Olga, Masha, and Irina Prozoroff lead lonely and purposeless lives following the death of their father who has commanded the local army post. Olga attempts to find satisfaction in teaching ... See full summary »
A duke usurps his brother's land and power, banishing him and his retinue into the forest of Arden. The banished duke's daughter, Rosalind, remains with her cousin Celia. She has fallen in ... See full summary »
Antonio's friend Bassanio is in love and needs money to go courting. Using Antonio as his collateral, he borrows money from Shylock. But when the debt comes due, Shylock demands repayment ... See full summary »
Richard's military skills have helped to put his older brother Edward on the throne of England. But jealousy and resentment cause Richard to seek the crown for himself, and he conceives a lengthy and carefully calculated plan using deception, manipulation, and outright murder to achieve his goal. His plotting soon has tumultuous consequences, both for himself and for England. Written by
Michael Gough got his part (Dighton, the first murderer) by making a fuss to his fellow actor friends about only established stars getting cameo parts and leaving nothing for struggling actors like himself. One night he got a phone call, and a voice said "You've been stirring it, haven't you? Right little shit." Gough demanded to know, "Who is this?" only to be stunned by the response, "It's Larry", which of course was Olivier himself. Olivier in fact was just having some fun at Gough's expense, had taken on board his criticisms and was ringing to offer him the part of one of the murderers in Richard III. When asked which one he wanted to play, Gough quickly said "Whichever one has the most lines", and he got his wish. Olivier actually arranged matters so that Gough's scenes were split over several days, instead of all being done on the one day, so that he, Gough, would maximise his per diem fee. See more »
During the opening credits, the movie is introduced as "Laurence Olivier Present's Richard III by William Shakespeare". The word "Present's" should read "Presents" - the apostrophe is in error. See more »
It's quite a gap that Laurence Olivier covers between his portrayal of heroic Henry V and the evil Richard III. But he certainly does cover it well.
In fact this production boasts the talents of five knighted thespians in its cast, Olivier as Richard, John Gielgud as Clarence, Ralph Richardson as Buckingham, Cedric Hardwicke as Edward IV and Stanley Baker as the Earl of Richmond. That is probably some kind of record.
Once seen you will not forget the heavily made up Olivier with a shylock type nose and hunchbacked form. Unlike in Henry V and in Hamlet the title character's soliliquys are delivered straight to the audience rather than in voice-over. I think Olivier like Shakespeare wanted to emphasize the evilness of Richard as opposed to the tormenting doubts that Henry and Hamlet suffer. No doubts here, he's got his evil course well planned and he's very matter of factly telling his audience what's in store.
Of course when Shakespeare wrote this he was gearing up the Tudor dynasty propaganda machine. Stanley Baker's Earl of Richmond becomes Henry VII grandfather of the Queen whose patronage Shakespeare enjoyed. It was in Tudor family interest to blacken Richard's name to support their own dynastic claims. There have been several plausible theories put forth to claim the murders of Edward V and his brother were done by others.
One guy who in all the stories about Richard III who gets a whitewash is the Duke of Clarence. As portrayed by John Gielgud, Clarence is an innocent sacrificed in Richard's march for the throne. Actually Clarence was quite the schemer himself. He was in communication with Louis XI of France looking for aid in some plotting he was doing. Edward IV overlooked an incredible amount of treachery with him.
One very big flaw is that the film opens with Edward IV being restored to the throne again in 1471 and he has his son with him. Edward IV died in 1483 and the sons have not aged a mite. I believe they were 12 and 9 when they were put to death in the Tower of London in 1483. I'm surprised Olivier had that in his film.
Still and all it's a fabulous production and one should never miss a chance of seeing all that acting nobility in one film.
14 of 15 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?