The Tragedy of Richard III

Not easy to follow on from the three part 'Henry VI', two parts of which in my view solid but not great and the third part being very good. And it is hard not to expect a lot, when Richard III is one of Shakespeare's most fascinating characters, and not just as a "villain", and he was also interesting as a historical figure. 'Richard III' may not be among my favourite Shakespeare plays, but it is so easy to seee why it is performed as much as it is and why it is so widely discussed.

'Richard III' is one of the longest in length of the uneven but very interesting (and on the whole a must watch) BBC Television Shakespeare series, excepting the ones that by tradition were in one than one part. So 'Henry IV' and 'Henry VI'. To me, and quite a few others it seems, it is one of the series' best and one of the best and also more faithful and complete versions of 'Richard III'. Worthy of more attention and should be pretty much the version to be shown in schools, if studying the play.

Sure it is not the most visually sumptuous of productions, the productions in the BBC Television Shakespeare were made on a low budget and that was evident in some productions, but most overcame that and still didn't manage to look too bad in the process. 'Richard III' is one of the better examples of that. It still manages to look well designed and atmospheric as well being in good tastes, no questionable touches here. The camera work is very good with enough intimacy, with no gimmicks, chaos or restriction. Didn't feel to me like it was too much of a filmed play.

To me, the staging was compelling and didn't get overly-busy or dull, neither did it feel emotionally cold. There was plenty of movement and there is a lot going on in the quite complex plot, without feeling rushed or over-complicated. The climactic battle of Bosworth field scene was especially well done, the touch at the very end was interesting to say the least and not one to forget in a hurry.

Cannot fault the cast. Ron Cook is as excellent as he was before in the 'Henry VI' three parter, but now with Richard even more interesting and with a much bigger role (from a sizeable supporting role to one of Shakespeare's most fascinating and most talked about lead characters) he is even better. Really liked his understated subtlety, which did stop him from doing into stock villain territory (Richard isn't that really), but he is also suitably malevolent. He does well with the challenges of the physical side of the role, speaking as a scoliosis sufferer myself before my pretty traumatic major spinal surgery. Have spoken a lot about him, slightly unintentional but somewhat appropriate considering the role.

But one mustn't overlook the rest of the cast, and it is the acting that other than Shakespeare's timeless writing that is one of the production's biggest strengths. Standouts being Rowena Cooper's dignified Elizabeth and especially Julia Foster's ruthless Margaret (more interesting and much more juicily written role than in the 'Henry VI' three parter, and by now Foster, who didn't do it for me at first in 'Henry VI' has really grown into the role and made it her own. Brian Protheroe doesn't overdo the bluster thankfully and Paul Jesson is an interesting Clarence. Interesting to see Zoe Wanamaker and Annette Crosbie. Those doing more than one character, intriguing and brave choice, do a great job making each character different from each other which helps not confuse the drama.

In conclusion, wonderful production and the 'Richard III' to learn from if studying it. 10/10

As a fan of Richard III, I've seen every version produced. I still do not understand why anyone likes Laurence Olivier's version with its grim, heavy-handed performance. Ron Cook is the perfect Richard, upbeat and energetic, sly and humorous, delighting in his mission until the weight of his crimes begin to trouble his conscience. Jane Powell's direction, as she did with Henry VI parts I, II and III (my favorite of the series), keeps the action moving and the characters in sharp focus, especially King Edward, whose final speech is one you'll always remember. This is the Richard that Shakespeare wanted his audience to see, a man of a courage who loses control of his ambition.

In 1982, the BBC, in their undertaking to produce all of Shakespeare's plays, assembled a company of actors which would take us, in one logical arc, from Henry VI part one right through to Richard III. This is notable in that through all four plays, the principal actors keep their roles (although smaller roles are also undertaken). This gives an unparalleled clarity to the events as you see the chaste Margaret descend to Machiavellian plotting to destroy challengers to her grip on power, and then her downfall as Edward and then Richard take power. It is fitting that she, in a horrific scene at the end of this play, is seen atop a mound of dead. This was, after all, her legacy.

In a simple, but effective, set, with authentic costumes and asides taken directly to camera, this brings your closer to Shakespeare's work than much of the praised films and productions in the past.

If you found Olivier's version just too hammy to bear..... try this one.

I love Shakespeare, both classically performed and the recontextualised adaptations of recent years, but this production, made with a large budget (British television-wise) with a talented director and a superb cast somehow manages to fail spectacularly to bring Shakespeare's classic play to life. I would not envy Jane Howell's task of directing Richard III using the (almost) complete text as a shooting script, but I think she could have approached it in a more imaginative fashion, making better use of television conventions. Save for the close-up and the shot-reverse shot technique, Howell prefers to display what is simply "Filmed Theater", with a set that offers little to a medium as visual as television. The performances, though excellent, don't really come across with the power and passion they no doubt would in the theater, and the end result is a four hour long dirge that does no credit to Shakespeare's sharp and vibrant play.

