|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
Richard Loncraine’s Richard III, an adaptation of Shakespeare’s play, stays loyal to the original text while adding a twist of creativity. ... The details of this debate include Loncraine’s changes of characters and setting; through this adaptation, he has created a version which varies significantly from Shakespeare’s play. Is it a literal adaptation of the play, a “movie based on a stage play, in which the dialogue and actions are preserved more or less intact? ... The setting is reimagined from the original 15th century date, yet the film does not seem to recreate the meaning of the text; the film does not tell a different historical story than the text. ... Loncraine’s version of Richard III is a successful literal adaptation.
First, the viewer of a Shakespeare film must explore the unavoidable differences which occur with each play’s transfer to the screen. ... Loncraine and McKellen assert that they meant “to tell it in Shakespeare’s way” and “don’t mean to betray Shakespeare” by changing the actual politics of Richard III (McKellen, 4). ... We still see all the stages in Richard’s ascent to power, all of the people who are prey to his determination.
The film’s most prominent change is setting: the time frame is changed from the original late1400s to the1930s. This a bold change, yet the meaning behind Loncraine’s use of Europe of the 1930s alludes to themes which are in both the play and the history of the Europe. The “story of Richard’s rise and fall provides a critical perspective on the current crisis in the monarchy and on the specter of fascism that has haunted British politics” (Loehlin, 69). ...
In order to enhance the telling of Richard’s story, Loncraine uses the benefits of film and editing: enhanced setting, the ability to be episodic, and varying the perspective of the viewer. ... The abrasive, violent change in angles is symbolic of the battle - it announces exactly how “Richard Glouster is at hand” (Loncraine, 1995). ... The techniques used in this establishing scene does just that - Richard is established as a murderer, information that is necessary in order to follow the rest of the story and understand the characters’ relationships with each other. Although the film takes the liberty of having Richard himself killed Henry and Edward, which is never specified in the play, it is irrelevant because it is because of Richard that they died - no matter who did the actual killing.
Despite all this evil, Richard is not altogether unpleasant as a character; his actions are evil, but in his repertoire with others he manages to be bearable, perhaps in his attempt to be charming or win mass support. This, in contrast to the play, makes Richard slightly more well-rounded than Shakespeare’s Richard. ... Loncraine successfully gives more depth to the somewhat flat characters of the play; Rivers is an example of this. ... Loncraine does take great liberty in the setting of which the dialogue is spoken, such as Richard’s opening speech, and thus gives them different impact, yet the accuracy of the words is neither neglected nor deformed.
Although this opening scene introduces Richard as a killer and conqueror, the viewer is yet unaware of the motivation behind his actions: it is not known why he committed such ruthless murders. ... This ballroom party tells of the complex infrastructure which will develop into the plot: there are too many important people in one place and too many possibilities for a power struggle for someone such as Richard who wants to solely posses all the importance and power.
Approximate Word count = 2863
Approximate Pages = 11.5
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|