MovieChat Forums > Richard III (1995) Discussion > Help with a plot point re: Lord Stanley

Help with a plot point re: Lord Stanley

posted 19 years ago by lemon_magic
12 replies | jump to latest

I'm not the world's best Shakespeare scholar, but I did like this revisioning of "Richard III" in a fascist England very much...enough, finally to get my own DVD copy of it. It's even better than I remember it.But I am still having a little problem with the sequence of events (and the plot progression) near the end of the film. Can someone better versed in such things help me out?

To wit; Richard counts on Lord Stanley's forces to help him withstand any revolutionary attack or assault by outside forces, I got that. And because Richard doesn't trust anyone or take any chances, he holds Lord Stanley's little boy hostage in the Tower - it's pretty obvious what will happen to the boy if Stanley doesn't bring his forces to Richard's aid if needed.

Then the attack comes, and Richard calls for Stanley's aid, and he is told that Stanley refuses to come. From various subtexts and Nigel Hawthornes's great performance, it is plain that Stanley actually was ready to go over to the other side. So I got that, too.

But how did Stanley overcome the problem of his son being held hostage? As far as I know, his boy was still in Richard's clutches when the final attack started. Was this covered in some part of the play which didn't survive the trimming to film length? Or was the viewer just supposed to get the idea that the enemy's assault (especially the strafing by the fighters) was supposed to be so overwhelming and sudden that Richard wouldn't have time or sensibility to see the order for the boy's execution carried out? I'm pretty sure that Richard would have made sure it was done, if only for spite, no matter what happened.

This isn't a major sticking point for me, it just bothers me a little, given Hawthorne's dismay (obvious to the audience but masked from Richard - isn't Hawthorne GREAT???) and surprise at Richard's little revelation just before things go to hell. I would have thought since Stanley's support was pivotal to Richard's success, and that Stanley;s support was pivotal on the life and health of his son, that the plot would have spared a scene (or even an expository line) on how the son's execution was prevented. Er, I am ASSUMING it was prevented....

Thanks in advance for your indulgence and patience.

[–] colonel_green 19 years ago

Actually, Lord Stanley was played by Edward Hardwicke (Nigel Hawthorne was George, Duke of Clarence).

The film's narrative is basically true to the play; Stanley refuses to come to Richard's aid, and sided with the Earl of Richmond. The play never shows us the moments leading up to Stanley's decision, but his strategy was presumably to attack with such speed as to overwhelm Richard before he could execute young George Stanley; the play does include a line that is only partially spoken in the film, where the Duke of Norfolk (in the film, it's either Catesby or Ratcliffe) says they shouldn't bother with killing George until the battle is over, which saves his life, since Richard loses the battle. In the film, the traincar is strafed just as that line is being spoken.

[–] lemon_magic 19 years ago

Ahhhh....that makes sense. I must have lost the line in the noise and impact of the initial strafing of the traincar.

And I must have mixed up Hawthorne with Hardwicks because they BOTH played "Watson" in the Jeremy Brett "Sherlock Holmes" series. You know, sort of a 'categorical sorting error' mental mistake. Both actors were excellent in the part, and in played Watson in similar ways, so I mashed them together in my mind.

Thank you very much for the clarification...it was greatly appreciated!

[–] LadyFel 19 years ago

To add from actual historical sources other than Shakespeare :) (I'm a Richard III fan, but from the other side, I think he was innocent)

Richard sent Stanley a message that if he didn't show, his son woukd be executed - to which the reply was 'tell the king I have other sons'. At the last minute, Richard had to decide whether Stanley's son would be executed immediately or not - and he chose to delay the execution to after the battle...and we all know how that one turned out...

If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you ever tried

[–] Tiger-ace 18 years ago

Just to be a minor pain to start, hardwicke was a watson, the other was david burke..... but back to the battle

from what i have seen of the maps, stanley and his forces was in a reserve, ready to assist Richard (to the rear anyhow). At least in a position that if richard sent any riders to the tower during the battle they would have been taken care of by stanleys forces - if required.

