Richard III

Here are your presentations for this week:

 Richard III

by Laura Shield

 I looked at the 1995 film of Richard III which was adapted from a stage production by Ian Mckellan who played Richard, and was directed by Richard Loncraine. The context of the play has been changed to a fascist government in England in the 1930s, set in a fictitious, alternate world. It sees Richard attempt to install himself as a political dictator.
In Act One Scene One the film has manipulated Richard's opening speech so that it begins in a public forum as he toasts his brother's success but ends with him alone on the screen directly facing the camera as he reveals his real plans. In looking straight at the camera Richard attempts to make the audience an accomplice in his plans as he confides in us his true nature - we alone know what he actually intends to do. Or involvement is implicit - we are placed involuntarily almost on Richard's side. The switch from a public space to a private bathroom setting shows Richard's hidden corruption - a moral decline from who he portrays himself as around others and who he is in private - demonstrating and then stripping away Richard's use of performance.
The film changes Act 5 Scene 4 where Richard is sleeping and haunted by ghosts, so the ghosts don't physically appear on screen. Instead the audience hears their voices - the sole focus drawn to the effect that has on Richard as he becomes increasingly more agitated before waking. Richmond is removed entirely from the scene so we are only faced with Richard's turmoil as his unconscious mind dwells on what he has done. The dark setting of the scene and the increasingly louder overlap of voices emphasises Richard's inner crisis of conscience - battling the part of himself that acknowledges the wrong he has done.

Richard III

by Amrita Gill

Though under the genre of history, Richard Loncraine’s 1995 production of Richard III places the play out its own historical context. Instead of the traditional, medieval setting the play is set during the 1930’s and mirrors images of the Second World War.

Similar to the audience of Shakespeare’s time, we as Loncraine’s audience can be reminded of a bloody past we wish not to repeat- World War Two. By bringing a modern history to a historical play Loncraine complicates the idea of history as fixed and something that is always past. The most striking scene in the film is the director’s edition to the play which falls before Act 3, Scene 4 in which Ian Mckellen, as Richard, appears before the people in a Nazi-like rally. Despite not yet being ruler or King Richard is still equated to a tyrannical figure of a modern history, Hitler. Just as Shakespeare uses historical figures to warn his audience that chaos will ensure with an illegitimate King, the scene in Loncraine’s adaptation reminds a modern audience of the destruction that occurs with fascism. The bloody end of the film encompasses this theme as the battle between Richard and Richmond looks more like the footage from a battlefield in Normandy thank of a Shakespearean production. The use of guns and explosions demonstrates recent history’s bloody consequences as well as the result of Richard’s usurpation.

The changing of the historical background is not without consequences. Richard’s opening speech is not given until more than five minutes into the film as Loncraine has to set up, establish as well as explain what is happening and why it is happening at this historical moment.

Overall I thought the use of a different historical narrative managed to make the production more authentic. We are able to feel as a Shakespearean audience felt because, much like the dangers of falling back into civil war loomed over Shakespeare and his contemporaries, the rise of fascism in the 1930’s still hangs over our heads. Loncraine therefore shows that Shakespeare’s history is not static but flexible and transferable.

Richard III

by Leticia Bravo

Richard III is an early Shakespearean play (probably from 1591) that completes the first “tetralogy” of history plays. It was and still is really popular and follows the three previous parts of Henry I.

Shakespeare´s tale Richard III in which is represented the XV^th Century is relocated in the England of 1930s by Richard Loncraine in the homonym film Richard III. Therefore, we have an updated version in which swords and horses are replaced by guns and cars.

The play starts with a soliloquy of Richard III; however it is not how the film starts. It is quite shocking because Loncraine changes a London street for a “public toilet” for the initial soliloquy, what in my opinion gives to Richard a ridiculous and unreliable view.

Another important change is the fact that the marriage between Richmond and Elizabeth is moved to the night before the battle and the film finishes with Richard III shot by Richmond. This change probably occurs in order to increase both the romantic moment of the film and the film and the dramatic end for Richard.

Finally, two scenes in which we can perfectly see the relocation of the play are: firstly in the arrival of the Prince, by train. Very strange since Train is an invention of the XVIII^th Century. Secondly, the scene in which Buckinham, Richard and Lady Anne are seeing a recording of Richard´s III coronation in a big screen; something unbelievable in the XV^th Century.

We can see that Richard III is even nowadays a very popular and interesting play for today´s audiences.

Richard III 

by Jenny Sloan

Introduction

è 1995 film adaption directed by Richard Loncraine

è Ian McKellen plays Richard à acted in many Shakespearean stage productions such as Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, King Lear, Othello and Macbeth and also the 2008 film adaption of King Lear à well known as an actor of Shakespearean scripts

è Chose to set the film in 1930s England à looming Nazi presence à tension/conflict/confrontation at the time within England and on a global scale (escalating Nazi violence and increasing pressures for international involvement)

è Critically acclaimed and received positive reviews à won Academy Awards, BAFTAs and Prizes at the Berlin Film Festival

Differences between Film and Play

è Richard’s cunning nature is emphasised more in the film. In the opening scene of the play Richard talks about the celebrations over Edward being crowned king and the civil war being over, but in the film this is actually acted out  so the audience can more clearly see how he is pretending to celebrate to the rest of the party, but once he looked at the camera the audience hears what he is really thinking à his self-presentation is reinforced more in the film

è Also, part of his speech is turned from monologue (in the play) to  celebratory speech in front of the party (in the film) à emphasises his spilt personality

è Scenes are placed into a more contemporary arena à when Richard looks at the camera after the celebrations of Edward becoming King we follow him into the toilet while he uses the urinal and unmasks his violent hatred of his brother and reveals his desire to become king à also inside of a procession, it is a mortuary where Richard tries to seduce Anne à modernised to suit 1930s England

è For the sake of modernisation, the plays most climatic line ‘A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse’ (spoken by Richard during the final battle scene)

è Decadent, hedonistic jazz music plays as he leaves the toilet and walks up the stairs dancing à showing insanity perhaps? Good use of music that was perhaps not used during the first performances of the play

è James Tyrell is introduced much earlier in the film than he is in the play à In the play we meet him in Act 4 Scene 2 but in the film we are introduced to him ater the first half hour à to save characters and to make the audience familiar with Richard’s accomplices à Very specific setting of their meeting à Richard approaches James when he is feeding pigs and conspires with him à Richard throws the food at the pig and makes it squeal à highlighting his cruel, sadistic nature

è In the play Richard flatters Tyrell with phrases such as ‘king Tyrell’ and ‘gentle Tyrell’ but these are omitted from the film à perhaps Loncraine was worried in case they could be seen as not masculine enough and anachronistic

è In the play(Act 1 Scene 2) Annie is wooed over quickly by Richard, agreeing to take the ring and meet up with him à she goes to stab him but stops when Richard talks about her beauty à However in the film, it is not his ‘beauty’ talk that stops her (this has begun before she even holds the knife) but instead we get the impression it is more about her conscience as a brake, and the type of person she is à more realistic to modern day audiences à also she doesn’t take his ring, which would also be highly unrealistic à However they do keep linguistic devices such as the triple repetition of ‘cursed’ and she spits at him à shows her rage and hatred towards him

è Clarence’s dream (Act 1 Scene 4) in the film he stands bedside muddy water and it begins to rain and we hear thunder à pathetic fallacy (something that is not given in Shakespeare’s stage directions)

è Also Brackenbury is only a guard and is very unresponsive (unlike Brackenbury in the dream who encourages Clarence to talk about his dream) à save characters and to make it easier to follow for the audience