MovieChat Forums > The Lion in Winter (2004) Discussion > why can't they ever cast Richard correct...

why can't they ever cast Richard correctly

posted 19 years ago by rohirrum2000
32 replies | jump to latest

I love the origonal and really was suprised to find I like the remake of lion in winter. What annoyed me in both movies is the way they have cast Richard against the way he has always been described. Richard was a Plantaget. Which from what I have read has always been described as tall, blond, and handsome. in both of these movies he is dark haired and they always have him personally unattractive and with a pretty big wimp factor. They obsese so on his supposed homesexuallity they tear down the rest of his character. Whether he was gay or not is beside the point. Richard was first and foremost a respected military man in his day. His sexual leaning was not the big deal. These movies obsese on gayness rather then the man, whereas it seams the 1100's saw the man and his sexual leanings were left where they belong (in the bedroom). One day I hope they will show Richard as his own people saw him--at least from his outward appearance--a magnificent Plantagenet prince. They were more concerned with surviving back then whereas we overanalize everything and try to put our modern sensibilites into a totally different time and place.

[–] alessapt 19 years ago

I'm not sure I agree. Physical attractiveness is, well, subjective, for starters. I personally think the actor portraying Richard looks rather appealing, though unbathed. But then, hygiene habits were different in those times, and I couldn't ask a warrior to shower twice a day whilst he was busy battling for his land.

As for the homossexuality issue, I actually think some current Hollywood movies could learn a bit from this one as far as its portrayal goes. It *was* kept in the bedroom, with the only detail that *we*, the viewers, were in the bedroom with them, watching the whole thing unfold. Throughout the movie, there's no outward hint that Richard leans that way (and the wedding with Alais doesn't seem to irk him the least bit), the matter is only brought up when he's (he believes) alone with his former partner. The real Richard's alleged homossexuality is almost universally acknowledged as a fact, and it *could* have had a strong influence on whose support he got for his purposes (and how he got it), so including it in a fictionalisation of his life doesn't strike me as so out of the blue as all that.

As for being a wimp, that's the one thing I wouldn't call him. John is portrayed as a wimp, through and through, and to an extent, the same could be said about Geoffrey. As far as Richard goes, I think the most prominent feature in the portrayal was precisely his warrior nature. It was quite clear which of the three brothers was more at ease in the battlefield and more likely to defend himself in any situation, rather than hide behind others.

[–] silverwhistle 19 years ago

I think my favourite Richard bit in the script is the exchange with Eleanor:
Eleanor: "You're not an assassin."
Richard: "Look again!"
For anyone familiar with Richard's career on the Third Crusade, that has certain resonances, as he is a major suspect in the assassination of Conrad de Monferrat, the uncrowned King of Jerusalem, in April 1192.

[–] ismmea2341 19 years ago

It's interesting you should say this. I don't know if it is just coincidence, but *a few* years back, I stage managed a production of Lion in WInter, and we had the devil of a time finding someone to play Richard convincingly. we went through I think three or four actors before we found one guy comfortable enough be able to play him strong and make the scene with Philip stick. It probably has something to do with the chemistry between the two actors. If its not there, Richard can come off looking kind of wimpy and pathetic, or just a thoughtless bully, which, in this instance,I don't think he is meant to be either. Just as an aside, the guy who finally pulled off a brilliant job was not tall and blonde either.

"You're being dramatic." Emile Hirsch, Immaginary Heroes.

[–] coyotelore 17 years ago

I found Hopkins treatment in the original film adaptation far more convincing than this ridiculous HBO remake.

I thought there was an element to the casting of Richard in this film that was far more taken with certain expectations of modern 'gay' culture than with historical homosexuality. His very appearance (particularly his haircut) had nothing to do with the Richard of history and everything to do with convincing us he was "gay." His mannerisms seem more an attempt to be on the edges of the closet than being a prince of the time period who happened to be homosexual.

Of course the play was never supposed to be perfectly historically accurate but this bit is just a bit too irritating.

