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

Terrible!

posted 20 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 19 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 19 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 19 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 19 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 17 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 18 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.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] M4rrec 18 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 18 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.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ArmandFancypants 18 years ago

Who?

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

[–] 18 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]

[–] funkatizer-101 18 years ago

Olivier's Richard = FAB!

I thought that this movie was brilliant! The acting was rich and colourful, and even the bits that might be termed 'campy' by modern standards had this enjoyable air to them. I thought it was absolutely effing VIVID. The only shakespearean production I had seen prior to this was an incredibly horrible version of 'romeo abd juliet' that we had been forced to watch in English class two years ago. (Ugh, yes, the modernized version with Leonardo di Crappio) and an OK-ish 'Much ado about nothing' with Ken Branagh. Now, please don't throw things at me! It's not like I have alot of years under my belt, and I can't even BEGIN to pretend i'm an expert!!! But, if I might dare to tread this region, me NOT being a shakespeare expert might lend the perspective of 'Casual Cinemagoer' to this debate. And, I must say, the Casual Cinemagoer LOVES this film!
I'm 17 years old, and have now, thanks to this movie, entered a grand Shakespeare Bender, as I like to term it. Wow, do I ever want to see as many Shakespeare productions as humanly possible before I die!

So thanks, Sir Larry. I owe you one.

And once again, please don't throw things at me!

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] funkatizer-101 18 years ago

I really, really LOVE the fact that it was bit overwrought in places. I mean, I almost peed myself when Richard was working his sexual prowess on Lady Anne, it was rather intense, I thought. Also, the crazed 'I KEEL YOU!' look he gave his nephew was enough to make me hide in the corner and sob like the little schoolgirl I am...stunning bit of cinema!

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] funkatizer-101 18 years ago

i thought that when he was doing that kneeling thing, he for some reason or other looked strongly reminiscent of some sort of venetian fresco painting or something vaguely renaissance-italy. I think michelangelo would have rendered that scene well, just because of the high drama feel of it all. It was an odd sort of observation...

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] funkatizer-101 18 years ago

k, yeah, maybe it sounded just a little stupid, lol.
Hey i'm totally used to it by now, so i'm good.

In Soviet Russia, joke over-uses YOU.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] funkatizer-101 18 years ago

lol no of course you didn't but whenever my friends say "interesting" the general undercurrent is "wow i think we should have you committed."
On a random tangent (or as the monty python crew would say: and now for something completely different):
Have you seen the Peter Sellers version of "Hard Day's Night" by the Beatles done in the style of Larry's Richard? It is SO spot-on! He has the voice down PERFECTLY. You can watch it on YouTube.com if your computer's not as ridiculously old as mine. I certainly got a few giggles out of it :)

In Soviet Russia, joke over-uses YOU.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] funkatizer-101 18 years ago

^_^ I so love that entire thing! It's true about the eyebrows though...

I started freaking out a bit at the beginning, because Sellers had it ALL down with the looks, and I had this moment like 'ooo look its larry' and then of course reality set in. Upon closer examination, sellers isn't QUITE as dashing as Larry, but very very few people ever are. ;)

In Soviet Russia, joke over-uses YOU.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] funkatizer-101 18 years ago

Oh hells yes, Hyene [wink wink]

In Soviet Russia, joke over-uses YOU.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] funkatizer-101 18 years ago

I know what you mean!!! When he was like 'your bedchamber.' that was just it! i'd be like 'You. Broom closet. NOW!'
I love the fact that his 'lump of foul deformity' character or whatever he was actually quite the panty-peeler ;)

That was nice touch...ahem. lol And THIS is why my friends look at me askance.

lol i have a little printout of Richard in my school locker, like: 'all men could take a lesson in fox-dom from this fellow' and they're like: [looks at askance]
Oh wow. I'm such a damn girl.

In Soviet Russia, joke over-uses YOU.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] funkatizer-101 18 years ago

Dude that IS the best record company ever!!!
Maybe I should try out the eBay thing...i'd love to get my hands on some Richard grear! Here, the pic i have is this one:

http://www.r3.org/onstage/olivier/bale.html

It's the one where he's dressed up all resplendantly...his 'pimp daddy' gear lol. The article itself was as real riot...Some of the stories in there are hilarious!!!

But yeah. My friends can go running back to their 'Chad Michael Murray' and 'Ashton Kutcher'...I'll take my malformed lad, thank you kindly lol!

In Soviet Russia, joke over-uses YOU.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] funkatizer-101 18 years ago

Now that is unequivocably trippy! lol you can call me MiniMe if you like ;P

"favorite outfit richard III wore!" >>I nearly died laughing there. I should make a little Richard III dolly, with dressup gear and everything! And hey, I think dorkness is one of the very few truly cool things out there so we're definitely the coolest people here!

I found this great thing with the '100 greatest shakespeare performances of all time' or something... and, (wa-hey!) Larry's Richard is at #1! Larry himself is on there like at least 10 times for various other roles, but sadly most of them are stage performances I'll never be able to see...[tear]
Damnsome time-continuum! When WILL they make that time warp machine???

