Al Pacino's Looking for Richard

Like Ian McKellen's unconventional RICHARD III, this film brings us into Shakespeare in an unusual and effective way. Al Pacino gathers a number of well-known non-Shakespearian actors and they not only stage several of the more important scenes in the play, but they also discuss the meaning of the scenes and the motivations of the characters. These discussion act as a prelude to the scenes and thus make the scenes not only much clearer but also far more powerful than the traditional productions in which the audience may be lost in the dusty old politics that saturate the play. See this one before you see any of the more traditional versions.

To me, "Looking for Richard" is about one man's love of Shakespearean plays. This film is his vehicle to share that admiration with as many people as possible. I'm glad Mr. Pacino made this film, because he is so well-respected by such a wide variety of people, that his presence will draw them first to this film and then hopefully to the theatre.

I found the film extremely interesting. If you're at all interested in theatre, you'll enjoy watching the cast debate during rehearsals. It gave me a greater insight into what's involved in actually putting on a play. Usually, you just see the finished product, and they make it look so easy. I was relieved to learn from the film that the actors and directors struggle with the text of the plays too. So you don't have to feel bad if you don't understand all the dialogue - you will get the gist of it. The film is simply urging people to give Shakespeare another chance. You might like it, or you might not, but at least you'll have given it a shot. And if you do like it, it'll keep you busy for years.

Since most people are initially exposed to Shakespeare in high school, I imagine that's where their phobia originates. I had an English teacher who was passionate about Shakespeare, and he instilled that appreciation in me. Unfortunately, everyone isn't as lucky. Boring classes turned them off, and that's all they'll ever experience of Shakespeare. They are missing so much. I hope all the English teachers out there who are less than comfortable with teaching Shakespeare will show this film to their classes to counteract any Shakespeare phobia-inducing incidents.

I love this stuff. But not because it is good -- because it is so bad and the fates have built into the very work a commentary why. And the commentary is by Shakespeare! Wonderful.

Issues

There's a real issue here that is just skirted at the beginning. Should Shakespeare be turned over to actors? Or should someone with a larger vision than mere visceral emotion be in charge and, well. direct, This is a very cogent question with Shakespeare. Clearly, the later plays are not actor's plays but are about ideas. The early plays, like say Romeo and Juliet are clearly actor's plays. They are about people and situations and human motivators. Hamlet is both an early and a later play, as it was rewritten and expanded. Actors alone have a terrible time giving us something whole out of Hamlet.

Richard is a problem too. It is an early play, written while Shakespeare himself was an actor and still learning. Probably, some scenes were written by Marlowe. But it is a huge vision, and one must look at it whole and then abstract the threads that work. You can't build up something that works from immediate emotions and paste it together as Pacino attempts. All this produces are disconnected scenes that don't work together. And that's what we have here.

Another issue. Shakespeare is work. It is work for us all, on both sides of the stage. Earnestness counts for nothing. Pacino's experiment is to get a bunch of non-Shakespearean film folks together. `We won't even work out who has what part.' We watch them stumble about. How revealing, especially when we see snippets from real actors: Redgrave, Branagh, Jacobi, Gielgud. But sigh, no acting from them here.

The real issue: Pacino jumps into his roles with a heaviness that he wears and which pricks and grates. He generates nothing from inside, just spits about. Even if there were some subtle understandings that a group of actors could collaboratively find, it could never occur from this sort of crass in your face mugging.

Richard is a usurper who both charms and forces his way to kingdom. But he doesn't have the internal clockworks to actually connect with his people. Likewise, in this role, Pacino tries to catapult past the basic work -- he forces himself into this role by dint of force without earning it. So he cannot connect with us, his audience.

This is wonderfully educational.

This film has fascinated me ever since I first happened upon it in the library of Millsaps College in Jackson, Mississippi. By a happy coincidence, I also checked out Ian McKellen's quite excellent "Richard III" on the same day and spent most of the afternoon viewing and comparing the two.

It all works: the performances, the interviews, the clowning around on the set. I thought Spacey was wooden, but Baldwin . . . wow . . . who would have expected such a performance.

Highly recommended for anyone who reads and thinks.

Rusty

Looking for Richard frames the essential postmodern question in its own terms: Is this a film about Richard III, or is this a film about a film about Richard III? Cameras follow Al Pacino as he wanders New York, sometimes on foot, but more often in the back of a limousine. We're not sure what he's doing, except it has something to do with Shakespeare's play Richard III. There are rehearsals with familiar actors, and actual performances, some seemingly on stage, some on sets, some on location, all of it interspersed with discussion about the play. Is the play actually to be staged, or is it all a show for the film? We don't know, and really, it doesn't matter. For the most part, this is a pleasant meditation on its subject.

Pacino has chosen a treacherous path: on one side stands the dauntingly complex Shakespeare play, and on the other the patronizing attempts to simplify it for the modern audience. There were several times when I felt talked down to by the actors, but just as many where I felt I benefited from the expanded explanation. Also, with Pacino so vibrantly at the center of every scene and little attention given to others, the film unavoidably has the flavor of a vanity project.

What the film does convey effectively is the power of theater to transport people intellectually and emotionally. The contrast between Pacino's stuttering attempts to summarize certain plot points and his magnificent animation as Richard is fascinating. Like the story (possibly apocryphal) about how Picasso, when asked to explain the meaning of one of his paintings, replied that if he could do that, he wouldn't need to paint, even inarticulate actors possess remarkable powers when inhabiting their roles. This insight was the film's central revelation for me.