It is one of the best known and most produced play by Shakespeare and certainly the best known and most produced history. What's surprising about this play is that it can stand all by itself though knowing the three Henry the Sixth plays help understand the stake of this one. True enough it only helps because this history is very self sufficient, in a way.

We have to clear the plate of a question that is today no longer debated. Shakespeare proposes here the vision of Richard III promoted by the Tudors, that is to say those who vanquished and destroyed him, in order to stabilize and justify their taking over te throne of England. Richard III was not the physical monster they described.

This being said this play is a real thriller. Richard has to eliminate everyone on his path to climb (really climb) to the throne. I would say that sounds plain normal but he declares himself to be evil and to enjoy killing, particularly innocent people. And when he has finally finished the elimination of those who have a blood claim to the throne, except Richmond who has fled to Brittany, he starts killing those who have helped him in his ascent, which is politically absurd and plain suicidal. Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, comes back with an army and defeats Richard III at Bosworth in 1485 and thus becomes Henry VII known as the first Tudor king, though he is a Lancaster, which means the House of Lancaster in the end wins but they change the dynastic reference, probably to ensure the past be the past, which might explain why Richard III after proper examination was buried in a small church with no indication on his grave, which explains why in modern times when the church was pull down to open some space for a parking lot no archaeological search was started and Richard III remained under the parking lot for a long time before new excavations to build some new structure finally discovered him, or at least his remains.

The victor is always right and history hates the past and disguises it to the colors of the present, which means the color of the past changes from one present to the next [...]

This production is superb in many ways, once again by the physical acting of pain, sorrow and death, particularly with body language, facial language and tonal language. A triplet of queens is essential: Margaret the old widow of Henry the Sixth; Lady Anne, widow to Edward Prince of Wales, son of Henry the Sixth, later married to the Duke of Gloster who later became Richard the Third; and Elizabeth, queen to Edward the Fourth and then his widow. Of these three queens Lady Anne is the most discreet though fundamental because of her marrying Gloster, the future Richard the Third and the killer of both her husband and her father in law, but another triplet is composed with the Duchess of York, mother to King Edward the Fourth, Clarence and Gloster, the latter to become Richard the Third. The oldest of them, Margaret is a real warmonger against Richard the Third and this production makes her triumphant at the very end, after the concluding words from Henry the Seventh, sitting, laughing hysterically, at the top of a pile of half denuded dead bodies, and holding the corpse of Richard the Third. The full and final step of this purification cycle typical of Shakespeare: she takes, or rather is granted, the victory she is provided with by history or fate [...]

But to show how strong Shakespeare's music can be, I will make a final remark on the famous ghost scene. In his last night living on earth before the battle of Bosworth he has a dream that brings up EIGHT apparitions of ghosts, eleven ghosts all together [...]

EIGHT is the symbol of the Second Coming, and here we have eleven second comings. The Second Coming is the triggering event of the Apocalypse in the Book of Revelation.

ELEVEN is the number of apostles after the elimination of Judas, the eleven apostles who retire away from the Crucifixion (except John) and who deny Jesus, like Peter, and who hide away from the crucifixion and post crucifixion scene out of fear. These eleven apostles announce the resurrection too, even if in a negative way, the way they announce the end of Richard III but they also appear to Richmond and they announce the resurrection of the English monarchy with Henry the Seventh, known as Richmond in this play.

Finally NINE is necessary to complete the prophecy, the prediction, by identifying the beast, in this case Richard the Third. And sure enough the ghosts are going to curse Richard III with a simple formula: "despair and die." And in that ghost scene this mantra is repeated NINE times.

We must understand that in Elizabethan times, after the Reformation and in the ascending phase of chapels and Puritanism, such biblical references (in this case the Passion of Jesus and the Book of Revelation) were unavoidable elements that everyone understood and appreciated. What's more it is very effective in the "propaganda" (rather self-justification) of the Tudors: the killing of the crucifixion is prophesied, the Second Coming is announced and the Beast is identified. We are in the midst of medieval numerical symbolism. This makes me say NINE is the numerical symbol of this king, and as I have already said in my review of Henry the Sixth, Part Three: 1 + 8 = 9; 4 + 5 = 9; 1 + 4 + 8 + 5 = 18 = 9 x 2. The beast is killed on the diabolical date that is also the resurrection date of Bosworth, the final battle. After this last battle the prophecy of the New Messianic Jerusalem becomes possible [...]

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU