England, the 1930s. A vicious civil war comes to and end with the death of the King and his heir at the hands of Field Marshal Richard Gloucester. This opens the way for Richard's elder brother Edward to take the throne.
Edward shouldn't make himself too comfortable, though, because Richard has no intention of remaining just the King's brother. It's true that the new monarch has two sons, but the eldest is only 12, and should anything happen to the King, is there anything a couple of boys could really do to stop the plans of an ambitious man?
Richard III is a work of 16th century propaganda by one William Shakespeare, who - whatever your opinions of his skills as a playwright - certainly knew on what side his political bread was buttered. Elizabeth I was on the throne, and it was her grandfather who deposed Richard III, so it is perhaps no surprise that this play sets out to paint the House of York as either evil incarnate (ol' Dicky 3 himself) or naive and foolish patsies who are oblivious to his scheme (everyone else). Even before one takes the fact that the film transplants the action to 500 years after the actual reign of Richard III, this is not interested in telling the story of what really happened (Richard's brother George, for instance, is depicted as a naive and trusting dupe when in real life he betrayed and fought against his elder brother Edward in an attempt to take the throne for himself).
What I am saying is, don't be watching this as true account of history. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't watch it. It's a good film, with a strong cast, and Ian McKellen is a great choice of lead as the malevolent Richard Gloucester. If you can cope with the Shakespearean language (which is not updated, despite the 20th century setting), then it's worth your time.
No comments:
Post a Comment