Richard III

Verkaufsrang: 7343 (DVD)
Actor: Sir Ian McKellen
Actor: Annette Bening
Actor: Jim Broadbent
AspectRatio: 2.35:1
AudienceRating: Freigegeben ab 16 Jahren
Autor: William Shakespeare
Binding: DVD
Director: Richard Loncraine
EAN: 4006680018546
Format: Dolby
Format: PAL
Format: Surround Sound
Format: Widescreen
Languages:
ListPrice:
RegionCode: 2
Erscheinungsdatum: 27. August 1999
Spielzeit: 105
TheatricalReleaseDate: 29. Dezember 1995
von: Sir Ian McKellen (Hauptdarsteller), Annette Bening (Hauptdarsteller), Trevor Jones (Komponist)
Preis: EUR 9,34

Kundenrezensionen zu 'Richard III'

Absolut finster... (12. November 2007)

Freunde konventionller Filmunterhaltung werden hier vielleicht erstmal nicht so begeistert sein, handelt es sich doch eigentlich um eine Theaterverfilmung, bei der die Texte eben auch genauso wie auf der Bühne gesprochen werden und das ist vielleicht am Anfang ein bißchen gewöhnungsbedürftig (im Film). Andererseits sollte man hier auch keine 1 zu 1 Übertragung des Shakespearschen Stoffes erwarten. Es geht um England in einer unbestimmten Zeit -an den Fürstenhöfen herrscht Rivalität. Richard ist im Mittelpunkt der Intrigen, die für die anderen Beteiligten fast immer tödlich enden. Er träumt davon der König von England zu werden, muss zu diesem Zweck natürlich vornehmlich seine Verwandtschaft aus dem Wege räumen. Ich glaube, um die "Giftkröte" Richard zu spielen, hätte man sicher keinen Geeigneteren als IanMcKellen finden können. Nach einer kürzeren Eingewöhnungsphase, die man dem Film einräumen sollte, da er wirklich ungewöhnlich inszeniert ist, wird die Story sehr spannend.
Es wird darüber hinaus eine fiktive Epoche entworfen, ein England in einem bürgerkriegsähnlichen Zustand, vom Stil teilweise in den 30er Jahren anzusiedeln, es ist vielleicht ein bißchen vermessen zu behaupten, einige Elemente wären hier dem Nationalsozialismus entlehnt und Richard der III eine Art Goebbels, aber das ist ein Vergleich, der sich einem hier schon aufdrängt. Also, wenn man sich auf diesen Film einlassen will, kann man wirklich was erleben. Ich finde ihn absolut überzeugend, abgrund tief finster und seinen Oscar für die beste Ausstattung und die besten Kostüme hat er wirklich nicht umsonst bekommen.

No discontent with this production (6. März 2006)

Ian McKellan played Richard III on the stage in London, then touring the world, under Richard Eyre's direction and the Royal National Theatre of Great Britain's auspices. Like many great productions of Richard III in the past, there was an anticlimactic sense about things when the lengthy run ended - McKellan compares his production (justifiably) to those of Henry Irving and David Garrick, but longs for the lasting legacy of Laurence Olivier, who translated his successful stage production into a lasting cinematic production. Richard Eyre issued the challenge to McKellan to produce a screenplay, which he did, in collaboration with Richard Loncraine. Loncraine then produced the film, again starring Ian McKellan as Richard III, updated into a National-Socialist timeframe.

It is true that Shakespeare is the 'author' of Richard III - of course, much of Shakespeare's authoring involved heavy borrowing, redaction and crafting. This is not to take anything away from Shakespeare's achievement, but rather to prove the adage 'good writers borrow from others; great writers steal from them outright'. However, every production of a Shakespeare play requires modification of some sort; bringing Shakespeare productions to the screen (indeed, bringing any stage-play to the screen) requires a recrafting to suit the medium. McKellan and Loncraine rearranged and edited expertly the play to suit a film.

Richard III has been an enigmatic and controversial character - Shakespeare's play is probably more in keeping with Tudor propaganda against Richard III (from whom they took the throne) rather than actual history; Richard's malformed physical form and malicious character may be fictions, or at least great exaggerations, designed to serve the purpose of bolstering Tudor legitimacy. McKellan points out (a theory not unique to him, by any means) that the Tudors had as much to gain from the disappearance of the princes in the tower as Richard himself; had they survived and been recognised as heirs of the throne, Tudor legitimacy would have been much less credible.

McKellan's Richard has disability physically, but the real deformity is of the will and the spirit. The Prussian-inspired military garb of this production hints at but also hides his physical disability for the most part. There is no real hump, stammer or limp that many portrayals of Richard might have.

