Richard III

Richard III (1911)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

Decent version of Shakespeares play benefits from some good performances and some nice atmosphere. The story here is pretty easy to follow and seems to be filmed from an actual stage production.

Merhant of Venice, The (1910)

** (out of 4)

Another weak Shakespeare adaptation, which has no story whatsoever and comes to an abrupt hault.

Twelfth Night (1910)

** (out of 4)

The story is very clear in this one but that's about it. The film drags even though it's a one reeler and the acting, direction and sets are all on the boring side. However, this must have been one of the first films to show a lesbian kiss so perhaps that'll give you a historical reason to see this.

King Lear (1909)

*** (out of 4)

Once again the story doesn't come across too clearly but I've still gotta recommend this baby due to the incredibly hand tinting. The work here is downright beautiful and perfectly done making this look and even feel just like a Technicolor film. Whoever did the drawing on this was way ahead of their time considering what most hand tinting jobs look like.

Now appearing at the end of the 'Silent Shakespeare' video with silent stuff from Vitagraph America and Italy, this is a record of Sir Frank Benson's Stratford-upon-Avon production of 'Richard III', in which he himself stars in the lead. It benefits from excellent title cards which pick the cream of Shakespeare's quotes and move the story along. If you remember who everyone is and get into the spirit this is really quite good. Shakespeare at speed!

Silent Shakespeare movies always seem something of a waste of effort, given that the Bard's reputation is built upon his skill with words. This ambitious British production at least includes a few lines of Shakespeare's prose between its tableaux of key scenes from the play, but it's directed with little flair or imagination by Frank R. Benson, an acclaimed stage actor of the day who also plays the scheming king.

There may be few things as rewarding in film as surveying filmed versions of Shakespeare's plays. The process is mostly one of discovering that the experience is unsatisfying and sleuthing the cause. This leads to an examination of what the play really is and what has been added or subtracted.

I won't dwell on what is missing. Its rather obvious. This is rooted in real events that have been abstracted as history. Then it is translated again into the play, then again into the actor's excesses that constitute performances of the day. And finally into a compressed pantomime. That's a lot of layers to expect genius to survive all the filters.

What's been added is rather interesting. There's a dream in which all Richard's victims appear to haunt him. Here the magic of film is used to have them appear and disappear. It is a high point that no one could get away with today.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

This early filming of Shakespeare's "Richard III" works pretty well, as long as you are already familiar with the story. It would probably be tough to follow for anyone who was not already familiar with the play, because it has a complicated plot with a lot of characters, and much of the time you can only tell who is who if you remember what happens in the play. Shakespeare's dialogue is also missing, of course, but they chose some of the most memorable lines and used them as title cards. It makes up for what's missing with some good energy from Frank Benson as Richard, and by doing a good job of moving quickly and packing all of the important parts of the plot into its 20+ minutes running time. Certainly this is overshadowed by later versions, but in its time was probably quite enjoyable, and now is at least an interesting curio for silent film fans who like Shakespeare.