@@323guiltyspark An interesting parallel, sure, but it's in the original. Henry VI. Part Three. Richard's soliloquy, Act III, Scene II: Why, Love forswore me in my mother’s womb, And, for I should not deal in her soft laws, She did corrupt frail Nature with some bribe To shrink mine arm up like a withered shrub; To make an envious mountain on my back...
Genius move to have had the first part of this speech delivered to an adoring public, then have Richard confide in us his real motives...while having a slash, which is about us intimate as you get. So hard to find a new way to deliver famous Shakespeare soliloquies. David Tennant does it very well with 'To be or not to be...'.
if it was done well you wouldnt see him as the villain. The bad guy doesnt know he is the bad guy. In his mind he is completely justified. You should fall in love with the bad guy if done right
@@Jelutro well, in richard iii the audience is supposed to fall in love with him, knowing he is a villain, with himself admitting to it, much like lady anne
@@Crichjo32 I have since been studying acting as a career for the past 3 years and I totally take back what I said haha. How naive I was haha. Sir Ian is one of the acting greats and you're right. His sense of self delight is incredible
I always loved the way Jim Broadbent laughs when McKellen delivers the line "...our dreadful marches to delightful measures", as though it's some kind of terribly funny inside joke between the two of them.
The emphasis is on "marches", because the hunchbacked Richard surely prefers his marches in "delightful measures". While the crowd takes it as an ironic jest, McKellen and Broadbent know exactly how much venom it bears.
McKellen is THE modern Shakespearean actor. Many actors, from amateur to professional, can't see past the beauty of Shakespeare's language. So they start with the words, adding emphasis wherever they can and coming across as artsy fartsy. McKellen, on the other hand, starts with the character, breathing actual life into the words, making them seem organic and real. He is a genius of his craft.
That always annoyed me about theater performers. They're always so self absorbed and make no space in their ego for the actual character they're supposed to become. They try to think of how to sound more dramatic than the last person with the words and not become the type of person who might use them.
Yes! A modern Shakespeare - that's exactly what we need! And probably deserve. The original just isn't good enough nowadays - just words! We want organic and real - we want to SMELL those goddamn actors! And have more light-saber battles. Also, a score by John Williams. Shakespeare's text...meh. Soooo overrated, and BORING. Yes, a "modern" Shakespeare is what we DESERVE. LOLZ!!!
I've observed this myself. And I hate to say this, but I think Lawrence Olivier is one counterexample. By all means a fine actor, but some people try to get too technical with the lines. This has the added negative effect of making the lines harder to understand and driving off audiences. As much as I like McKellan, the best Richard III I've seen was Ben Cumberbatch in the Hollow Crown. What's unique about that series is that they're not acting out a play, they're acting out a movie, using gestures and emotion that would be recognizable to everyday people. Olivier spoke the words very well, but came across as focused too much on the words, not enough on, as you say, the beauty behind them.
@@tomservo75 Have to strongly disagree with your assessment of both Olivier’s Richard and Cumberbatch’s CGI-enhanced depiction. The first Hollow Crown series (Richard II, 1 & 2 Henry IV, Henry V) was excellent (especially Richard II and the Henry IV films). The Henry VI and Richard III installments, alas, were a huge disappointment…damnable, I dare say. Stunt casting, anachronisms (ineffective ones at that), and most of Richard’s soliloquies cut from the script. Absurd special effects, an obnoxious score, and weird, obtrusive cinematography. Failure as both film and WS adaptation. I always recommend the “Hollow Crown” Richard II and Henry IV films to everyone I know - they are worthy first choice entries into the WS film canon. Wonderfully acted, filmed, and edited. As good as it gets. Hard pass on Henry VI and Richard III. Olivier owns that role on film…Benedict Cumberbatch perhaps deserved better from the “writers” but perhaps he best stick to playing his sexless, autistic Sherlock.
This film is the perfect hybrid of old and new. It retains the Elizabethan, which a lot of people simply can't deal with. But if you can, the modern day setting and various trappings, and McKellen's fourth wall breaking soliloquies make it so much more accessible!