In Soviet Russia, joke over-uses YOU.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] funkatizer-101 18 years ago

Oh yeah there would be a couple of bras and panties flying onstage for sure! He'd be like [looks at askance]...then [shrugs]...then [invites to dressing-room]. I'd so love to see him all SUPER creepy-looking though! I mean, maybe he actually managed to make Richard gross...although i VERY highly doubt it!
Though hey, if I were to go back in time, I'd probably take up acting just so I could go for the Lady Anne part lol!
I was actually thinkng to myself "you know, he seems to look really damn fine in those boots and tights...maybe i should revive that particular fashion!" but of course i really do NOT have the balls to pull that off, nor do i fancy going about in skintight hose all the time...you'd think that would get uncomfortable.
Though the boots i could definitely go for...mmm boots lol

In Soviet Russia, joke over-uses YOU.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] funkatizer-101 18 years ago

lol oh wow, he looks totally over-the-top! That's so great! Definitely creepier, i'd say.

Now as for Claire Bloom, I mean who wouldn't want a little something-something with the guy after being cinematically seduced by him? I'd be like 'hey, um...you wanna leave the nose on? it makes you look...DANGEROUS' ...oh hell yeah lol i'm sure that would have gone over well.
But I do think it's the 'hot amazing dangerous passion and energy' that made richard...well...RICHARD! If he hadn't been a bad boy, he just would have been icky lol! Well maybe not icky, but definitely not a Sex God.
Although really, I wouldn't be complaining if the REAL Larry wasn't a demented maniac in real life lol! When someone's that pretty, you just don't ask questions! ;P
She at least GOT to look into his friggin grey eyes, even if they didnt have that psychopathic glint in them lol! although, i guess they DID when they were playing richard, so she's just a lucky girl then isn't she! [pouts]
and i think she's bang-on about the perfect blend if gross and pretty! sometimes you're thinking 'oh you little weevil' and sometimes you're thinking 'oh you sexy beast get thee in my trousers!' I mean really, would it have been NEARLY as hot if someone as boringly pretty as say, Brad Pitt had played Richard withOUT any of the yuckiness? i say hell NO!

In Soviet Russia, joke over-uses YOU.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] funkatizer-101 18 years ago

lol we are SUCH suckers for this guy, i know. We're being played ;P

but seriously, if guys are ONLY pretty and good-hearted and BO-RING it's just not hot! I am definitely ALL for the older guys who have some aspects of them that aren't pin-up boy material! I mean, guys like Alan Rickman and Bruce Dickinson (metal singer guy from iron maiden) and hell even like agent smith from the matrix are all like 'wow you're kind of badass...and middle aged...and british...me like!' it's not like i'm all "like wow I am so TOTALLY into this guy OH MY GAWWWWD! his name...is like...oopsies i forgot his name...but he was HAWT!" [shudders] teen girls are RETARDED. (except me lol)

I'd like to think that there is WAY more to sex appeal than a six-pack. well...six-packs aren't even sexy, but whatever you know what i mean lol.

I would be perfectly content to stare into the eyes of a fully clothed man like Larry, rather than some over-sculpted half-naked magazine chap who spends every earthly moment he has at his disposal in the gym. Forget pushups! Read me poetry dammit!

lol that was a bit of a rant. Back to my normal demure self. ;P

In Soviet Russia, joke over-uses YOU.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] funkatizer-101 18 years ago

Obviously a woman of taste and discernment :)
Hey all the more for us, right?

Ok when I get back from Toronto I've got to transcribe my creative writing rant on Larry's Richard. It's part of this short story about people working at a dodgy restaurant. I don't have much time at the moment (flight leaves tomorrow morning) but I think it encapsulates it quite well.

lol that reminds me of this great bit by 'Radio Free Vestibule' this Canadian comedy act from Montreal called "I don't want to go to Toronto"...the same group did this sketch called "Laurence Olivier for Diet Coke" where they supposedly spliced a bunch of things he's said on tape throughout his life, and turned it into a Coke ad. ab-solutely hilarious. It's made all the better by the fact that I have so much affection for Larry! Larry Comedy = :D

In Soviet Russia, joke over-uses YOU.

[–] funkatizer-101 17 years ago

Oh man! this movie is SOOO much better the second time around!
This time i actually paid attention to things, instead of being very very muddled, because I actually knew what was going on.
You know which line made me really feel sorry for Richard, was when he was talking to Ratcliffe and he asks him to come in in the middle of the night to help him put on all his things. He seemed so sheepish about it...I was like 'Aw! He's all embarrassed!' I think that's the sort of thing they were trying to get at...either way, I now love that bit!

In Soviet Russia, joke over-uses YOU.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] funkatizer-101 17 years ago

Yeah, I remember that bit confusing me a bit. Maybe he's just trying to put on a show of like 'struggling with his passions' or something...or maybe he really is...i'm not sure. It's damnsome hot, either way, but I remember going 'wow he's a bit new at this isn't he?' I actually think it may even be just that...he's an awkward newbie like a teenager having his first little encounter, and it makes sense, doesn't it? He's made it clear that he's "not very physically appealing" though of course we might not agree. I'm not sure if it's a momentary display of his weaknesses and limitations as a lover, or if it's a really interesting 'acting' bit for richard. verrrry interesting!

i think with the whole 'help me get dressed' thing, it was probably hurting his pride a hell of a lot to have to request something like that when he's king and he's got this big 'regal' front going on. He's still very touchy about the 'deformed' thing. i thought it was a very 'human' moment for rich.

In Soviet Russia, joke over-uses YOU.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]