This year the Rochester Shakespeare Players are going to be putting on Richard III. I have problems understanding Shakespeare, so I thought it would be a good idea to read the play first. Then I figured it would be an even better idea to watch a movie version.
Turns out there were 2- one in 1955 with Laurence Olivier, and one in 1995 with John Wood. Of the two, I understood and liked the 1995 one best. The newest one's 1930s setting and costumes made it easier to figure out who was who. Or maybe it was only because I had first watched the other film, and already (sort of) knew who people were....
Nope, the newer film is just easier to understand. Of course, what is there to understand? Richard wants to be king, and he he doesn't mind killing to get there. Since no one likes him, he has to keep killing even after he gets to be king. Around Richard, no one, and I mean no one, is safe. (Warning- watching some of these murders requires a strong stomach. Whoever wrote this screenplay was a bit twisted.)
The weird part of is how off this play is from historical reality. There seems to be no record of Richard III being evil, or even malformed. The Earl of Richmond, who will take the crown as Henry VI, actually had no right to the crown. If I have this right, his grandmother, Katherine, was the wife of Henry V, but his grandfather was not Henry V, but Katherine's second husband. On the other hand, Richard III's great-great grandfather was Edward III, so Richard had every right to be king. Now if Richard wasn't the vile man Shakespeare said he was, then Henry VI had no right to fight him, and if he did, Henry never should have been king.
Of course, Shakespeare was writing for Elizabeth I. She probably wouldn't have been too happy to watch a play depicting her grandfather as anything but a hero. So, since Shakespeare was no fool, Richard ended up as a villain. But, hey, it was just a play, and no one ever pays attention to a play...
Break a leg, Shakespeare Players.
You can find these VHS tapes in the VHS area.
