Shakespeare boring?!? (Looking For Richard (DVD))

Member Name: TJ-Mackey

Product:	Looking For Richard (DVD)
Date:	30/01/01 (252 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Interesting discussions and views on the Bard

Disadvantages: Pacino can be a bit OTT

Murder, betrayal and treachery, and that’s just skimming the surface. Yet Shakespeare’s work is described by one passer-by in this film as boring, and another even goes as far as saying "it sucks".

How to bring Richard III, perhaps the Bard’s most complex play, to the masses, is the question Al Pacino posed himself before making this film. Why is it that despite its almost universal acclaim from scholars, Shakespeare’s work is not appreciated more by the general public? And is there a deep-rooted problem that prevents American actors from successfully performing his plays?

Part documentary, part re-enactment, 'Looking for Richard' is clearly a very personal project for Al Pacino, who spent nearly four years producing, directing and starring in this delightfully curious film. His intention was to bridge the gap that exists between modern American audiences and the language & culture of Shakespearean society, and he uses Richard III as a vehicle for achieving this.

By interspersing action from the play, discussion of certain scenes, man-on-the-street interviews, and viewpoints from both scholars and his own contemporaries, Pacino delivers a thought-provoking and ultimately inspiring film. By the time the final credits rolled, I really wanted to see a full production of Richard III, and, in my case at least, this shows that Pacino has achieved his objective.

What surprised me the most about 'Looking for Richard' was the originality of Pacino’s approach to the film. Discussion of Shakespeare is something that could easily have ended up being boring and pedantic, but in Pacino’s hands, it becomes both interesting and enjoyable. Even for someone with no appreciation of Shakespeare’s plays, I’d imagine this film would still spark some interest, even if it were just to prove Pacino wrong.

The film actually begins with little concentration on the scenes and
dialogue from the play itself, but rather we follow Pacino and others as they walk the streets of New York. Stopping to talk to passers-by, we see different attitudes towards Shakespeare and more specifically, Richard III. One gentleman, when asked if he likes Shakespeare, replies, "Yes, of course", but when questioned further, admits he hasn’t seen any of his plays. Another man claims Shakespeare is boring, and another only recognises Pacino’s description of Richard III when presented with the oft-quoted, "A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse".

One item that is discussed is the language of Shakespeare’s plays. Although some of it may be hard to decipher, Pacino emphasises an important point by reminding us that we don’t need to understand every line from the play; the overall gist of the scene is what’s important.

Therefore, don’t expect a complete reproduction of Richard III here, as you won’t find it. Only the principal scenes from the play are acted out by Pacino and others, and this is more to provoke discussion than anything else. You can gather the basic plot of the play from these segments, but like I said earlier, it’s more likely to inspire you to see the full production. Also provided by Pacino are some useful and interesting voice-overs, which help to explain some of the story behind the play for those unfamiliar with the history.

The most intriguing parts of the film for me are the often heated discussions between the actors while rehearsing and discussing their lines. One aspect of preparing for a play that sometimes isn’t considered is the intentions of the characters, so it is interesting to watch as this develops around the table during rehearsal. Al Pacino is clearly very passionate about Shakespeare, and so is co-writer Frederic Kimball, so when they disagree on a particular point it makes for fascinating viewing.

Insights from other a
ctors also provide some interesting viewpoints. Conversations with Kenneth Branaugh, Derek Jacobi and in particular Vanessa Redgrave shed some light on why sometimes, American actors find it difficult to adapt to Shakespeare. Despite the presence of so many well-respected actors though, this is definitely Pacino’s film.

Whether it’s when we’re glued to his portrayal of the eponymous Richard, or when he’s energetically roaming the streets of New York, baseball cap turned backwards, we can’t help but be captivated by Pacino’s passion for the subject. Although at times the film seems to veer off course (a visit to the Globe theatre and Shakespeare’s birthplace in Stratford don’t really have much purpose), it is nevertheless well worth watching.

Where 'Looking for Richard' succeeds the most though is in reminding us that Shakespeare isn’t boring at all. His plays are both fascinating and complex, and I’m sure you’ll be wanting to see more of them after watching this film.

Summary: