......King......Richard
LooKing for Richard
Some Americans love Shakespeare. They love his language, wit and insight into human behavior. Others find his work intimidating and too difficult.
Take Richard III. On the one hand it is a simple story: Richard lies, cheats and murders to become king; after gaining this power he self destructs and is killed. On the other hand it is a confusing mass of names, places and events. (i.e.: George's last name is Clarence? Richard's last name is Gloucester? How are they related? They're brothers?!?! And who is this Buckingham guy? Doesn’t he have a palace to look after?)
How can it be made interesting and accessible to an American audience? Can it be done without the “I’m so English it hurts” accents? Without snobbery about “high art” or “the theater?” Can it be done without dumbing it down (i.e.: changing the opening monologue to: “I’m ugly, I never get laid.”)
Al Pacino to the rescue! Pacino gives us what I wish every movie production, live performance and reading of Shakespeare would: the background information we need to understand the characters and plot. When I was in school Cliff Notes tried to do that, but I used them to avoid reading the play, not to understand it. Pacino does not let us get away with that.
He gives us a real chance to learn and enjoy Shakespeare by going through a scene several times. First using modern clothing and language, then with lots of “OK audience, this is what’s going on and this is who these people are.” Only when we have sufficient background does he give us the poetry, the costumes and the ACTING.
In this film Pacino raised many questions about Richard III and Shakespeare in general. Here are some that grabbed my attention (and a few of my own). Any thoughts on these?
*Why was Lady Anne (Wynona Ryder) walking around town with her father-in-law’s corpse? How long has she been doing this?
*Have you ever had a nightmare like Richard’s? (“Despair and die!”)
*“Was ever woman in this humor wooed? Was ever woman in this humor won?”
*Americans loved Shakespeare in the 1800s. What happened?
*And what about the quote by one of the men on the street that the crew spoke with, "If we felt what we said we'd say less and mean more"?
Written by David Greenberg for Lee Paris/Films off the Beaten Path
16 comments:
Many thanks to David Greenberg for being this weeks' 'Guest Blogger'. David has a special place in his heart for this play and I enjoyed having him there to answer my many questions while watching the movie. I sure do love that 'pause' button!
The whole experience reminded me of my college course in Shakespeare. For the first time what had formerly seemed so "intimidating and difficult" became alive and vivid and FUN! My teacher had the gift, as does Pacino, to bring me step by step into this utterly mysterious new (old!) world.I still have not experienced most of the plays on stage. I've seen numerous film adaptations, some brilliant, some beyond bad. I had a blast watching this. LEM, LLI,WWW,EOS.
I happen to be a fan, BIG TIME of Pacino, so honestly, if the camera were to have spent the two hours on a tripod watching him read Moby Dick I would have been enthralled. LEM.
I recently read the book 'Al Pacino in Conversations with Lawrence Grobel' as I too am a fan BIG TIME. I thought I'd go back and re-read the parts where he talks about this film. Here are a few quotes from Pacino:
"Richard is different for me onstage.It's also different if I'm playing it in the context of a play or a movie.....but I was being kind of a moderator for Looking for Richard, so my Richard was colored by my own moderation of it. It didn't quite have the kind of thing I would do if I had a director and I was doing Richard alone. I would have approached it much more seriously. I was doing it more tongue in cheek for the film..."
"I was trying to open a door to something. But more than anything else, I was trying to get people to relate to Richard III, to feel it, to get a sense of it. That's really what I wanted to do, more than educate the masses. Shakespeare doesn't need me for that."
" But I'll tell you this, Looking for Richard has cured me of documentary filmmaking. It's easier to do something already written than this freewheeling spinning and putting it together."
I'll add one quote here from a negative review of the film in the Los Angeles Times, "Pacino the director can in no way resist shots of Pacino the actor goofing around and so overdoing things...It's hard to imagine this film exciting anyone except Pacino fans and those who are fatally charmed by celebrity actors".
To this I respond, Pacino is by no means a 'celebrity actor'. There is rarely a blip on the radar regarding his personal life, unlike Tom Cruise or other 'celebrity actors'. And yes, I suspect many people find his acting to be 'over the top', but I find that he wisely chooses the roles in which that type of persona is well suited. (ex. Dog Day Afternoon, Scarface, Devil's Advocate, Scent of a Woman.) Maybe NECOT but he sure is mine...Another cup please?!?!
I have just one thing to say.
"A horse, a horse, My kingdom for a horse." LEM.
In answer to "was ever woman in this humor wooed? Was ever woman in this humor won?":
Probably every woman who is involved with an abusive partner. Especialy those who stay not just out of fear but out of their own addiction. "But he LOVES me! THAT's why he acts like this...."
