Looking for Richard

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.

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!

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.

I saw this movie in English-language version at midnight in April 2004 on a Dutch commercial TV-station. Al Pacino is to be praised for making this movie, of which I have the feeling that it could not be made in these times (are there any indies left?). I was fascinated to see what a gap there is between American and 'European' (i.e. British) ways of tackling the problem of performing a play of Shakespeare: the British interviewees were cool as cucumbers, the American actors (who all do a fine job) were sometimes desperate to find ways of passage through the labyrinth of the play. Pacino used a fine parallel: he made a historic event (the play written by Shakespeare) into a work of art, as did Shakespeare when he turned the rise and fall of the Richard III of the fifteenth century into a play. I think Pacino also tried to do something with one of the most fascinating Shakespearean themes: how life and play (or: men and actors) are intertwined and often cannot be separated. But Pacino could not elaborate on that, probably because he felt that the film otherwise would be too long. Pacino did well in trying to find the most appropriate locations for the scenes. I was mesmerized to see how Richard could do all that he wanted when inside castles and towers, but was at a loss when he found himself in the open fields. Al Pacino, there are still a lot of Shakespeare's plays waiting for you!

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.