Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Direction in Three Versions of Richard III
In class we screened THREE film versions of the opening scene of Richard III: Laurence Olivier's version from 1955, Ian McKellen's from 1995, and Al Pacino's from 1996. The director of each film made distinct choices of costume, lighting, casting, make-up, stage direction, gesture, diction and other elements to help shape his vision of the characters and the meaning of the play. Focus on ONE directorial decision that you liked from one or two of the film versions. Describe the element in some detail and analyze how it shapes the meaning of the play.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Act I, Scene 2 may be recognized as the most controversial interaction of the entire play. We see Lady Anne transform, in the blink of an eye from a vengeful, hate-filled character, to a naïve, simple minded one. This transition in behavior makes the reader ponder whether it is truly Richard’s persuading words that cause this or if Lady Anne has other motives. Reading the scene versus seeing on the screen bring conflicting opinions on the question at hand. Does Lady Anne actually, magically fall in love with Richard? If so, why does she begin to regret her decision later in the play? Is Richard surprised that she was so easily bamboozled, or is he aware of the influence his words have on the other characters?
ReplyDeleteShakespeare’s original perspective of the scene makes Anne appear to be senseless and unwise. She curses the person “who had the heart to” (1.2.89-90) commit the murder, but then quickly has a change of heart as Richard works his way into wooing her. When Richard first comes into the scene, she is aware that he is the murderer and is outraged that he could even think of attempting to have relations with her. Richard has a turning point when he mentions her “bed chamber”(1.2.290) in an almost dark, flirtatious way that gives Lady Anne a sudden attraction to this evil, deformed character.
In the 1995 interpretation of Richard III, Lady Anne, is displayed as a more sensible character. This was my favorite aspect out of all three movies we watched in class. Although, I find it interesting that Lady Anne, is originally a naïve character but I enjoy seeing her as a slightly stronger, more complex woman. The conversation appears to be more of a negotiation. Anne is conscious of where her life will go without a husband, or source of money and knowingly agrees with Richard’s tactics. At the conclusion of the scene, instead of having a full blown make out scene like in other interpretations, she states that Richard should “pretend that [they] have already bid farewell”. This allows the reader to connect with Lady Anne and can shape the rest of the play more realistically. I imagine that later in the play, when Anne realizes that her decision to commit to Richard was a mistake, she is feeling less sorry for herself, because she was not tricked and more of a realization of regret on the decision that SHE, herself, consciously made.
In the 1996 version of Richard III starring Al Pacino, a directorial decision that I really liked was the choice to present the film as a documentary. I feel that the documentary was a more in-depth analysis of the play. Even though the documentary was not the play but rather a movie about making the play, I think that by showing the “behind the scenes” view of what goes into acting out Shakespeare provided a deeper understanding of language. The documentary format jumped around a lot but I thought it was very beneficial that the actors were shown actually learning what the lines they were supposed to recite actually meant; it showed that the actors had an interest in what Shakespeare’s words meant rather than just reciting them verbatim without understanding. Having the play featured as a documentary changed the meaning from just a Shakespeare play, to an analysis of what the underlying themes and topics of the pay are. The fact that the director shot the actors going over key lines repetitiously highlights the significance of those lines while dually providing an explanation of those lines. The only downside to the documentary was that you did not actually get to see the whole play from start to finish, only small segments of the actual play. If this had been turned into a movie which only had the play, I think it would be one of the best renditions of Richard III. I think it would be really cool to watch the documentary then watch the actual play to understand the play then enjoy it. This version gave me a sense that the movie was created for learning and understanding rather than on more the entertainment side like most others.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Gabby and Daijah's opinions on the film. I agree that Anne's portrayal throughout each film differed slightly from each other and more so from the text, and that the documentary gave a new light to the "Richard III." Although these things are prevalent, I would like to focus on the aspect of shadows throughout the text, Ian McKellan's film, and Al Pacino's film.
ReplyDeleteRichard is described as "subtle, false, and treacherous" (I.1.37) and is often told many times that he resembles animals such as toads, spiders, and boars, which all bear somewhat of a negative connotation. It's this exact description that the two movies play with. They use shadows to somewhat cloak Richard's evil deeds. In McKellan's version, Richard states that the:
Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous,
By drunken prophecies, libels, and dreams,T
o set my brother Clarence and the King
In deadly hate, the one against the other; (I.1.32-35).
This indicates Richard's secretiveness, which he stays true to for much of the text. Richard never fully reveals his intentions to anyone. And if someone were to understand his intentions, their death would not be too far along. Richard states that he is "determined to prove a villain / And hate the idle pleasures of these days." (I.1.30-31)
It is through this darkness that Richard is able to accomplish all his feats before his ultimate downfall in Act 5. The shadows in the two films help portray Richard as exactly the man that Shakespeare intended for the reader to perceive. Richard is a calculated man who will stop at nothing to surpass his own deformities and gain the crown that he believes is rightfully his.
