IMDb RATING
7.3/10
8.6K
YOUR RATING
Al Pacino's deeply felt rumination on Shakespeare's significance and relevance to the modern world through interviews and an in-depth analysis of "Richard III."Al Pacino's deeply felt rumination on Shakespeare's significance and relevance to the modern world through interviews and an in-depth analysis of "Richard III."Al Pacino's deeply felt rumination on Shakespeare's significance and relevance to the modern world through interviews and an in-depth analysis of "Richard III."
- Awards
- 2 wins & 4 nominations
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaThe 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 Carlito's Way (1993) as one example.
- GoofsIn 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.
- Quotes
Barbara Everett: Irony is only hypocrisy with style.
- SoundtracksHe's Got The Whole World In His Hands
Written by Robert Lindon and William Henry
Featured review
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.
- How long is Looking for Richard?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- En busca de Ricardo III
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Gross US & Canada
- $1,408,575
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $33,843
- Oct 13, 1996
- Gross worldwide
- $1,408,575
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content