This is a brilliantly imagined version of Richard III. It almost feels like it was written for an early 20th century Marshal kingdom. Mckellan’s interpretation is inspired, miking it one of the best filmed Shakespeare play ever made.
I watched Romeo + Juliet and this movie back to back. And I must say, it's so much easier to follow the story when the actors obviously know the meaning of what they're saying.
Romeo+Juliet is a very pretty movie. Bas Lurman knows how to set a scene. Harold Perniu(Name Butcher) was amazing in that film. The Queen Man speech was awesome.
@Alan Mundy I do acting, and I have to tell you how much I appreciate this comment! Theatre training IS the best training for an actor, as many professionals will tell you😀
This film was packed to the rafters with an amazing cast, and with the giga-wattage of pure talent they all brought to this film, they all stood in the shadow of McKellen. As plays go, this one, more than most, makes amazing use of the aside, and in McKellen's hands it is used to maximum effect to illustrate what is created when naked ambition and a brilliant mind can turn into in the face of slights, both real and perceived.
The way he speaks about being "half-made up" is without the resentment shown by Olivier. I saw him saying, "This is who I am and since I can't do one thing, I will do what I am best at."
This is one of the finest adaptations of .Richard III in my opinion with many outstanding performances. Nigel Hawthorn's Clarence has never been bettered. McKellen is a revelation, just so much to admire.
As a trained actor, the greatest revelation of my education was learning that Shakespeare is meant to be heard, not read. Beautiful use of the English language.
Both the performances by sir Ian mc kellen and sir laurence olivier are great. A great learning process by watching the performance of these great and veteran actors. 👍
Shakespeare's historic plays were the 16th century English equivalent of 20th Century American Gangster Movies, on par with 'The Godfather/Goodfella's/Casino etc..' with equally memorable dialogue and scene's
'Well, your imprisonment shall not be long - I will deliver you' . What a marvelous ,darkly funny line from Shakespeare and perfectly delivered with such ironic malevolence by Mckellan who certainly carries out his 'promise'.
It's not supposed to be funny; it's there for a very specific reason. Richard says he decides to be a villain because he cannot be a lover, and his reason behind it is that he has a physical deformity which he repeatedly refers to throughout the play. This trait, significant to the most basic plot since it is the motivation behind his actions, is manifested through the hunchback. Not a joke or a slight -- an important part of the play.
Okay now I gotta see this film, if only to see a younger (ish) Galdalf hamming it up. As for Olivier’s performance as others have mentioned it, I’ve seen it, and while it isn’t as zany as this, I think it has its own merit. Olivier gave the monologue as a more cynical but coldly calculating character, who could put a lot of sudden emotion into his words when he wanted to. McKellen takes it to another dimension though, able to publicly portray a smiling face with the confidence of everyone around him while still having a brooding, scheming dark side that seems on the edge of breaking the fourth wall
@@mushroomhead3619 Shakespeare own, unaltered works is ripe with historical inaccuracies and unrealistic actions. He wasn't a historian, but a director and writer for making what was then "popular" entertainment; plays that were made to be re-adapted by a theater or a troupe see fit as time goes on. To try to shove in "historical realism" in often unapologetically historically inaccurate and unrealistic by design plays doesn't work like you think it would.
This is such a fascinating way to deliver the lines, and such an interesting take on the character. The acting is phenomenal, of course, but that is to be expected, I really think the directing is worthy of credit. I always thought of Richard as being very similar to Shylock as one of Shakespeare's great sympathetic villains, somebody shaped by his conditions to be evil. I find the line "since I cannot play the lover, I am determined to play the villain" to be particularly resonant. Not so with this performance. Here, Richard is an unapologetically evil schemer, the soliloquy isn't a cry of anger and resolution of evil as much as it is a twisted sense of pride in his wickedry that he wants to share with the audience. I love this direction that they took the character, and honestly think this is the best performance on RU-vid, having watched both Cumberbatch's and Olivier's before this.
I love when the actors talks to us in front of the camera , love this way of filming . Ian McKellen a brilliant actor , he as Max Von Sydow has kinda the same way of playing in the movies . Laurence Olivier version of Richard 3 was different and older . This version with Ian McKellen is a refreshment of Shakespeare . Another actor would have been excellent in the role of Richard 3 was Patrick McGoohan .
