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.

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.

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.

Al Pacino brings Shakespeare to the common man in this documentary exploring the complexities of Richard III. If you can get past the insinuation that the "every day ordinary man (or woman)" is too slow to understand the intricacies of Shakespeare, you are left with quite an interesting, entertaining film. I have to be honest and say that many people do find Shakespeare a little bewildering, and tackling Richard III, one of his deepest, confusing plays, is no easy task. Therefore, let down your guard, and let the actors and scholars give us their interpretation of this most fascinating play. I found much irony in this simple effort, which made the film all the more enjoyable. In telling us of a story of a man, who wants so badly to become king as to betray all those he knows and loves, we learn the story of a singular, power hungry man, with an urge to rule his people. In his own admission, Pacino himself is on a quest to be the ultimate monarch of his own film, and tell us all, us commoners, the true meaning of this classic work. Whether or not the parallel is intentional, I don't know, but it still makes for interesting story telling. And the ultimate irony of all is that some of the deepest and most intelligent quotes come from interviews with Joe Q. Public; the man on the street.

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.