense. And with this line in
particular, the risk fails.
- Elena Johnson
- "Was ever woman in this
humour woo'd?": Richard and Anne in the cinematic space
The utter villainy of the character of Shakespeare's Richard III makes
him irresistible to great actors. Both Laurence Olivier and Ian Mckellen
have made Richard their own in two different films, and in so doing, given
audiences two completely different renderings of the play. One of the more
glaring points of distinction is the manner in which Richard's wooing of
Anne has been treated, changed, and reconfigured from the playtext. These
actors have managed to focus on subtext and character motivation not obvious
without the aid of the camera's eye. Shakespeare's scene is changed subtly,
but importantly, and with that change Richard is made another type of villain
for his audience.
- Kate McCosker
- Laurence Olivier's Protean
Richard: All Things to All People
In penning King Richard III, William Shakespeare amalgamated his text
from a variety of historical records and legends, creating a dramatically
heightened play and giving Richard, his villainous antihero, intense political,
psychological, and metaphysical dimensions. In shifting the play from the
medium of the theatre to that of the cinema, Laurence Olivier is able to
further advance King Richard III's impact by his directorial exploitation
of the camera; Olivier gives added emphasis to Shakespeare's vision of the
machiavellian duke as a consummate role-player. Olivier's Richard so well
manipulates those around him, that if we, the audience, were not intimate
confidants to his ambition (a relationship established by way of direct-address
shots), we would be as duped as his victims into believing him a pious devotee,
an infatuated suitor, and a doting uncle.
- Meagan S. Londy
- The Accessibility of Marital
Union
While Audiences in the 17th and 18th century probably knew the history
of Princess Elizabeth and Henry of Richmond, the majority of audiences filling
theaters to watch Ian McKellan's version of Richard III might not. In McKellan's
film version we see Richmond and Elizabeth marry. In the text this union
does not occur. While we are accustomed to observing textual omissions in
film versions of Shakespeare's plays, here we see instead an addition. In
Act IV, Scene IV of the text, Shakespeare implies that King Richard has
succeeded in convincing Elizabeth to woo her daughter in his favor. In McKellan's
film, the same scene can be equally persuading, but with the film addition
of the wedding ceremony many more questions arise. McKellan may be implying
that because of the ignorance of todays audiences the active participation
of seeing the marital union of Richmond and Elizabeth is necessary. But
much more comes of this. By exhibiting Elizabeth's conscious choice to ignore
Richard's request, her film character is enhanced in a way that it is absent
from the play. Thus, we must search the text and the film to understand
how this is done.
- Chris Vourlias
- Richard III
Though his ruthless actions through the first three acts bring Richard
to the cusp of glory, it is not until he secures the "election"
of the people in III.7 that he is firmly enthroned, and that their complicity
in his rise is made most explicit. It is the point in the play at which
our estrangement from Richard becomes evident, as we find ourselves removed
from his privileged company as conspirators, and more strongly rooted on
the other side of some divide. We realize our own seduction throughout,
and now sense our betrayal as Richard has claimed his crown.
- Mark Hamilton
Clarence's Speech on Film
Richard Loncraine and Laurence Olivier's film versions of William Shakespeare's
Richard III stage two extremely dissimilar versions of Clarence's speech
relating his dream of drowning. The ways in which each presentation succeed
and fail suggests that for such a speech to be wholly effective on film,
the director must make some concessions to the theatrical mode of Shakespeare
presentation. Loncraine's version, while occasionally deficient in this
regard, compensates through its more imaginative visual presentation. |
