104 min
6.7
1995
United Kingdom
A murderous lust for the British throne sees Richard III descend into madness. Though the setting is transposed to the 1930s, England is torn by civil war, split between the rivaling houses of York and Lancaster. Richard aspires to a fascist dictatorship, but must first remove the obstacles to his ascension—among them his brother, his nephews and his brother's wife. When the Duke of Buckingham deserts him, Richard's plans are compromised.
Overview
Reviews
tmdb28039023 wrote:Co-writers Ian McKellen and Richard Loncraine (who also directs) set their Richard III in 1930s Britain, and make the infamous hunchback a fascist warmonger plotting to usurp the throne. Today's English monarchy is, at best, nominal, but even way back in the 1930s there wasn't much to be gained by usurping it.
Then again, the film takes place in an alternate reality where the War of the Roses occurs 450 years after the true historical conflict did. I don’t mind so much that royalty has endured those four centuries and a half; what does bother me is that language has not evolved in the interim at the same rate as, say, warfare. Why on Earth would Richard (McKellen), who is neither dumb nor crazy, use the expression “my kingdom for a horse” when he could be asking for a tank instead?
This line is only in the movie because it’s in the play – but then, a great many things that are in the play aren’t in the film, and viceversa, so why keep this particular bit? I mean, it couldn’t be because the audience is expecting it, even though it makes zero sense given the circumstances, could it? Did they think diehard Shakespeare fans would riot otherwise? Well, if there were such a thing as hardcore Shake-heads, I assure you they would have rioted long before this point.
Similarly outdated is a scene in which several characters who have been at each other’s throats are compelled to swear mutual oaths of loyalty. As Al Pacino’s superb documentary Looking for Richard rightly points out, at the time that the original play is set this would be serious business, because only people who want to go to hell would swear an oath and not keep it. Ditto the scene where Richard blames his deformity on Queen Elizabeth's witchcraft; this is an accusation that would have been given credence in the 1470s, but not so much in the 1930s.
All things considered, it’s somewhat ironic that McKellen had a hand in the script, because his performance is worthy of much better material. His body language, in particular, is priceless – this Richard looks like a super-intelligent ape masquerading as a British Army field marshal. And when he breaks the fourth wall – another device that works better on a theater stage –, it feels as if Richard is letting the viewers in on that the entire movie is a sick joke he's playing on the other characters. If only.