McKellan describes the decision to update the tale of Richard III into more modern times as one to provide clarity of narrative. Indeed, for this production, Richard is seen as a storm-trooper similar to the militant cadres of Germany in the 1930; his grasp for power is very similar in tone to the rise to dictatorship of any number of fascist leaders, but the Nuremberg-Rally character of Richard's accession leaves little doubt as to the parallel. On stage and screen, in a drama such as these, people need to be readily identified in their roles; Elizabethan dress (or earlier dress) is confusing to the modern eye, but the difference between costuming for military, aristocracy, etc. in the modern time is readily identifiable. The exact historical situation is not directly relevant - given that Richard III already takes liberties with the actual history of the time, why not take more in the name of accessibility to the audience?

Richard III had to be cut to make it on the screen, in order to be turned into a visual rather than auditory experience, given the sensibilities of modern cinema-goers. McKellan and Loncraine originally wanted to film around the Houses of Parliament, but for various political reasons that idea was quashed. They used the Parliament building in Budapest, modeled after the Westminster building, and did so to great effect.

McKellan certainly steals the show here, but there are worthwhile briefer performances by the late Nigel Hawthorne, Robert Downey Jr., John Wood, and Annette Bening. Maggie Smith, as the mother of Edward IV and Richard III, turns in a stunning performance as usual, nearly upstaging the other actors in every scene in which she appears.

The music is serviceable, useful as a backdrop but never really stands out. This is appropriate to Shakespeare, even up-dated, 'postmodern' Shakespeare, in which the play's the thing. The visuals help to pull the story along, but in true Shakepearean mode, the dialogue and acting are the driving forces here, and they succeed brilliantly.

Die Faszination des Bösen (27. November 2005)

Sir Laurence Olivier möge es verzeihen, aber Sir Ian - Hauptdarsteller, Produzent und Drehbuchautor - ist ein dermaßen charmanter und charismatischer Schurke, daß es ihm leicht fällt, den Zuschauer zu seinem Komplizen zu machen. Ich habe diese Verfilmung nun schon etwa fünfmal gesehen und immer noch kein schlechtes Gewissen.

Gute Schauspieler, schlechte Inszenierung (2. Juni 2005)

Leider kann ich mit den Bewertungen der vorangegangenen Rezensionen nicht übereinstimmen. Als großer Shakespeare-Fan habe ich viel von dem Film erwartet, vor allem aufgrund der positiven Bewertungen und den guten Schauspielern, und konnte es kaum erwarten, ihn zu sehen.
Jedoch bin ich von dem Film sehr enttäuscht.
Zum Einen, weil die Handlung in das 20. Jahrhundert verlegt wurde, was bei einem historischen Schauspiel kaum nachvollziehbar und meiner Ansicht nach völlig unangebracht ist. Zudem wurden im Gegensatz zum Buch viele Szenen hinzugefügt oder schlecht umgesetzt, wie z.B. der Anfang oder das Ende des Films. Das einzig Positive ist das teilweise gute schauspielerische Können Ian McKellens.
Insgesamt lässt sich sagen, dass der Film den Geist Shakespears schlecht bzw. gar nicht transferiert und kaum eine angemessene Verfilmung eines der besten Werke Shakespeares ist. Im Gegensatz zu anspruchsvollen Kenneth Branagh - Verfilmungen (Viel Lärm um nichts, Henry V etc.) ist der Film kaum zu empfehlen.

Villany Unveiled. (30. Mai 2005)

A gala ball: The York family celebrate their reascent to power; the War of Roses (named for the feuding houses' heraldic badges: Lancaster's red and York's white rose) is almost over. Actually, the year is 1471, but for present purposes, we're in the 1930s. A singer delivers a swinging "Come live with me and be my love." Richard of Gloucester (Sir Ian McKellen), the reinstated sickly King Edward IV's (John Wood's) youngest brother, moves through the crowd; observing, watching his second brother George, Duke of Clarence (Nigel Hawthorne) being quietly led off by Tower warden Brackenbury (Donald Sumpter) and his subalterns. With Clarence gone, Richard seizes the microphone, its discordant screech cutting through the singer's applause, and he, who himself made this night possible by killing King Henry VI of Lancaster and his son at Tewkesbury, begins a victory speech: "Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this sun of York" (cut to Edward, who regally acknowledges the tribute). But when Richard mentions "grim-visaged war," who "smooth'd his wrinkled front," the camera closes in on his mouth, turning it into a grimace reminiscent of the legend known to any spectator in Shakespeare's Globe Theatre: that he wasn't just born "with his feet first" but also "with teeth in his mouth;" hence, not only crippled (though whether also hunchbacked is uncertain) but cursed from birth, his physical deformity merely outwardly representing his inner evil.

