Comparison between two movie versions of Richard the III, the movie Looking for Richard starring Al Pacino and Richard the III set in Nazi Germany with Ian McKellan as the star.
The two movie versions of Richard III were interesting, unique ways of presenting Shakespeare on film, the casts were wonderful, and the acting very good. The Ian McKellan version was confusing at times and had it's weird moments, while some of the changes from documentary to movie in Looking For Richard also lost power for the movie. They both seemed to accomplish what they set out to do, and that is to make a Shakespeare on film so it's not a bore to everyday people. The play of Richard III is marvelous, and is actually one of my personal favorites. It's chilling, disturbing, and human when presented as a story about the dark side of man instead of like an epic war film.
Plot in both movies were similar as they are both based on the same original material. In Looking For Richard, the time is England during a power struggle from the York family to the Lancaster's. The main characters are all in places of high power and wealth; they run the country which makes every move they make have greater risks for not only themselves, but for the lives of others. Intellect is that of the Elizabethan age, yet while none of them are scholars, Richard does have a great mind. Spirituality is strongly Christian as Richard pretends to love God to gain rank in the noblemen. The Ian McKellan version takes place in a whole other plane. The time is Nazi Germany, and Richard is represented as a kind of Hitler figure. All the characters are still in a high place of power, only set in our modern day world. Everything in the modern version is updated for the time it takes place in except for the crowning that takes place with the shift from king to king.
Richard's main objective throughout the story is to become king of England, and he is very determined to have this goal met. He is willing to kill and step over whoever he needs to get to the place of higher power he longs for. One of the things I love about this play is the depth of Richard's character. It's dark and unpredictable; it would be hard to ever know him or how he thinks. He's fascinating to try and breakdown because it's a real challenge. He may seem to feel remorse, but does he ever really? There is so much that lies beneath for the actor to interpret and create for himself. He doesn't talk often about himself, but when he does, it's normally with a scary truthfulness. He's not afraid to admit his faults, but only to himself. In public and with others, he never shows a sign of backing down or imperfection.
Relationships in both movies are similar. Richard is King Edward's younger brother, and Richard envies him for his success. Several people stand in the way between Richard and the throne: Richard's older brother Clarence, the two young sons of Edward, Lord Hastings, Queen Elizabeth, and his wife Anne. His right-hand man, Lord Buckingham helps him boost himself to the throne. He then trys to force young Elizabeth, his niece, into marriage to bond him with his alliances, but Queen Elizabeth forestalls him until her daughter can marry Richmond. Richmond is trying to take the throne from Richard. In the end, he eventually succeeds and gets his place as king of England. In the Ian McKellan version of Richard III, Richmond wins when he kills the Hitler figure of Richard and takes him out of power. The dialogue between the characters is Old English, Elizabethan, Shakespearean language.
The production values of both movies were very different. The medieval costumes of Looking For Richard were actually well done, and the sets were beautiful. The documentary portions of the film brought it together to make a whole different kind of Shakespeare film. It cleared up all the questions the viewer might have about the plot and what's really happening on the screen. The Nazi version was different, but I didn't like it. The special effects were awful and several scenes, i.e. the killing of Elizabeth's brother, the spider on the dead woman's face, Richard turning into a boar, and the sick flame-smiling scene at the very end of the movie. The sets, costumes, and camera work was decent, but not memorable. Some spins on the meaning and small moments of the Nazi version were nice touches to a classic story like "Hitler" looking at the pictures of his dead victim. It helped make the character historically accurate and pushed the movie forward. Overall, both movies put their own spins on a classic Shakespeare play for the big screen, and were interesting perspectives on the dark tale of Richard III.
This is the complete article, containing 793 words
(approx. 3 pages at 300 words per page).
