#17701
01/30/2001 6:53 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
To my shame, I must admit to having never seen Richard III yet, and on Friday a local TV station is airing the abridged "updated" version with the setting moved to a fascist 1930s England, and the intrinsically creepy Sir Ian McKellen as Dick. From what I've seen, the script is unchanged, save for the excisions. Does anybody have any opinions on the merits, or otherwise, of this production as an introduction to R3? Cheers
|
|
|
#17702
01/30/2001 7:45 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
didn't see McKellen's Richard III but it is one the best Shakespearian plays– I loved it-- (even though i didn't understand half of it) the first time i saw it- (still in my teen). I also Loved Looking for Richard-- though not everyone did http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/l/looking.html Richard the third is like chocolate cake-- its hard, if one follows basic rules to make a bad one-- and so too, unless one really messes with the play (i think of the movie the Good Bye Girl--with a play R3*-inside the story--)it hard to have a bad Richard III-- some are decidedly better than others-- but even a bad one is still pretty good. It's the story of lust for power--and failure.. a great human story. (in the Goodbye Girl-- the open, flaming homosexual director has a (very young!) Richard Dreyfus play RIII as an open flaming homosexual-- no hump, no stutter, no deformity-- except for a falsetto and a lisp! It almost as funny as "Springtime for Hitler and Germany"--from The Producers)
|
|
|
#17703
01/30/2001 9:17 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
Richard III There is more than you may have ever wished to know about Richard III on his website: http://www.r3.org/As for the play and film with Ian McKellen. I haven't seen it but I love Ian McKellen and admire his work at the National Theatre, so I will have to catch up with it. Thanks for reminding me. There is an interesting interview with him at: http://www.r3.org/mckellen/film/mckel1.htmlThe best introduction to RIII is to visit Middleham in North Yorkshire, his ancestral home. http://www.rblanchard.com/middleham/history.htmlThe Northern Broadsides production that I saw in the castle grounds, performed in pure "Northern" was quite magical. Like any play, see several productions and decide for yourself.
|
|
|
#17704
01/30/2001 10:49 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
Max, I got dragged along to the "updated" RIII movie against my better judgement which is usually totally fallible - but not in this case. The dialogue was at odds with the setting and the setting was at odds with the basic premise of the play. It fits into what I call the "Bored with the Bard Production Set". I don't mind people poking fun at Shakespeare or even at his plays. But I do object to producers/directors changing one of the three main factors which make them what they are and then whining that "people don't understand Shakespeare" because their production gets panned by the critics or ignored by the public or, as I understand the situation to be with this movie, both. The actors couldn't save it, nothing could. For the uninitiated it would have been totally incomprehensible. For those with at least an understanding of Richard III the person, it would have made him seem totally evil, which I don't think Shakespeare actually intended. For those who know the play, it's hard to understand why the film was ever made. And, although I haven't seen it, I understand "Looking for Richard" to be equally or possibly even more diabolical. Richard Plantagenet got a lot of bad press, mainly because the victors - the Tudors in this case - got to write history . Yet my reading of Billy the Bard's play shows a reasonably even-handed treatment of events which had occurred only a hundred years or so before he wrote it. This got badly lost in the movie. Sorry for drivelling on, but it annoyed the *hey* out of me. 
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
#17705
01/30/2001 11:01 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
In reply to:
Max,
I got dragged along to the "updated" RIII movie against my better judgement which is usually totally fallible - but not in this case.
The dialogue was at odds with the setting and the setting was at odds with the basic premise of the play. It fits into what I call the "Bored with the Bard Production Set".
Good enough for me, CapK. I'll head off to the local librarty and rent the Beeb's production first, before tainting my perceptions with the "modernised" version. Much obliged, it seems that the next movie role I see Sir Ian in will be as Mithrandir - roll on December, although I have read of death threats made against Jackson for his work (rumours of plot changes, and other Hollywood style bastardisations) on that masterpiece.
|
|
|
#17706
01/31/2001 2:26 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439 |
Richard Plantagenet got a lot of bad press, mainly because the victors - the Tudors in this case - got to write history
Aye, Capital Kiwi, and therein lies the rub
Anyone ever heard of a loose association of people called "Friends of Richard The Third?"
wow. (smile]
|
|
|
#17707
01/31/2001 8:44 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
it seems that the next movie role I see Sir Ian in will be as MithrandirI always pictured him played by a John Gielgud lookalike with a beard ... McLellan really doesn't fit my imagined likeness at all. Still, we shall see.  death threats made against Jackson for his work (rumours of plot changes, and other Hollywood style bastardisations) on that masterpieceI knew that there had been at least some small changes from what I was told by people who were extras. I gathered from that there would be considerable change elsewhere, so I'm not surprised, old son! 
