1955. Dir: Laurence Olivier. Starring: Laurence Olivier, Ralph Richardson, John Gielgud, Claire Bloom and Alec Clunes. ●●○○○
In the 1940's Laurence Oliver directed and starred in two of the most successful Shakespearean adapatations of all time; Henry V was a rousing call to arms against the tyrannies of Nazi Germany, Hamlet replayed the Dane's tragedy through the prism of Film Noir. Olivier was suitably feted for his work, an oscar winning performance in Hamlet and nominated for the direction. The problem was Olivier quite liked this praise and 6 years later with his film career going nowhere he once again turned to the bard for inspiration, essentially turning the camera on his remarkable stage performance of Richard III.
No-one seems to have reminded Olivier that film is a different medium to the stage, so his performance, whilst technically good, plays to the back row. Furthermore he invests no time in allowing the audience to make up their mind about his motices, simply playing Richard as bad to the bone.
Others actors fare even less well - Cedric Hardwicke hams his way through the role of King Edward lifting him arm in the direction he's walking like a Russian Opera. Claire Bloom's chances of displaying a strong, politic Queen Anne are destroyed as her part is cut to the bone. Only the magnificent John Gielgud, Olivier's most notable Shakespearean rival, seems to understand film. He takes the thankless role of Clarence and play it with such subtlety and gentleness you'd think he was sticking two fingers up at Olivier for casting him.
For those of you who don't know Richard III plots the life of the dastardly last King of the Plantagenents as he schemes and murders his way from number 4 in line to the throne to King and then his downfall at the Battle of Bosworth. As history it's a steaming pile of Tudor propaganda. It's unlikely that Richard was deformed and his empire building techniques were childsplay when compared to some of his forebears.
We won't chastise Shakespeare for his history lesson though, after all it's not his plots that are remembered but his speeches and characters. For an actor it's a joy to play Richard, humpback and all. If there isn't the moral complexity of the more traditional tragic villains (such as MacBeth or Iago) this sort of pantomimic bastard has it's compensations and there are some beautiful passages such as "Look how my ring encompasseth thy finger. Even so thy breast encloseth my poor heart. Wear both of them, for both of them are thine."
It's easy to understand why Olivier chose this play to adapt, and even if he was only aiming for a record of his extraordinary performance this doesn't excuse the poor example of film-making that surrounds it.
He half-heartedly uses shadows in a similar way they were used in Hamlet, but unlike Hamlet where it worked because everyone plots against each other and lurks from scene to scene here it just feels forced with no connection to narrative. I have covered the issue of performances all over the place, but when you see a stage turn on film surely the most self-obsessed actor-director would call foul.
The sets are obviously fake, in a distracting way, and the decision to shoot the battle in Spain is frankly bizarre:
←La Mancha
Bosworth →
They don't even vaguely look alike!
I can't even, 3 days down the line, think of anything good to say baout the costumes or the score. It's terrible that a small thing like a grand-standing performance has wiped everything else from my mind.
I can only hope if you're passing the video store and see this on sale you pince yourself and buy Hamlet instead.
By the way this is the first time I've managed to link reviews by the casts - click on Ralph Richardson to read the review on Long Day's Journey into Night, or John Gielgud for Gandhi. Eventually I expect this will happen a lot.