[–] the sphynx 17 years ago

I'm with coyotelore on this. Hair color is nowhere near as important for this role as presence and talent. Hopkins was amazing in his first screen appearance opposite the best actors in the business. Some of the 2003 cast did about as well--the two kings, particularly--but the one performance that suffered the most by comparison with the original was Richard. (Runnerup was the even more snivelly and despicable new John.)

[–] gwynethanne-1 17 years ago

"Richard looks rather appealing, though unbathed."

ahh the great unwashed, his skin glistens, sweaty and dirty with the need for a wet sponge or a dunking in a wooden tub...he is not pretty but battle scarred..
as well he should be.
and when he is out and about dealing with the machinations of court he is strong and pugnacious
and
when he is in the bedroom he is needy, wanting, and vulnerable
what does it matter that Richard likes men rather than women?
it is not about body parts…it’s about power. who has it, who wants it and how to get it. the rest is just about gratification rather than orientation.
i found this rendition better than expected.
i so heart patrick stewart....and yes, you can see the potential in young
Jonathan Rhys-Meyers...but he must needs butch up a bit if he can pull off henryVIII ..but i do wish he was a redhead...ahhhhh that would have been lovely.

[–] neilevan-2 19 years ago

Actually, Richard stood 5'3", as can be seen by his suit of armor in the British Museum; hardly a tall, strapping lad! His broadsword is 5'6", so he must have had huge, tireless arms to swing such a weapon in battle.

[–] Joanna_Plantagenet 19 years ago

This is strange. I've never heard this before. I have always heard he was around 6"3. And I don't think his skeleton exists anymore (yes, the tombs do, at Fontevrault, but I heard the revolutionaries got to the bodies!) But John's body does (at Worcester) and when it was opened in the eighteenth century it was found to be 5"6 (or 5"6 1/2). If you read Gerald of Wales's "Instruction to Princes" you will find that he classes Richard and Henry the Young King and Richard as tall and fair, and John and Geoffrey as short and dark. It would be strange if that really was his armour.

In this new Lion in Winter the first few times I watched it I thought Richard was played badly but I find he grew on me!
Karen

[–] lordjim13 19 years ago

Are you sure you aren't thinking of Henry VII? Richard's suit of Armor would have been chain mail and I find it hard to believe the British Museum has it...

[–] flavia18 16 years ago

I believe you are referring to Henry VIII - I don't think Henry VII's armor is on show - and, at any rate, Henry VIII was also tall. Richard I was not short, either - the previous viewer was simply mistaken.

______________________________
Those who study history are doomed to watch others repeat it.

[–] silverwhistle 19 years ago

I think you're thinking of Charles I's armour. None of Richard's mail (not plate in 12C) survives.

[–] KellyBundy 18 years ago

5`3 was indeed tall for a men out of the 12th century.

[–] Benjamoose 18 years ago

Right.

Before then they were Hobbits.

"..don't disbelieve the prophesies, because you had a hand in bringing them about yourself"

[–] kdnh42-1 18 years ago

Well done.
LMAO.

[–] KellyBundy 18 years ago

You do know that people were shorter in height a thousand years ago?

[–] gk90 18 years ago

yes they were but not THAT much shorter!

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dhummel-1 18 years ago

Here's an example:

"Young South Koreans are about 3 inches taller than their North Korean counterparts, on average. The difference between South Koreans, and even older North Koreans, compared to young North Koreans who grew up during the famine of the 1990s-2000s is extraordinary."

In fact, in Vietnam the average height is still only 5'4. You need to investigate before you speak (or write) historical inaccuracies. It may paint a different picture of history than what is factual.

[–] misterjrbryan 18 years ago

Asians, take as a whole, tend to be shorter than those of European descent, so that's not a fair example. Here's an article about the relative heights of people in the Middle Ages:

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/medimen.htm

They were shorter, but not ridiculously short. And we're also discussing average heights... which means some would be shorter, some would be taller. And royalty would stand a good chance of being taller still, having multiple generations of well-fed people in the mix.