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
#17708
01/31/2001 9:15 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
>the "modernised" version
Isn't all Shakespeare seen today "modernised"?
At the time his actors wore the dress of the day, rather than authentic versions of the clothes that would have been worn at the time the play was set. His plays were for everyone, not just the ones with the expensive jewellery.
I think it is more of an issue to look at how Shakespeare, like Opera, translates to film. The very worst kind of film is a "filmed" play or opera. A camera cannot capture the same experience the audience has whilst watching a live play, making their own choices whether to zoom in on an actor or to look at the whole scene as a picture. The director has to choose to go wholeheartedly with the medium on offer and make a film, rather than a filmed play or opera.
Some of the best Romeo & Juliets that I have seen have been on film. I love the Baz Luhrmann "Romeo + Juliet" with Leonardo di Caprio as much as I loved Zefferelli's. Maybe it is because film is a medium which suits youth, arguably more than theatre. Similarly the Rosi Carmen with Julia Migenes-Johnson and Placido Domingo is as good as any Carmen that I have seen on stage. It just isn't possible to fit a whole cigar factory on a stage, the film makes the best use of the media whereas in the theatre, Peter Brook's pared down chamber version of Carmen makes the most of the intensity of a theatre space.
So don't stop until you've seen at least four or five Richard IIIs, film or stage, Elizabethan or modern dress.
|
|
|
#17709
01/31/2001 9:29 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
>I knew that there had been at least some small changes
Here's a comment from Ian McKellen himself, interesting that he links the two films:
"Another point on this, the question that dominates my email: the adaptation of masterpieces from one medium to another is as old as literature. Most of Shakespeare's plays are re-workings of stories, poems or written history. When I moved Richard III from stage to screen, I was determined to make a good film in honour of a great play. Had I left every scene and line of the text intact in the movie, it would not have been a good one. Kurosawa's Throne of Blood, my favourite version of the Macbeth saga, distorts Shakespeare to spectacular effect. The play which inspired it remains intact."
I loved J K Rowlings response to a questioner who asked if she was worried abotut he film adaptation of her book. She said that a bad film adaptation had never reduced the pleasure of reading the original book for her and a good film adaptation had always added to the pleasure.
The difference with something that starts out life as a play is that the play has to live in performance, so no version can ever be "the last word" on the subject, only ever an interpretation.
|
|
|
#17710
01/31/2001 1:28 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
no version can ever be "the last word" on the subject, only ever an interpretation
Couldn't agree more, Jo. So Max, tape the broadcast, and watch it later whenever you feel ready to try another view of the original?
BTW, Jo did you use hoi-polloi in a sense indicating the 'upper crust'? I always take this to mean just the opposite - the masses. Maybe I have misunderstood you.
|
|
|
#17711
01/31/2001 1:34 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
TEd
|
|
|
#17712
01/31/2001 1:49 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
I have been outvoted, I see. But I stand by what I said. I have watched Dick 3 around four times, and have been impressed each time with the portability of the Bard into more modern settings. Richard III was an historical enigma, and there have been several attempts to resurrect his image. All of them have fallen short, mainly I believe because he was more than likely a truly evil man, only just short of the evil of the dictators of our last century.
My last encounter with "updating" Shakespeare was Much Ado About Nothing, unchanged except that the setting was moved to America's Wild West of the late 19th century. About five minutes into the play I realized that I liked it even better than in the traditional setting. I had been absolutely prepared to hate it.
Branagh moved Hamlet into the mid-18th century without raising many eyebrows, if I recall correctly, and I found that I "understood" it better than I had any previous version of it. By the way, it's the only film version of the play which contains every word of the "modernized" original text And if I could find the person who absconded with my tape of it!! I will never again lend one of my Branagh films. Speaking of whom, his rendition of Hank V is exquisite. I know several women who have melted at the line "Take a soldier, take a king", never delivered better than by this unparalleled actor and director.
TEd
|
|
|
#17713
01/31/2001 2:52 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
BTW, Jo did you use hoi-polloi in a sense indicating the 'upper crust'? I always take this to mean just the opposite - the masses. Maybe I have misunderstood you.
