Tonight I watched Ian Mckellen's Richard III. It's set in 1930 England, undoubtedly paralleling Richard with Hitler. I think this was such a creative and insightful way to shape the play because it sends the message that yes, Shakespeare may have over-dramatized Richard, but sadly enough we have allowed leaders like him in our day rise to power with a bloody trail behind them.
The movie was captivating and some actors put an interesting twist on their characters--like Robert Downey Jr. playing a alcohol, drug and sex fiend Lord Rivers. That was...interesting, because Lord Rivers didn't seem very important to me while reading the play. Some lines showed up in different scenes and some murders were different, but over all it stayed pretty close to the script. One thing I did not understand was the rating: R?? Why? My husband seems to think that it's because it showed blood. I think it's safe to say that it didn't live up to the R rating. Dr. Burton mentioned to me in class that it was probably some marketing ploy, I'm assuming, to make Richard III seem more dramatic. Ian Mckellen succeeded, by far, in bringing the soliloquy of a guilty conscience in Act V Scene III to life. While reading it I couldn't exactly understand the frame of mind Richard III was in, but his performance made his struggle with guilt very clear.
I give this movie 4 stars based on how true it stayed to and how well it portrayed the original Shakespeare text. It didn't receive 5 stars from me on the basis that it after watching the movie, I didn't feel like there was much more that I gained from it than if I had only read the text. Shakespeare does so well in making the characters come alive, and the movie made some of the characters more tame than my mind did while I was reading. That was a disappointment.
