Was Richard looking for the power he deserved? After reviewing this film for the third time, I came to the final conclusion that Laurence Olivier was on Richard III's side. I mean, it is unlikely that the British master of theater and cinema was a convinced Ricardian, but beyond any doubt, he deeply respected his hero and even admired him.
Richard III (1955) is the best-known adaptation of Shakespeare’s historical chronicle of the same name and, according to some critics, the best of Shakespeare’s film adaptations in general. With the latter, if desired, you can argue, but the fact that this is the best of the available screen “Richards”, can not be denied. It is the image of the main character, or rather, the performance of Laurence Olivier, first of all, this film is valuable. Of course, this is Shakespeare, and it was not possible to go beyond the portrait of the “genius of evil” created by the genius of the word, but Olivier showed him so attractive in all respects that it is much easier to empathize with this villain than it is for his saintly victims. Maybe if Al Pacino really played Richard in the film adaptation, and not only in the documentary “Finding Richard”, he would have done just as well.
First of all, Richard Gloucester of the 1955 model is not a nasty, ugly dwarf, he has a small hump on his back, but under lush clothes it is not striking, Richard walks almost straight, and a slight limp on the contrary gives him some charm. But most importantly, from the face he is very beautiful, no additional attributes of ugliness, such as warts or senile wrinkles, there is no mention, except that a long false nose, making the king more cunning. I will say more, Sir Lawrence is very good wig "Ala Richard III", which eventually became a feature of the stereotypical view of the appearance of this monarch (remember Lord Farquaad from "Shrek" - something tells me that there is a clear cosplay). In addition, Richard Olivier is not only smart and calculating, but also incredibly charming, all these sly smiles, winks (to us, the audience) disarm themselves and make him take his side. If you compare the same character, played by Ian McKellen or Benedict Cumberbatch, you can immediately see: there is a typical Shakespearean pitch, the hero is disgusting and disgusting. But Olivier understands why no one could see Richard as a treacherous traitor and murderer. Because when at the beginning of the film, Richard complains about his injuries and external defectiveness, it becomes a little funny - you think, well, a pretty man, where do such complexes come from?
By the way, this is probably the motive laid in Olivier’s interpretation of the image of Richard – Richard hates himself, and convinced himself that no one loves him and will not be able to love him without noticing the love of brothers, nephews, loyalty of colleagues and... tender feelings of Anna Neville. He sold his soul to the devil for the crown, and in the end was ready to give the crown for the horse, disappointed in everything.
Perhaps the greatest change was the scene of Richard Anna’s seduction, as well as their subsequent relationship. When you read the play, it is difficult to believe that Anna really loved him - rather wished for "repentance", was seduced by his cordial confessions and decided to respond to the proposal of the powerful duke, so as not to be left out of history. In the film, the semantic content is much more subtle and deeper: Anna actually fell in love with him, and in the fullest sense of the word. Moreover, the scene even has some erotic overtones. It is not for nothing that Olivier divided the episode into two parts: Richard’s first attempt was not successful, but he threw the rod, gave Anna time to think, while doing the work of “dear” brother Clarence, so that later, “pushing” to her again, to get not only a positive answer, but also her heart in addition. And, judging by further, quite frank hints, the fear of Richard and love for him fought in Anna’s soul until her death.
The final scene deserves special attention, which vividly demonstrates how sensitive the director was to his hero and to the historical personality in particular. He did not blindly follow the source and arrange a “bloody dog” pathetic duel with the “savior of England” Heinrich Tudor, but showed this tragic moment as dark pages of history tell about it: a furious boar and a pack of dogs that literally tore him apart. And although the invariably ironic Richard in the course of the film often caused a smile, in the end it becomes not to laugh, and do not want to cheer for the winner (which, however, was not shown – again, unlike Shakespeare).
However, apart from Richard’s image, I still can’t call the film flawless, although I’ve watched it three times. The fact is that this film adaptation is really entirely based on the main character, and the episodes where he is behind the scenes, unfortunately, are noticeably sagging. For example, the iconic scene of the play - Clarence's nightmare - is clearly lost in this film. I remember seeing Richard III in the theater, and I was fascinated by the production of that dream: the disturbing music, the appropriate lighting, the “fish on the ropes” and the tearful voice of George recounting his dream – it really seemed as if you were on that ship and drowned in the sea! In Olivier’s film, in my opinion, this scene lacked expression, so it passed almost unnoticed. Or more – in the middle of the film there are episodes with Hastings, talking with the envoy of Lord Stanley, and then with Catsby, which also look frankly weak against the background of the “one-actor play” in the person of Richard. Plus, Olivier significantly shortened the play, and although the film runs for 2.5 hours, it lacks many scenes. Perhaps this is intended to focus exclusively on the main character. Which is not surprising, because most of the rest look faceless mass.
It would be unfair to ignore the visual component. I remember Disney’s “Sleeping Beauty” of 1959 called “the revived tapestry”, and I think “Richard III” is not inferior to her in this regard – watch it and immerse yourself in the atmosphere of the sunset of the XV century. The film is very colorful, bright, sometimes gloomy, but it is, if I may say so, “romantic” gloom, not depressing.
It is noteworthy that the film was shot a few years after the release of Josephine Tay's novel "Daughter of Time" - a program work on the rehabilitation of King Richard. I can’t judge whether the novel influenced the film (especially since Olivier played Richard long before the film was on stage), but perhaps in preparation for the shooting he read it.
For his incarnation of Richard III, Laurence Olivier was nominated for an Oscar, but lost that year to the exotic Yul Brynner. And unfortunately, in my opinion, this Shakespearean role turned out to be much brighter and more organic than the famous Hamlet seven years before.
9 out of 10