[–] TooShortforThatGesture 18 years ago

I think you need also consider the suggestion that, as personally horrific as it may be, it is possible to decide that the sacrifice of one's own son is the "better" choice when the alternative is the on-going rule of a murderous tyrant. "Richard III" is not a sit-com or a feel-good war movie but a recounting of a deep civic tragedy. The fact that innocents die and that people are forced into making choices between protecting their children and fighting a madman is part of what makes it such a profound and lasting work.

[–] philipmahoney2001 16 years ago

I don't know anything about the actual historical Lord Stanley, but I think we have to conclude that the Stanley in the film was trusting to luck regarding his son's safety.

Stanley is a Royal Air Force officer - that much is clear from his uniform. It is his planes that attack Richard's camp (which is what causes Richard to yell out "Stanleeeey!" in fury when the planes begin shooting stuff). Stanley's son does get away by hiding under the train car (it's clearly his son because the boy appears in an earlier scene where Richard threatens Stanley by implying horrible fates for the lad if Stanley doesn't comply). Given that it is Stanley's Air Force which is strafing the train that the lad is hiding under, there does not appear to be much choice other than to believe that Stanley could not have had a plan for securing his lad's safety, and was just hoping for the best.

[–] azaroth 18 years ago

There is a very short moment, just before Richard gets into the jeep, during the battle where you see a small boy running under one of the train cars and escaping. I believe that this is meant to be Stanley's son

[–] jschillig 16 years ago

The dynamic in the play is different, of course...I believe that Stanley's son in the play is a young adult, not a little boy. In which case, he himself would probably be willing to make the sacrifice for the good of his country. (Wasn't young Stanley a soldier himself in the play? In which case, he'd KNOW that some things transcend the individual.)

Sir Ian upped the dilemma for Stanley by making young George not just a child, but apparently a mentally-handicapped child. (I think Sir Ian's script, which you can read online, says as much.) My guess is Stanley took the gamble that the attack would prevent the execution. It was all down to timing, and it paid off.

[–] vfrickey 16 years ago

Anyone else get the pun of Richard's troops being assembled on rail?

I mean, in both the medieval and modern senses, Richard had a "war train."

[–] hellodollyllama 14 years ago

According to Shakespeare he survived in the chaos of the battle. I think he survived in real life too.

[–] BoyScoutKevin 10 years ago

Actually, I am glad that this plot point was brought up, as while I have fond memories of seeing the film in the theater, when it opened, I had forgotten about the boy's escape till it was brought up here. And actually making the hostage for his father's behavior a boy, just shows what a hardass Richard III was in the film. For who else would execute someone who is still a child? When in all actuality, to give him his title, Lord Strange was actually old enough to be married, and he did survive the battle, because Richard III was talked into delaying his execution till he also has the young man's father and uncle in custody, so he could execute all three at the same time. Which, historically, did not happen.

[–] abs_is_back 10 years ago

The actual Stanley family had a survival plan which was pretty devious during the War of the Roses. Some nobles simply switched sides, apologizing and declaring loyalty to the winner of the last battle and hoping to either be believed or that the current winner needed the noble's men and money.

But the 2 Stanley brothers, Thomas and William, played both sides against the middle. One would side with this contender and the other brother with that contender. Whoever stood with the winning side was then in a good position to gain quick forgiveness for his wayward brother, and since between them they controlled a good size force, forgiveness was practically guaranteed.

Richard attempted to tip the scales by making Stanley's son Lord Strange a hostage to his father's loyalty, but Thomas Stanley bet on his stepson's victory and Richard's compassion and was right about both.

Oddly enough, truth being stranger than fiction or Shakespeare, the other Stanley brother, William, was later executed for rebelling against his nephew-by-marriage Henry VII (aka Richmond) and supporting the usurper Perkin Warbeck, who some historians believe may have actually been the younger Prince in the Tower, Richard of Shrewsbury. One too many turns of his coat!