Ok, unlike some here I am not a particular fan of Al Pacino's over-the-top acting style. Still, when he is good - as in Godfather II, Cruising, Dog Day Afternoon, Sea of Love -- he can be very good indeed. Unfortunately, when he is bad -- as he has frequently been -- he is...... well you know the rest. That said, I thoroughly enjoyed Looking for Richard. Perhaps this is partly based on my longtime love of Shakespeare, partly on a passion for the study of history, but most of the credit goes to the movie itself, clearly a labor of love on Pacino's part, and an excellent primer on Richard, Shakespeare and the theater in general. In some ways I found this a surprising project for Pacino. Although I personally loved his restrained and very human performance as Shylock in Merchant of Venice, his infamously disastrous Broadway Richard III of 20 years ago has become the stuff of legend. Was Looking for Richard, perhaps, at least partly an attempt to redeem himself in the eyes of the Bard? If so, it was certainly successful. Unlike some films reviewed in this blog there isn't a whole lot to argue about here. In fact, I see myself as more likely to discuss Looking for Richard with friends who haven't seen it in hopes they will, rather than with those who already have. Nonetheless, while some of the staged scenes work better than others, and this does cause the movie to drag a bit toward the end, overall I found this film intelligent, entertaining, and maybe unexpectedly, fun.
Not to be shallow or anything, but did anyone else notice Alec Baldwin? Man, was he looking FINE......(And the movie was great too.)
Hi Lee, David and Oldman (and "welcome" to the new commers):
I've always enjoyed Pacino & Shakespeare, so I LEMed this film. I saw Pacino's Shylock, but never heard about his Richard3. I'll have to look into that.
I got annoyed during the scene where the actor got all hot and bothered because Pacino said he wanted an academic to help interpert the scene. Actors who talk about how special their profession is, what great artists they are tend to get under my skin. But when the goofy-eyed academic proved to be inept, I saw the actor's point: they have been performing Shakespeare for 400 years, they have passed it down to us and will continue to do so till the "crack of doom" (a phrase invented by Shakespeare).
I got annoyed with Pacino the film maker at the same time. Mr Pacino (and documentary film makers in general), If you're going to interview someone, make sure he has something interesting to say. Especially if you've just set up tension around what he has to offer. There are hundreds of scholars who could have offered something other than "I dont know" at that point in the film. It was an obvious set up, and I felt cheated.
i have to agree with anon .who cares what he does. however this was a good teaching too for me and i enjoyed every minute. oldman and cherri, i really do ebjoy your dialoges. keep it up.
Hello! We love Pacino, we love the play and we love the film! One of our favorite scenes is when Al and his friend go to visit the Bard's birth site expecting an 'epiphany' but do not have one.Al says to his pal(paraphrase here) that'yes i did have one, but being such a great actor I'm able to not show it...why don't you go out and come in again and maybe you'll have one too.."
And we want to note that the entire last discussion (Children of Heaven) was fantastic. Especially the last few posts by Oldman and Cherry. Potent, dynamic and well written. EOS and WWR(well worth reading).
I have not written in since the first posting in January, but true to my word have watched every film so far. Really excellent choices. I'd say 'After the Wedding' was my favorite and 'Richard' my least, but not one was not WWW. I got quite a kick out of the controversy regarding 'Feed' (which I happened to like, out there for sure but strangely MCOT) and I too felt BMM by the last conversation about 'Children of Heaven'. It was such a simple movie and yet look at all the intense reactions it produced.
Great to hear from you Buffer Nutter! So happy to hear you liked 'Feed'. Not too many of us around! Thanks for checking back in.
Cadence, I found your comment really interesting and have thought a lot about it since you wrote.
NeverTooSoon, yep, I surely did notice Mr. Baldwin. How could I not?!
O.K., so long as we're dishing about guys, Folke from Kitchen Stories was yummy.
Ah yes, Folke, quite the hunk......
Let's face it Flickchick, as the lyrics in the theme song from 'After the Wedding' tell us:
"IT'S RAINING MEN, HALLELUJAH...."
Hello, everyone! Hope you're all enjoying the spring!
In response to David:
Some Americans love Shakespeare. They love his language, wit and insight into human behavior. Others find his work intimidating and too difficult.
Yeah, so I fit into the second group. The only professional performance of Shakespeare I've ever been to was of Richard III. Of that performance, the only thing I really remembered was that King Richard savagely kissed some woman and grabbed her ass at the end of a scene. I'm guessing the woman was the character that Winona Ryder played; can't imagine that it was the Queen. Then again, that's all I can remember, so I'm not sure. I'd forgotten that the king was a hunchback with a limp and a lame arm until the shot of Al Pacino in character limping down some outdoor steps. Was extremely interested to hear him say that Richard III is the most performed play, even over Hamlet. I was like, whoa, yeah, I've seen it. And then when he said people don't remember anything from the play, I was like, whoa, yeah, I don't.
Can it be done without dumbing it down (i.e.: changing the opening monologue to: “I’m ugly, I never get laid.”)
Well, but for all of that, I didn't quite get the gist of that King Richard monologue until I read the "I'm ugly, I never get laid" bit. Now it makes more sense. Thanks very much for that!
He gives us a real chance to learn and enjoy Shakespeare by going through a scene several times.
Yeah. I got the feeling that hefty kudos are due to the film editors on the flow and structure of the film. It was totally great. LEM.