Also, what a lot of people don't realize is... those suits of armor in the museums were not necessarily worn. A lot of surviving armor was merely decorative, and wasn't built at full, wearable size. That stuff was expensive, even for the very wealthy. They didn't have mass production the way we have today.

[–] powelltolar 17 years ago

Our (mis)perception today that people were tiny in the middle ages is based on short beds and short armor sets left by the period. In fact, most armor in museums belonged to teenage squires and didn't see combat. A knight's armor would have been pretty well beaten up by combat and jousting, and not much of it remains. The beds are shorter because it was thought to be healthier to sleep with the upper body raised, so people slept much as they would sleep in a modern recliner chair. People WERE shorter, but not by a foot on average.

As for Richard's sexuality, I think he was probably bisexual, primarily interested in women, but when one wasn't available...

Short of photographs, nothing will ever be proven, though, and no one had a Polaroid then.

[–] daggers-1 16 years ago

His armor would have been mail. You're confusing it with another display.

Also, armor on a stand loses several inches over being worn. It's not a unified piece of metal.

And there were no swords 5'6". There were DISPLAY PIECES that size. It's simply too much metal to move with any kind of control. Even most two-handed swords didn't top 40" of blade.

I speak as someone who researches this, is trained in sword (real sword, not the barbecue spits used for sport fencing) and has been forging blades for 25 years.

http://www.MichaelZWilliamson.com

[–] TheLongHair 17 years ago

Richard is never portrayed correctly, especially by the English. They love him and don't like the fact he grew up in France, didn't speak a word of English, and only spent six month of his ten year reign in England, which he called a rainy dismal island. Nevertheless I like his protrayal in this film, more of an *beep* and in the relationship with Philip which is also often leftout of the lore. Some unrelated notes are I love Patrick Stewaet and I'm respecting Jonathon Rhys Meyers more and more with every performance I see.

[–] Jonathan Dore 17 years ago

I don't think it's fair to say, as rohirrum2000 suggests, that the film *obsesses* about Richard's homosexuality - since it's only briefly alluded to in one scene. Perhaps rohirrum is simply uncomfortable with *any* allusion to homosexuality?

And I'm not sure why you think the English love Richard, LongHair. He was a worthless king who bled the country dry to pay for his worthless crusades, and he contributed nothing to English life. Beyond the title "Lion-heart" (itself simply a translation of his French appellation, not an English coinage), and a statue outside parliament that was no more than a vehicle of Victorian gothic kitsch, I wouldn't say there was even much admiration, let alone love, in the English memory of Richard.

I think Alan Howard's portrayal was excellent, i.e. playing him as a weaselly runt -- but an authentically sweaty, paranoid, psychopathic, murderous, self-pitying one at that.

[–] stowe-rachel 17 years ago

*Andrew Howard.... To the OP: I thought he was cast pretty darn well. I, for one, thought he was very appealing. And, he's a blonde...maybe not as tall in proportion to the other actors as Richard himself may have been but, eh, can't win 'em all. With the research that I've done after seeing this movie, and in preparation for a book I"m writing on the subject (yes, inspired by the movie, but I haven't stooped to fan fiction yet) I thought this was a gorgeous way to play Richard. He's a tough character to get, and I thought that playing the scene with Philip, especially would've been difficult, but he pulled it off to no end. Especially with all the background those two almost def. have (and yes, there is historical proof that they were partners- although it IS all circumstancial evidence) I thought the actor played it with sensitivity and...yeah, warmth! If I lived in a family like that, I'd probably be looking for love in any place, and any time, I thought I could find it as well. All in all, he did fine, and his acting with Close was nicely done as well. Maybe a little more gruff and a little less...feeling, but he's supposed to be a big bad warrior on the outside anyways, right?

[–] chamile-t 12 years ago

"Stooped to fanfiction"? Please don't judge transformative works.

