Looking for Richard

After reading many of the previous reviews and commentaries, I'm beginning to wonder whether we all saw the same movie! I found the entire piece enriching, riveting, and suspenseful, and was immediately moved to call friends and family members to recommend it. The performances are remarkable: Pacino is intense, Ryder catches the "deer-in-the-headlights" feel of her character perfectly. Baldwin is restrained and beguiling, while Spacey delivers his usual flawless performance. Penelope Allen was astounding. The movie serves, not to deliver the entire work-- analyzed, explained, and discussed-- on a platter, but, rather, to whet our appetites and bring Shakespeare to modern classes, and I felt it succeeded in this admirably. It also showed the thought and preparation that goes into such a production. I particularly enjoyed watching the actors discuss various interpretations of particular scenes, imparting their own ideas and feelings, and often disagreeing with each other. While we are both generally "action movie" or suspense fans, we found ourselves completely drawn into the drama, both in the characters and in the actors, and-- even knowing, of course, the ending in advance-- found ourselves on the edge of our seats as the film neared its climax. My one complaint? I wish they had then gone on to film their entire version of Richard III to offer as a companion piece. An excellent way to indulge yourself in an exciting, well-performed piece of movie-making, and actually come away having learned a little bit. Highly recommended!

My understanding of this movie is that Pacino had been panned for a stage performance of Richard III, and that the motivation behind this movie was to emphasize the seriousness with which Pacino takes his craft. There were some suggestions that Pacino had thought he might be resting on his laurels to some extent, or otherwise thought he could simply perform Shakespeare as he had any previous role. Making this movie was a clear statement that if his previous performance was not up to snuff, he would demonstrate his willingness to learn and desire to be successful in such a challenging role.

I think the movie seems less self-indulgent if viewed in this light, and it is even more fascinating to watch someone who's as highly regarded as Pacino show so much desire and interest in further perfecting his craft.

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

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.

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.