*Have you ever had a nightmare like Richard’s? (“Despair and die!”)
I don't even have to be asleep to have those.
*Americans loved Shakespeare in the 1800s. What happened?
Hannah Montana? (This is for our much beloved friend Carmine.)
And what about the quote by one of the men on the street that the crew spoke with, "If we felt what we said we'd say less and mean more"?
Wasn't the full quote something like, "If we felt what we said we'd say less and mean more. [Walks away, and then without missing a beat:] Spare some change?"
What was Lee saying about it's raining men? That guy had all his chakras open minus a few teeth. He sounded like he understands a thing or two. Along the lines of anonymous's thinking, I'd be happy watching this guy read Moby Dick for two hours.
Okay, so who were those women? The Queen and the crazy former Queen. Let's see, imdb.com tells me they are Penelope Allen who played Queen Elizabeth, and Estelle Parsons who played Margaret. They were both great, but Penelope Allen, yeah, wow. My boyfriend thought so too. When they were in rehearsal, she was a tidal wave. It was total woman get thee to an anger management class time. She was unholy and glorious. Estelle Parsons was also great and wild; somehow I really liked her hair in costume. Meshed really well with her inner mental state.
In response to the quotes that Lee posted:
[Al Pacino said:] "I was doing it more tongue in cheek for the film..."
So on the dvd that my boyfriend and I watched, there was an Epilogue where Al Pacino was talking with a professor about the film. And there was one part where he said that he was at an advance screening of the film, and halfway through it he felt this urge to get up and tell the audience something like, hey, look, I was only joking. I really appreciated him saying that. Could very well imagine that a film like this could feel really exposing, like barfing all your love for Shakespeare out on a plate for all to see. To really let loose and play around -- guess not everyone's generous enough (or as Alec Baldwin pointed out in the same Epilogue, not everyone has people's attention in the form of star power enough) to do that for something as monolithic and couched in tradition as Shakespeare.
Um, Lee, the other thing I really appreciated Al Pacino mentioning in the Epilogue was that he didn't sleep very much during the making of this film. That he was really caught up in the larger energy of the project, and he really just went with it. Reminded me very much of some things that friends of ours have said. I'm guessing that same access to that kind of energy is behind what you mentioned about his acting:
And yes, I suspect many people find his acting to be 'over the top', but I find that he wisely chooses the roles in which that type of persona is well suited. (ex. Dog Day Afternoon, Scarface, Devil's Advocate, Scent of a Woman.) Maybe NECOT but he sure is mine...Another cup please?!?!
And oldman also referred to his over-the-top acting. I'm not too familiar with Al Pacino's films, but what I've seen of them, and certainly in this film, he seems to be a force to be reckoned with. I agree with Lee that however it is he does it, it works and seems appropriate somehow. Another cup sounds about right to me. :)
cadence wrote:
"But he LOVES me! THAT's why he acts like this...."
Yeah, Shakespeare's messing in some pretty deep stuff there, isn't he. I randomly picked up a book the other day on Shakespeare's philosophy, where the author (who's a philosopher) says that while some authors reflect the world and make people see it tinted through their particular shade of glasses or whatever, Shakespeare is conspicuously absent and just kind of depicts things as they are without leaving any kind of personal residue on the whole matter, what the philosopher called Shakespearean naturalism. I'd say Shakespeare recorded the whole dysfunctional relationship psychology down pretty good with that Lady Anne scene, and I thought Al Pacino and Winona Ryder's take on it was quite honest, too.
nevertoosoon said:
did anyone else notice Alec Baldwin?
%^D Seems like at least bitsie and Lee did! I randomly saw him do an over-the-top character in Along Came Polly. He was pitch perfect and brilliant. To see him do that and then see him do Clarence in this film -- your man there has a lot of talent. :)
Hi, breather! You wrote:
I got annoyed during the scene where the actor got all hot and bothered because Pacino said he wanted an academic to help interpert the scene.
I loved the hot and botheredness. I'm sorry I can't find the name of the guy who seemed to be Al Pacino's righthand man in the film and was the one who got all hot and bothered. It looked like he could use an anger management class, too. But it seemed like he deeply cared about what he was shouting about. I appreciated the fact that he cared.
But I also agree with you. Was a little unegalitarian of him to dump on academics that way. Academics are people, too. I think.
kate&jim wrote:
One of our favorite scenes is when Al and his friend go to visit the Bard's birth site expecting an 'epiphany' but do not have one.
I thought that was hilarious, too. %^D Don't know what it was about that scene. Something to do with myth hitting reality. Like it's Shakespeare, and it's a tiny, low-ceilinged room, and Al Pacino looking at bit scraggly and his over-the-top friend being over-the-top. Just a great moment.
oldman, I agree with bitsie, kate&jim and buffer nutter -- really enjoy your comments, as always! Hope everything's going well and that you're writing more songs!
Thanks, David & Lee for this film review and for the blog! Here's to lots more of the same!
P.S. For the record, my top movie crush still goes out to Mr. Pinkie. I'll try not to swoon long enough to get this post posted.
Post a Comment