[–] Pharaoh-in-de-Nile 16 years ago

"Richard is never portrayed correctly, especially by the English. They love him and don't like the fact he grew up in France, didn't speak a word of English, and only spent six month of his ten year reign in England, which he called a rainy dismal island."

That's because most of my fellow Englishmen are morons who conventiently forget the origins of their culture (thus seem to be way too obsessed with King "fought the English and was actually Welsh" Arthur) and the events of 1066 (when England was conquered and never ruled by the English again, more or less).

"Nothings gonna change my world!"

[–] samanthaseaotter 17 years ago

In all the biographies I've read about Eleanor of Aquitaine, Richard is described as tall, fair, strawberry blonde, and exceedingly handsome. He looked the perfect part of a Plantagenet prince (sorry for the alliteration, but it just spilled out) - remember, Henry II had RED hair. (John was always referred to as her only "dark" child.)

Richard was seen as a great military leader and he was a terrific tactician, but it's interesting that he's seen as such an English idol, considering all he wanted was control of the Aquitaine and used England as his cash cow. But it's a wonderful, flamboyant story.

Yes, I'd love to see Richard cast as he looked. He sounds like a stunner.

Samantha

"Nobody's perfect."

[–] Jonathan Dore 17 years ago

Again, samanthaseaotter, I'm not sure why you think Richard's an English idol (see my post above). What do you base that view on?

[–] flavia18 17 years ago

Richard is, indeed, an English idol - he is always portrayed (for example) as the darling of the people and their savoir in the Robin Hood tales - written by Englishmen for Englishmen.

And his homosexuality was an issue in his day - he was begged by his councillors to "live with his virtuous queen (Berengaria)", because he *didn't*. And they knew why.

[–] silverwhistle 17 years ago

Richard was turned into a national icon in England from late 13C, as a rival to the cult of Saint Louis, the French crusader king. The 14C metrical romance of King Richard was current into 16C, and influenced 19C Romantic interpretations.
This is rather ironic, as he was primarily what we would consider French, in family and in residence. (And indeed, the French Romantics loved him, too.)
Modern historiography and fiction in the UK has tended to be more critical of him.

He was not originally in the Robin Hood stories at all: it was John Mair, a 16C Scots chronicler, who moved the Hood stories back to 12C from 14C, and Walter Scott who popularised this in 19C.

His alleged homosexuality was not an issue in his day: various sexual "sins", infidelity and unchastity, yes, but not homosexuality in particular. A 1948 historian placed that interpretation on his behaviour, and on his alliance with Philippe. What he was notorious for in his own day was serial rape of women. Roger of Howden describes the accusations made against his oppressive rule as Duke of Aquitaine:

He carried off by force the wives, daughters and female relatives of his free men, and made them his concubines; and after he had extinguished the ardour of his lust on them, he handed them over to his soldiers for whoring.

His recent biographer Jean Flori describes him as a "versatile lecher": basically, he'd have anything with a pulse. He had one acknowledged illegitimate son; if there were others, his habit of passing his women on after he'd finished with them would have made paternity impossible to prove in those days.

Seingner Conrat, tot per vostr'amor chan
http://www.silverwhistle.co.uk/knightlife

[–] dc_llewellyn 17 years ago

I loved Andrew Howard as Richard! His swarthy good-looks give the impression he just left the battlefield, and his scenes with Glen Close were amazing. His portrayal of Richard as a caged animal in his father's court is exactly in keeping with the father-son dynmaic I understand from history. His weakness was his love for Loius, and his nuanced delivery with Johnathan Rhys-Meyers, for me, expressed his own realization of this weekness. I do not feel he was week at all. I was so excited by this movie it left me wanting to see a television series on this family with these actors in it!

[–] jimmycurry01 12 years ago

While being based on historical figures, the play itself is not History. This is a character from a play and the actor must match the character that is written. Had this been a documentary, you would have a valid point, but this is a work of fiction very loosely based on people that once existed.