You are too kind! I'll change it. It's one of those words which sounds like the opposite of its meaning to me.
|
|
|
#17714
01/31/2001 2:55 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
>I have been outvoted, I see.
I think not. The current situation is 1 against, 1 for and three not against it in principle but haven't seen it and therefore don't feel able to put forward their opinion.
Glad you like our Ken. It was his Hal which started it all, he was very good on stage. The press here went for him (and Emma) on the "tall poppy" principle. He wrote his autobiogrphy whilst still very young (to raise funds for his production company) and they decided to go for him.
|
|
|
#17715
01/31/2001 6:30 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
Not all modernisations of Shakespeare stink - and it's all personal opinion anyway - but Branagh, for some reason, just instinctively knows how to render Shakespeare. Thus, his Hamlet was very, very good. I think Henry V was the best one he's done, if only because I've often thought that Richard Briers would be the better for a good hanging.
My problem with Dick III was that the acting and the script didn't overpower the incongruity of the modern setting. The editing was (again IMHO and with apologies to Ted) inept, the scenes were poorly set and the choreography was iffy. I walked away with the overpowering impression that the approach by the director (was it McLellan?) had been "Oh dear, I want to do RIII but another costume drama is not going to fly at the box office. So let's do something outrageous." He might as well have had Dick saying "Horsepower, horsepower, my kingdom for some horsepower" which would have, at least, provided a laugh.
Still, I guess that's why so many films get made - no one film is going to please everyone.
Richard himself was a child of his times, doing what he could to survive with what he had.
By our standards, he was probably what we would call "evil", but that would apply equally to all mediaeval monarchs. You do have to remember that all of his contemporaries who wrote about what was going on around them were generally in the nobility or the church. Richard unfortunately managed to get off-side with both institutions at the same time, a deadly combination. We really don't know what the commons thought about him, if anything. On the other hand, we regard Henry V as some kind of English hero-king. But he was more of a murdering, conniving, underhanded monomaniac than Richard ever was. Richard merely tried to protect what was his - his throne and, by extension, his life - and lashed out at those who threatened them. Henry projected his general disdain for human life outward and got a lot of people killed in the process, many more than Richard topped in his entire lifetime including Bosworth.
Henry Tudor took the throne at a time when the first whisperings of the Renaissance were beginning to percolate into the English psyche. His work on Westminster Abbey is probably an expression of this. Henry VIII was truly a Renaissance monarch, a mixture of intellectual erudition and day-to-day cruelty which I find much harder to understand than Richard's "kill-or-be-killed" choices.
BTW, there are two really good books on Henry V (both fiction, but extremely well-researched). The first is "My Lord John" by Georgette Heyer and, I think I have this right, "Cry God for Harry" by Margaret Rofheart. Don't be put off the Heyer book by the fact she wrote all of those novels about romance in the Regency period. Her first love was "real" history, and she made a damned good job of it. Another book to read which may help anyone interested to understand the mid-Plantagenet period is "Falstaff" by Robert Nye. Funny, bawdy, and a damned good read.
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
#17716
01/31/2001 7:26 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
. Speaking of whom, his rendition of Hank V is exquisite.
Agreed. I've been trying to find a copy of Larry's H5 to compare the two, but I was simply awestruck at Ken's. I can see a concentrated schedule of Bard videos in my future. I shall tape tomorrow night's broadcast and save it for future comparison.
|
|
|
#17717
02/01/2001 5:06 AM
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065 |
In reply to:
Glad you like our Ken. It was his Hal which started it all, he was very good on stage. The press here went for him (and Emma) on the "tall poppy" principle.
One of my favourite films, which I've seen more times than I can remember, is their "Dead Again" (aka "Dying to Love Again"). The first time I saw it was with a group of friends in Bandung, and after we left the cinema in stunned silence, the arguments started "But didn't he say ..?" "But she said ..." So we just turned round and went back in to see it again. It was just as good second time round. We were still all left speechless at the end. [/rave]
Bingley
Bingley
|
|
|
#17718
02/01/2001 5:04 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
Dead Again
Thanks for the reminder, B. I too loved it on first-and almost-immediately-second screenings - and now I can feel a resurrection coming on. [straight face emoticon]
|
|
|
#17719
02/01/2001 6:22 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 771
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 771 |
I was positively rapt by his take on Love's Labours Lost... it's not a play that I had much familiarity with prior to seeing the movie, but the addition of Porter, Gershwin, etc as musical commentary on the plot developments were brilliant. And the colors, my God, the colors!  Ken has never disappointed me.
|
|
|
|
|
