This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/apr/01/richard-iii-laurence-olivier-reel-history-accurate

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Richard III: Laurence Olivier’s melodramatic baddie is seriously limp Richard III: Laurence Olivier’s melodramatic baddie is seriously limp
(5 days later)
Richard III (1955)Director: Laurence OlivierEntertainment grade: B+History grade: D–Richard III (1955)Director: Laurence OlivierEntertainment grade: B+History grade: D–
Richard III is one of the most notorious kings in English history. His popularity has revived since his long-lost remains were discovered beneath a Leicester car park in 2012.Richard III is one of the most notorious kings in English history. His popularity has revived since his long-lost remains were discovered beneath a Leicester car park in 2012.
SourcesSources
The film opens with a subtle disclaimer:The film opens with a subtle disclaimer:
Here now begins one of the most famous, and at the same time, the most infamous of the legends that are attached to the crown of England.Here now begins one of the most famous, and at the same time, the most infamous of the legends that are attached to the crown of England.
Can’t say fairer than calling this a legend. Laurence Olivier recut and altered William Shakespeare’s play, which had a distinct bias for the Tudors and against the Plantagenets. Shakespeare’s sources included Raphael Holinshed’s pro-Tudor Chronicles; Thomas More’s History of King Richard III, written when he was still very much a Tudor supporter; and the Anglica Historia of the historian Polydore Vergil, who had once been thrown into the Tower of London for annoying Henry VIII and therefore generally tried to keep the Tudors as sweet as possible.Can’t say fairer than calling this a legend. Laurence Olivier recut and altered William Shakespeare’s play, which had a distinct bias for the Tudors and against the Plantagenets. Shakespeare’s sources included Raphael Holinshed’s pro-Tudor Chronicles; Thomas More’s History of King Richard III, written when he was still very much a Tudor supporter; and the Anglica Historia of the historian Polydore Vergil, who had once been thrown into the Tower of London for annoying Henry VIII and therefore generally tried to keep the Tudors as sweet as possible.
The only one of these historians who was alive and in England during Richard’s reign was More, who was seven years old at the time of the Battle of Bosworth Field – though he is thought to have based his account on a first-hand story. There are, therefore, at least four layers of interpretation and wilful dramatic exaggeration standing between the real Richard III, and Laurence Olivier prancing about onscreen with a fake nose, rolling his Rs like there’s no tomorrrrrow and threatening to kill everyone.The only one of these historians who was alive and in England during Richard’s reign was More, who was seven years old at the time of the Battle of Bosworth Field – though he is thought to have based his account on a first-hand story. There are, therefore, at least four layers of interpretation and wilful dramatic exaggeration standing between the real Richard III, and Laurence Olivier prancing about onscreen with a fake nose, rolling his Rs like there’s no tomorrrrrow and threatening to kill everyone.
CharacterCharacter
Having said that, Olivier’s performance is terrific. It’s far too camp and stagey for cinema, really, as are the luridly coloured costumes and absurdly clean and tidy “medieval” sets. But he is magnetic to watch as he delivers his scheming monologues straight to camera. It is impossible not to be reminded of Frank Underwood in House of Cards (or Francis Urquhart in the earlier BBC version).Having said that, Olivier’s performance is terrific. It’s far too camp and stagey for cinema, really, as are the luridly coloured costumes and absurdly clean and tidy “medieval” sets. But he is magnetic to watch as he delivers his scheming monologues straight to camera. It is impossible not to be reminded of Frank Underwood in House of Cards (or Francis Urquhart in the earlier BBC version).
Olivier’s Richard is the charismatic antihero who, confiding directly in you as the viewer, makes you complicit in his plots and crimes. “I’ll have her,” he says casually of the widowed Anne Neville (Claire Bloom), “but I will not keep her long.” Olivier changed Shakespeare’s play so that Richard seduces Anne not at the coffin of her father-in-law, Henry VI, but at that of her husband, his son Edward. Historically, this is an approximately acceptable switch. Both men died in May 1471, though Edward was killed at the Battle of Tewkesbury and was buried at the abbey there.Olivier’s Richard is the charismatic antihero who, confiding directly in you as the viewer, makes you complicit in his plots and crimes. “I’ll have her,” he says casually of the widowed Anne Neville (Claire Bloom), “but I will not keep her long.” Olivier changed Shakespeare’s play so that Richard seduces Anne not at the coffin of her father-in-law, Henry VI, but at that of her husband, his son Edward. Historically, this is an approximately acceptable switch. Both men died in May 1471, though Edward was killed at the Battle of Tewkesbury and was buried at the abbey there.
PhysicalityPhysicality
The real Richard’s skeleton shows he suffered from scoliosis – which made him short, but not especially misshapen. He is not thought to have walked with a limp. More’s description of him, laced with Tudor contempt for the physically imperfect – “little of stature, ill-fetured of limmes, croke-backed” – informed the lines Shakespeare gives to Queen Margaret, who calls him a “poisonous bunch back’d toad” and a “bottled spider”. Olivier has, if anything, toned this down. His Richard has only a mild limp, a withered hand and some quite subtle padding on the back, which just makes him seem stocky. Historians may nearly approve.The real Richard’s skeleton shows he suffered from scoliosis – which made him short, but not especially misshapen. He is not thought to have walked with a limp. More’s description of him, laced with Tudor contempt for the physically imperfect – “little of stature, ill-fetured of limmes, croke-backed” – informed the lines Shakespeare gives to Queen Margaret, who calls him a “poisonous bunch back’d toad” and a “bottled spider”. Olivier has, if anything, toned this down. His Richard has only a mild limp, a withered hand and some quite subtle padding on the back, which just makes him seem stocky. Historians may nearly approve.