Then, mid-sentence, the image cuts again. Richard enters a bathroom; and as he continues his monologue we see that only now, relieving himself and talking - with narcissistic pleasure - to his own image in the mirror, he truly speaks his mind; contemptuously dismissing a war that's lost its menace and "capers nimbly in a lady's bedchamber," and determining that, since he now has no delight but to mock his own deformed shadow, and "cannot prove a lover," he'll "prove a villain and hate the idle pleasures of these days."

Thus, Richard's first soliloquy, which actually opens the play on a London street, brilliantly demonstrates the signature elements of this movie's (and the preceding stage production's) success: not only its updated 20th century context but its creative use of settings and imagery; boldly cutting and rearranging Shakespeare's words without anytime, however, betraying his intent. Indeed, that pattern is already set with the prologue's murder of King Henry VI and his son, where following a telegraph report that "Richard of Gloucester is at hand - he holds his course toward Tewkesbury" (slightly altered lines from the preceding "King Henry VI"'s last scenes) Richard himself emerges from a tank breaking through the royal headquarters' wall, breathing heavily through a gas mask: As his shots ring out, riddling the prince with bullets, the blood-red letters R-I-C-H-A-R-D-III appear across the screen.

And as creatively it continues: Richard woos Lady Anne (Kristin Scott Thomas), Henry's daughter-in-law, in a morgue instead of a street (near her husband's casket), and later drives her into drug abuse. Henry's Cassandra-like widow Margaret is one of several characters omitted entirely; whereas foreign-born Queen Elizabeth is purposely cast with an American (Annette Benning), whose performance has equally purposeful overtones of Wallis Simpson; and whose playboy-brother Earl Rivers (Robert Downey Jr.) dies "in the act." Clarence is murdered while the rest of the family sits down to a lavish (although discordant) dinner. When upon Richard's ally Lord Buckingham's (Jim Broadbent's) machinations, he is "persuaded" to take the crown, he emerges from a veritable film star's dressing room complete with full-sized mirror and manicurists (sold to the attending crowd outside as "two deep divines" praying with him). Tyrrell (Adrian Dunbar), already one of Clarence's murderers, quickly rises through uniformed ranks as he further bloodies his hands. Richard's and Elizabeth's final spar over her daughter's hand takes place in the train-wagon serving as his field headquarters; and we actually see that same princess wed to his arch-enemy Richmond (Dominic West), King Henry VII-to-be and founder of the Tudor dynasty, with lines taken from Richmond's closing monologue. Perhaps most importantly, we also witness Richard's coronation, which Shakespeare himself - honoring that ceremony's perception as holy - decided not to show; although even here it is presented not as a glorious procedure of state but only in a brief snippet rerun immediately from the distance of a private, black-and-white film shown only for Richard's and his entourage's benefit.

And challenging as this project is, its stellar cast - also including Maggie Smith (a formidable Duchess of York), Jim Carter (Prime Minister Lord Hastings), Roger Hammond (the Archbishop), and Tim McInnerny and Bill Paterson (Richard's underlings Catesby and Ratcliffe) - uniformly prove themselves more than up to the task.

Even if the temporal setting didn't already spell out the allegory on the universality of evil that McKellen and director Richard Loncraine obviously intend, you'd have to be blind to miss the visual references to fascism: the uniforms, the gathering modeled on the infamous Nuremberg Reichsparteitag, the long red banners with a black boar in a white circle (playing up the image of the boar Shakespeare himself uses: similarly, Richard's and Tyrrell's first meeting is set in a pig-sty, and Lord Stanley's [Edward Hardwicke's] prophetic dream follows an incident where Richard, for a split-second, loses his self-control). But the imagery goes even further: Richard's narcissism is reminiscent of Chaplin's "Great Dictator;" and you don't have to watch this movie contemporaneously with the latest "Star Wars" installment to visualize Darth Vader during his gas mask-endowed entry in the first scene.

"[T]hus I clothe my naked villany with odd old ends stol'n out of holy writ; and seem a saint when most I play the devil," Richard comments in the play: if there's one line I regret to see cut it's the one so clearly encompassing the way many a modern despot assumes power, too; by cloaking his true intent in the veneer of formal legality. Even so: this is a highlight among the recent Shakespeare adaptations; under no circumstances to be missed.