Cheap Richard III - Criterion Collection (DVD) (Laurence Olivier) (Laurence Olivier) Price

Related Products

Customer Reviews of Richard III - Criterion Collection

Laurence Olivier brings his Richard Crookback to the screen
"Richard III" was the third film I ever saw based on a play by William Shakespeare. The first two were Franco Zeffirelli's "Romeo and Juliet" and "The Taming of the Shrew." Watching Laurence Olivier's Richard approach the camera, hold his hunchbacked body at an odd angle, and declaim "Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this sun of York." By the time Richard's opening monologue, with additionally dialogue pulled from a similar speech in "Henry VI, Part III," I was totally convinced me that if I ever played Shakespeare on stage it was this part that I wanted to play (for lead parts that remains true, although I have a great affection for John of Gaunt in "Richard II").

Now I know that Olivier's portrayal of Richard Crookback is an extension of the interpretation he first brought to the stage in 1944. At the time all I knew was that the tradition was that an actor performed Richard before he tackled Hamlet. I was not sure why this should be the case at the time, but I have a sense of it now for whereas the Prince of Denmark is doomed by his failure to act, Richard, Duke of Glouster and thereafter King of England, is relentless in his pursuit of the crown. The idea of Olivier's Richard as a malevolent spider is apt, for he is beyond the stereotype of the power-hungry politician. He is a ruthless, dominant, and unforgettable figure, who consumes everything in his way and ultimately himself. The cast of this 1956 film includes John Geilgud, Ralph Richardson, and Cedric Hardwicke, but these actors have no more chance of standing up against Olivier's performance than their characters do of stopping Richard. For me the most memorable scene ends up being when Richard seduces the Lady Anne (Claire Bloom) over her husband's coffin, probably because that is the point at which Richard's ascension is assured as well as where he goes over the line.

The job by Olivier and Alan Dent, his text advisor, of making Shakespeare's play accessible to the masses who attend the movies is rather brilliant, not only in terms of the cuts (e.g., the character of Queen Margaret) but also the choice additions as well (the coronation of King Edward IV). The use of the crown motif is made clear without being forced, providing a cinematic way of reinforcing the power struggle, and we also have the overly bright Technicolor photography of Otto Heller giving a sense of pageantry to the proceedings. But we keep coming back to Olivier's performance and his dramatic appearance: the long black hair, the thin lips, the deformed left hand, the elongated nose, the crooked back and the sidling walk. It is no wonder that during the dark days of Watergate the idea of Richard Nixon as the American modern version of Richard Crookback took such a hold in my imagination. However, since I have seen this film there is only one other character whose evil has been as overwhelmingly charismatic, and that would be Anthony Hopkins' Hannibal Lecter. This is only a minority opinion because very few people have seen both films. But if you have, then I would think you be inclined to agree.

---

One of the greatest Shakespeare films...
Only two of Orson Welles' Shakespeare films rival "Richard III" for the title of greatest Shakespeare movie ever made. That said, Olivier's film may contain the most sheerly enjoyable performance any actor gave on film. His Duke of Gloucester is the definitive performance. Elia Kazan once said Olivier had a certain girlish quality, and that quality is used in the film: His Richard is seductive--a prancing, charming monster whose voice sounds like "honey mixed with razor blades." But one look into his black eyes, framed by false hawk nose, violently angled eyebrows and fright pageboy wig, will tell you that he's also stone-cold pure evil. Richard enacts all our homicidal, plotting fantasies as he cheerfully knocks off all his stuffy relatives and rivals.

Olivier emphasizes the black comedy and wittiness of Shakespeare's play, which he cut and refashioned into a star vehicle for himself. Though Sirs Gielgud, Richardson and Hardwicke co-star, they don't make much of an impression. (Blame that on Shakespeare too) Interestingly, Olivier later regretted not having cast Orson Welles as Buckingham.

You experience two major innovations concerning the filming of Shakespeare: the first is Olivier's old custom of using extremely stylized, artificial sets, thereby making Shakespeare's stylized, artificial verse fit in with the settings. The second is the source of Olivier's triumph: he delivers his soliloquys directly to the camera. This daring move destroys the fourth wall and takes true advantage of what the movies offer. He becomes our friend and confidante and we become complicit in his mounting evil. The production values are top-notch: we get deliriously vibrant technicolour, William Walton's pompous, irresistible music of pageantry, and the book-of-hours sets. And through those sets Olivier's camera subtly glides and skulks like the snake Richard himself is. Olivier is still an underrated director, and his grasp of the frame's spatial properties is excellent: he knew how to move the camera into and out of the frame for maximum impact. For an example, look at the moment Richard finally becomes King, and his satanic powers become unbottled: He slides down the bell rope to greet his minions, and expecting to shake his hand they approach, only to fall on their knees when Richard silently demands they kiss it. As they sink downward, the camera flees backward until the awful composition is complete, with half a dozen men in black on their knees as Richard presides all in the center of the frame: on twisted and bent legs as the bells announce the triumph of evil.

---

Excellent acting but overrated as a film
I must disagree with the reviewers who praised this as one of Shakespeare's best movie adaptations. Sorry, it's not. The main strength of the movie is the acting, and for that alone it's a must-see. Yet, as a movie it has many stylistic and visual flaws.

The camera shots are very long and there are very few shifts in angles, there are almost no close-ups, the settings, costumes and makeup are overdone and look too fake and low-budget (perhaps on purpose?), and it's done almost entirely in a studio (the outdoor battle scenes feel like a Western..). The result is that you feel that you're watching a two-dimensional play. Perhaps black-and-white would have been a more suitable vehicle.

I'm also annoyed with the liberties the movie has taken with the text, shifted scenes around, chopping lines, etc. I didn't like that it begins with a scene from Henry IV. The Bard's original structure is better. Stick with it!

Also, for the first half of the movie I felt distant from Richard, possibly because until then we almost always see him from a distance and rarely up close. That changes once he become king. Overall, the second half is much better.

If you want to see a truly great Shakespeare adaptation, watch "Julius Caesar" with Marlon Brando and James Mason, even though the play itself is not as good as Richard III.

In spite of all this, I recommend it. Certainly worth seeing Olivier in action.. and it has some great moments.