** after McKellan quote
Delete- Richard announces his plans in the darkness of a bathroom where there is no chance that anyone will hear him.
I want to compare the two “seduction” scenes between Richard and Ann in the Ian McKellen’s version and Al Pacino’s version. In McKellen’s version, he chose to cast a more mature actress for Ann. She is more stern and mean towards Richard and she won’t give in to his attempts to win her over. He tries and he tries but Ann continues to stay loyal to her husband until finally at the end of the scene she accepts Richard. As a class we figured that Ann had done so because she needs a husband and she needs status, so she puts aside her hatred or disgust for Richard and realizes her position. We, as the audience, understand why she suddenly gives in to Richard; whereas in the book it’s hard to determine how or why Ann could be so stupid as to unexpectedly be ok with his seduction after being so harsh.
ReplyDeleteIn Al Pacino’s version, Ann was played by a much younger Wynona Ryder. In this documentary, there was not much of the play shown. Rather they talked about the script and the significance of certain scenes or lines. I did like the explanations; I felt like I learned a lot about the play that I wouldn’t have necessarily learned from just reading it. I didn’t like that we could not watch the play in its entirety. The “seduction” scene was in fact played all the way through and it was much different than the McKellen version. Despite the fact that it was set in a more Shakespearean setting than the McKellen film, the choice to cast Ann much younger than Richard gave a different interpretation as to why Ann gave in to Richard. McKellen conveyed a less emotional explanation, whereas Pacino leads us to believe than Ann is really swayed by Richard’s smoothness. She is simply naïve and does not know any better. In both of these depictions, I feel we gain a different knowledge of the play. Either of these are plausible and I think both are equally as effective in the meaning of the play.
In theatre, I find that often the opening of the show sets the stage for the entire rest of the production. It established mood, tone, setting, and usually introduces the important characters. When I go see a show I usually have judged the quality of the production in its entirety by the end of the opening scene.
ReplyDeleteBuilding on this theme, I would like to contrast the opening scenes of both the Ian McKellen movie, and the Laurence Olivier movie.
In the Ian McKellen movie, before the dialog even starts, they have a powerful opening scene. They show a tank busting through a wall and a fight, with then what turns out to be Richard taking off a gas mask at the end of the scene as a final reveal. I really liked the way they designed this scene. It had many elements that drew me into the movie, but also did an excellent job setting up the rest of the movie. Because this take on Richard III was not set in the typical Shakespearian style, I think it is extremely important that they set up the plot in a cohesive manor. Just from that scene, we know that the story is set sometime around WWII, Richard is taking on the role of some sort of military commander, and they have just defeated someone. These are all things that moving forward are crucial to the understanding of the plot.
In contrast, in the Laurence Olivier version, the opening was one of its weakest parts. In this version, the opening was cluttered, hard to follow, and actually detracted from the rest of the show. It also established that this was a lack luster, under budget, and overall mediocre production of Richard III. This version starts with basically silence as we watch the king stand and gesture towards people, as we first see Richard. Then shortly after, the dialogue starts, but it is not the correct dialogue. It’s other Shakespearian speech basically cut and pasted into the opening of this movie with little regard to if it even makes sense. With Shakespeare, I find that you can cut from the play and you can even rearrange certain things, but when you start adding dialogue from something else, it starts to ruin the intention of the play.
In theatre as in film, lighting plays a major role in the audience’s interpretation of the mood and the plot itself. For this reason, I would again like to contrast the Laurence Olivier film with the Ian McKellen one, but this time in terms of lighting.
ReplyDeleteStarting with the Laurence Olivier movie, they decided to set the show in medieval times, which is a perfectly acceptable decision, but the lighting needs to follow through. Most of the part of the movie that we watched takes pace inside a castle. Castles were built for solidity and protection, not sun exposure of those inside. The lighting in all of the internal scenes was extremely overly bright. It was as if the lighting designer did not research the inside of medieval buildings at all before designing the lighting. Besides just being too bright the color was wrong. They were consistently hitting people with a warm amber light as if the sun was in the castle with them. In actuality though, the sun is not in the castle. The sun is outside, coming through windows. When the light comes through the window, it should diffract causing subtle colors to appear in the light. Moreover though, the light would be illuminating the space inside the castle by reflecting on the walls. This would cause color differences as well as differences in intensity between the key and fill lighting sources. Instead of having this difference in intensity because of the nature of directional light, the lighting designer very clearly made a decision to light the scenes using light sources from all angles, causing the scenes to look extremely fake.
In contrast to this, the Ian McKellen movie’s lighting designer did an excellent job with the lighting design for that movie. I don’t want to reiterate everything I just mentioned that goes into a good lighting design, but want to acknowledge that where the first movie failed, this movie succeeded. In this movie the lighting really added something more to the film in terms of color, intensity, and direction, instead of detracting from my enjoyment like it did in the first case.