His best performance ever, in my opinion, was in The Madness of King George... Astonishing portrayal of one of history’s most well known, yet least explained monarchs.
@@schwakyl000 I saw the movie. I thought it was fiction. I found it funny that one of the reasons they thought he was mad was because he was faithful to his wife. I was an interesting peek at what goes on behind the glamour and glitz of royalty.
I saw this on stage 6 times. McKellen is brilliant here. BUT. You MUST see him on stage to understand what a brilliant actor he is; he feeds off an audience. To be blunt, he is 99% better than ever other Shakespearean actor in this film. On stage, he has NO Peers in this role. Oliver, looks like a novice in comparison.
I so wanted him to do what he did at the NT; it was machine gun fire. I saw it 4 times. Bluntly! If you've never seen Sir Ian in stage, you've never seen him , trully, act. Live, he is perfect...Mozart perfect.
See this is one of the few reimagined productions of Shakespeare that I like, setting it in a WWI German Empire style era is genius. Most of the time I absolutely despise modernity in theatre, especially minimalist set pieces.
Before sir Ian made this film, he performed it on stage in Brooklyn NY , at BAM in the early 90s. Had the chance to attend one of those performances. 🧐🥃😷
Right, Beek--and perhaps the most chlling scene is the room hung with Richard's banners, a brilliant imitation of Nazi pageantry. Will there even be a greater Shakespeare film? I doubt it.
Gandalf/Magneto.....Professor McGonnagle....Professor Slughorn....Tony Stark...Supreme Intelligence...Mr. Carson from Downton....and Sir. Humphrey Appleby of the DAA.
i wish they would make a new movie about Richard III...maybe based on The Sunne In Splendour...there are so many movies and shows about the Tudor era...yet I find the York and Lancaster era much more interesting...if only they would concentrate on that era for a little bit in the entertainment industry :(
Now is the winter of our discontent Made glorious summer by this son of York; And all the clouds that lour’d upon our house In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
@Nicollie1062 That sounds like a very good idea. Richard III does quite well on film, which is why its done so well by so many. By contrast, no film of Macbeth, a far better play than Richard III, works for me, including the recent effort by Patrick Stewart. So there's something about the plot that is suited for this medium. Very likely another version would be a hit.
The problem with Macbeth, if you will, if you could call it that, is that it is a bare bones play. It is much "Shorter" in a sense and gets straight to the point, which works well in a play, but in a film you need several stories to be going on. You could make a good Macbeth, but you'd have to let quentin tarantino do it.
If you haven't seen it, I'd recommended "Throne of Blood" by Akira "Emperor" Kurosawa. It is by no means a straight adaptation. It translates Shakespeare not only into the Japanese language, but into Japanese history with the influence of Japanese art, but I think it's a incredible adaptation to behold, although I understand if you consider it too distant from the source material to include.
2:39 There's a bit of a James Burke's "Connections" feel about that transition, I mean in terms of editing choices. Never noticed that before. It does detract from the overall seriousness and style of the movie, but it is oddly comical.
This was such a brilliant production in the way they creatively portrayed the scenes. Having R3 deliver the speech as a toast was brilliant! But yes McKellan delivers this speech BRILLIANTLY, as he plays out the role, with facial expression and inflection, he's not just a line reader, like many actors, even I hate to say the great Lawrence Olivier (brilliant actor but too technical in his reading IMHO). Even sneaking in some lines from Henry VI Part 3 to give background, just as Olivier did in his performance.I would have loved this movie much better had they not cut so much out. A four hour play cut down to not even 1.5 hours? It just seemed too rushed. They could have fleshed things out more, it would only have added 20 minutes or so and would have been twice as good.
I think this is where the British Civil War vibe came from mixing a variety of inter war clothing and uniforms. I much prefer McKellen’s performance. Olivier’s is simply a speech to camera, (which he directed while acting - no mean feat), but this production maps out the characters and situation so much better.
I think there must have been a coach party of casting agents that pulled in to watch this and the Other Boleyn Girl. Ok, we’ll take them. Who? All of them. In what? Everything.
