Looking for Richard
- 1996
- Tous publics
- 1h 52min
NOTE IMDb
7,3/10
8,7 k
MA NOTE
Des documentaristes suivent l’acteur Al Pacino alors qu’il travaille sur la production de l’œuvre de Shakespeare "Richard III ", qu’il interviewe ses collègues acteurs sur la valeur de la pi... Tout lireDes documentaristes suivent l’acteur Al Pacino alors qu’il travaille sur la production de l’œuvre de Shakespeare "Richard III ", qu’il interviewe ses collègues acteurs sur la valeur de la pièce et qu’il joue certaines scènes à leurs côtés.Des documentaristes suivent l’acteur Al Pacino alors qu’il travaille sur la production de l’œuvre de Shakespeare "Richard III ", qu’il interviewe ses collègues acteurs sur la valeur de la pièce et qu’il joue certaines scènes à leurs côtés.
- Récompenses
- 2 victoires et 4 nominations au total
Histoire
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThe film was shot over four years during and around Al Pacino's filming schedule, also while he was not working on any major film projects. This is visible during the film because he is seen growing a beard and hair cut for the film L'Impasse (1993) as one example.
- GaffesIn discussion, Pacino and co. are studying the "*G* of Edward's heirs the murderer shall be," and decide, since it's supposed to refer to Clarence, that they'll change it to "'C" of Edward's heir's." The problem is, since characters in the play are referred to both by their name and by their title, the prophecy very deliberately refers to Richard, Duke of GLOUCESTER and GEORGE, Duke of Clarence. With "G" the prophecy is true. If you change it to "C" the prophecy becomes false, and can no longer refer to two people.
- Citations
Barbara Everett: Irony is only hypocrisy with style.
- Bandes originalesHe's Got The Whole World In His Hands
Written by Robert Lindon and William Henry
Commentaire à la une
I love this stuff. But not because it is good -- because it is so bad and the fates have built into the very work a commentary why. And the commentary is by Shakespeare! Wonderful.
Issues
There's a real issue here that is just skirted at the beginning. Should Shakespeare be turned over to actors? Or should someone with a larger vision than mere visceral emotion be in charge and, well. direct, This is a very cogent question with Shakespeare. Clearly, the later plays are not actor's plays but are about ideas. The early plays, like say Romeo and Juliet are clearly actor's plays. They are about people and situations and human motivators. Hamlet is both an early and a later play, as it was rewritten and expanded. Actors alone have a terrible time giving us something whole out of Hamlet.
Richard is a problem too. It is an early play, written while Shakespeare himself was an actor and still learning. Probably, some scenes were written by Marlowe. But it is a huge vision, and one must look at it whole and then abstract the threads that work. You can't build up something that works from immediate emotions and paste it together as Pacino attempts. All this produces are disconnected scenes that don't work together. And that's what we have here.
Another issue. Shakespeare is work. It is work for us all, on both sides of the stage. Earnestness counts for nothing. Pacino's experiment is to get a bunch of non-Shakespearean film folks together. `We won't even work out who has what part.' We watch them stumble about. How revealing, especially when we see snippets from real actors: Redgrave, Branagh, Jacobi, Gielgud. But sigh, no acting from them here.
The real issue: Pacino jumps into his roles with a heaviness that he wears and which pricks and grates. He generates nothing from inside, just spits about. Even if there were some subtle understandings that a group of actors could collaboratively find, it could never occur from this sort of crass in your face mugging.
Richard is a usurper who both charms and forces his way to kingdom. But he doesn't have the internal clockworks to actually connect with his people. Likewise, in this role, Pacino tries to catapult past the basic work -- he forces himself into this role by dint of force without earning it. So he cannot connect with us, his audience.
This is wonderfully educational.
Issues
There's a real issue here that is just skirted at the beginning. Should Shakespeare be turned over to actors? Or should someone with a larger vision than mere visceral emotion be in charge and, well. direct, This is a very cogent question with Shakespeare. Clearly, the later plays are not actor's plays but are about ideas. The early plays, like say Romeo and Juliet are clearly actor's plays. They are about people and situations and human motivators. Hamlet is both an early and a later play, as it was rewritten and expanded. Actors alone have a terrible time giving us something whole out of Hamlet.
Richard is a problem too. It is an early play, written while Shakespeare himself was an actor and still learning. Probably, some scenes were written by Marlowe. But it is a huge vision, and one must look at it whole and then abstract the threads that work. You can't build up something that works from immediate emotions and paste it together as Pacino attempts. All this produces are disconnected scenes that don't work together. And that's what we have here.
Another issue. Shakespeare is work. It is work for us all, on both sides of the stage. Earnestness counts for nothing. Pacino's experiment is to get a bunch of non-Shakespearean film folks together. `We won't even work out who has what part.' We watch them stumble about. How revealing, especially when we see snippets from real actors: Redgrave, Branagh, Jacobi, Gielgud. But sigh, no acting from them here.
The real issue: Pacino jumps into his roles with a heaviness that he wears and which pricks and grates. He generates nothing from inside, just spits about. Even if there were some subtle understandings that a group of actors could collaboratively find, it could never occur from this sort of crass in your face mugging.
Richard is a usurper who both charms and forces his way to kingdom. But he doesn't have the internal clockworks to actually connect with his people. Likewise, in this role, Pacino tries to catapult past the basic work -- he forces himself into this role by dint of force without earning it. So he cannot connect with us, his audience.
This is wonderfully educational.
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Looking for Richard?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- À la recherche de Richard III
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 1 408 575 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 33 843 $US
- 13 oct. 1996
- Montant brut mondial
- 1 408 575 $US
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was Looking for Richard (1996) officially released in India in English?
Répondre