MovieChat Forums > Richard III (1995) Discussion > Would it have been better if the dialogu...

Would it have been better if the dialogue had been modernized, too?

posted 17 years ago by mobocracy
9 replies | jump to latest

I like this film, but...I found too often that I was watching a set of visuals that seemed somehow out of sync/step with the dialog. Too many of the scenes seemed to either not make sense conceptually (such as the railroad marshaling yard where Richard had his command rail car), and even less so with the dialog applied.

I guess it seemed like I was watching two movies -- one visual, one auditory and they didn't layer right to me. It was almost as if someone said "lets have a scene that looks like this" and they just kind of found a portion of the play to stage in it.

Or maybe I'm just a purist, and like my Shakespeare set in its historical era..

[–] stephen-morton 15 years ago

I totally disagree.

The whole impact of the play comes from the Shakespearean dialog, and I thought it worked wonderfully most of the time. I will agree that the concept of an old and crippled man leading a modern army into battle personally doesn't make much sense, but as long as you overlook that, the rest of the movie works great.

[–] blewellyn 15 years ago

the willing suspension of disbelief (the primary job of a good theater audience) is essential to this type of production. you have to be willing to go along for the ride and stop picking the movie apart for perceived flaws.

although it certainly wasn't seamless, I thought this movie managed to pull the audience in well enough to make the ride enjoyable.

B

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jschillig 14 years ago

They actually did "smooth out" the language in some places--changed some archaisms, changed the thee's and thou's to "you", etc.

Sir Ian McKellen, in the introduction to the published screenplay (I think it's also online, notes and all) claims that there have always been alterations to Shakespeare (an early actor who played Richard, Colley Cibber, threw in lots of his own lines) and that it's more important to have novice viewers understand better than to be a rigid purist with the language.

[–] piglet44 13 years ago

No it would have been a disaster. The play's the thing! The language is brilliant and Ian McKellan is of the Royal Shakespear company he does it superbly

[–] nmbv 13 years ago

I thought a purist would be more of the mindset of keeping the language intact- interesting.

It did not bother me. I love the adaptations to more modern settings- it just proves that his works are timeless.

The night is a very dark time for me.

[–] junkmailcentral 12 years ago

I have to agree with Mobo.

The dialogue seemed amazingly false to me. I did not believe that the actors genuinely felt the words they were saying. Poor emoting of the words.

Everything about this film had a going-through-the-motions feel to. And this observation about the dialogue not seamlessly fitting with what we were seeing on screen is pretty good example of how this film did not work.

[–] ArthurDental 9 years ago

I think critics don't want to say bad things about Shakespeare films, especially involving so many big stars. All these movies with modern settings but largely anachronistic dialogues, are so false; all the viewers singing praises are more happy about being able to see the dialogues on big screens they're willing to suspense not just belief but sensibility too.

[–] Suzume-san 9 years ago

Would just like to point out that Shakespeare did Shakespeare in modern dress...