CrimeCrime
The biggest controversy of Richard’s reign is the case of the princes in the Tower. These two boys – 12-year-old King Edward V and his brother, nine-year-old Richard, Duke of York – were taken to the inner apartments of the Tower of London after Richard’s accession. They were never seen again after the summer of 1483. It cannot be said definitively that the princes were murdered, for no confirmed remains have been found. Two skeletons were found in the Tower in the 17th century, which may be their remains, but the Church of England refuses to allow DNA tests.The biggest controversy of Richard’s reign is the case of the princes in the Tower. These two boys – 12-year-old King Edward V and his brother, nine-year-old Richard, Duke of York – were taken to the inner apartments of the Tower of London after Richard’s accession. They were never seen again after the summer of 1483. It cannot be said definitively that the princes were murdered, for no confirmed remains have been found. Two skeletons were found in the Tower in the 17th century, which may be their remains, but the Church of England refuses to allow DNA tests.
Was Richard an innocent man unjustly blamed for their deaths, or was his funeral last week – complete with tearful crowds clutching white York roses, the Countess of Wessex and Benedict Cumberbatch (Richard’s third cousin, 16 times removed, gasped divine-right fetishists) – a tasteless glorification of a double child-murderer?Was Richard an innocent man unjustly blamed for their deaths, or was his funeral last week – complete with tearful crowds clutching white York roses, the Countess of Wessex and Benedict Cumberbatch (Richard’s third cousin, 16 times removed, gasped divine-right fetishists) – a tasteless glorification of a double child-murderer?
Shakespeare and Polly Toynbee also claim he murdered his wife, though historians are pretty convinced she died naturally of tuberculosis). Nor is he really thought to have contrived the deaths of her former husband, her father-in-law, or his own brother George, Duke of Clarence (John Gielgud). But the case of the princes in the Tower remains open – and controversial.Shakespeare and Polly Toynbee also claim he murdered his wife, though historians are pretty convinced she died naturally of tuberculosis). Nor is he really thought to have contrived the deaths of her former husband, her father-in-law, or his own brother George, Duke of Clarence (John Gielgud). But the case of the princes in the Tower remains open – and controversial.
BattleBattle
Olivier chose to film the Battle of Bosworth Field in Spain, where the parched brown grass failed to resemble the green fields of Leicestershire. It’s not one of cinema’s great battle scenes, anyway. Dwarfed by the epic Spanish landscape, 500 extras simply could not pass for the 26,000 or so soldiers involved in the real thing. The film-makers win realism points for using real arrows, though this didn’t work out well either. Olivier was trying to film an archer bringing down Richard’s horse, which had been fitted with padding to protect it from injury. Unfortunately, Olivier moved as the archer took his shot – and the arrow went straight through his leg. Apparently Oliver was such a pro that he made sure the scene was perfect before he submitted to the attentions of a doctor. Filming was not held up: Olivier had already been affecting that historically inaccurate limp on his left leg, and luckily that was the one that got injured.Olivier chose to film the Battle of Bosworth Field in Spain, where the parched brown grass failed to resemble the green fields of Leicestershire. It’s not one of cinema’s great battle scenes, anyway. Dwarfed by the epic Spanish landscape, 500 extras simply could not pass for the 26,000 or so soldiers involved in the real thing. The film-makers win realism points for using real arrows, though this didn’t work out well either. Olivier was trying to film an archer bringing down Richard’s horse, which had been fitted with padding to protect it from injury. Unfortunately, Olivier moved as the archer took his shot – and the arrow went straight through his leg. Apparently Oliver was such a pro that he made sure the scene was perfect before he submitted to the attentions of a doctor. Filming was not held up: Olivier had already been affecting that historically inaccurate limp on his left leg, and luckily that was the one that got injured.
DeathDeath
In the end, Richard is surrounded by Yorkists and hacked to death. There are several contemporary accounts of Richard’s demise, but an autopsy on his skeleton showed 11 injuries, nine to the head. They were, according to analysis, consistent with the tradition that he forsook his horse and then died fighting a group of enemies. In the end, Richard is surrounded by enemy soldiers and hacked to death. There are several contemporary accounts of Richard’s demise, but an autopsy on his skeleton showed 11 injuries, nine to the head. They were, according to analysis, consistent with the tradition that he forsook his horse and then died fighting a group of enemies.
So the film’s ending has turned out to be historically feasible – though Olivier milks it to the max, having the crowd pull back so he may perform his death-throes with unrestrained melodrama. Richard was then stripped naked and trussed like a hog, in a crude mockery of his emblem, the silver boar. Olivier spares Richard, and himself, the full force of this indignity.So the film’s ending has turned out to be historically feasible – though Olivier milks it to the max, having the crowd pull back so he may perform his death-throes with unrestrained melodrama. Richard was then stripped naked and trussed like a hog, in a crude mockery of his emblem, the silver boar. Olivier spares Richard, and himself, the full force of this indignity.
VerdictVerdict
A fine adaptation of Shakespeare’s brilliant but slanderous play. Richard did not commit most of the foul deeds here attributed to him – though there may always be a question mark over his involvement in the disappearance of the princes in the Tower.A fine adaptation of Shakespeare’s brilliant but slanderous play. Richard did not commit most of the foul deeds here attributed to him – though there may always be a question mark over his involvement in the disappearance of the princes in the Tower.