Richard III

Again, we see another example of a great 'lost' film. This is without a doubt the best Richard III on film (or in this case on videotape). Why, oh why, are so many such great films like this consigned to a film vault somewhere, gathering dust, when they could be making their owners lots of cash??? It's incredible to me that great works of cinematic and TV art are in danger of being permanently lost to us, while lesser works are on videotape and DVD in various versions including letterboxed, full screen, special edition, etc.

This teleplay is among the best British TV dramas ever produced. Won't someone please get great British TV dramas like this released on DVD???

Not easy to follow on from the three part 'Henry VI', two parts of which in my view solid but not great and the third part being very good. And it is hard not to expect a lot, when Richard III is one of Shakespeare's most fascinating characters, and not just as a "villain", and he was also interesting as a historical figure. 'Richard III' may not be among my favourite Shakespeare plays, but it is so easy to seee why it is performed as much as it is and why it is so widely discussed.

'Richard III' is one of the longest in length of the uneven but very interesting (and on the whole a must watch) BBC Television Shakespeare series, excepting the ones that by tradition were in one than one part. So 'Henry IV' and 'Henry VI'. To me, and quite a few others it seems, it is one of the series' best and one of the best and also more faithful and complete versions of 'Richard III'. Worthy of more attention and should be pretty much the version to be shown in schools, if studying the play.

Sure it is not the most visually sumptuous of productions, the productions in the BBC Television Shakespeare were made on a low budget and that was evident in some productions, but most overcame that and still didn't manage to look too bad in the process. 'Richard III' is one of the better examples of that. It still manages to look well designed and atmospheric as well being in good tastes, no questionable touches here. The camera work is very good with enough intimacy, with no gimmicks, chaos or restriction. Didn't feel to me like it was too much of a filmed play.

To me, the staging was compelling and didn't get overly-busy or dull, neither did it feel emotionally cold. There was plenty of movement and there is a lot going on in the quite complex plot, without feeling rushed or over-complicated. The climactic battle of Bosworth field scene was especially well done, the touch at the very end was interesting to say the least and not one to forget in a hurry.

Cannot fault the cast. Ron Cook is as excellent as he was before in the 'Henry VI' three parter, but now with Richard even more interesting and with a much bigger role (from a sizeable supporting role to one of Shakespeare's most fascinating and most talked about lead characters) he is even better. Really liked his understated subtlety, which did stop him from doing into stock villain territory (Richard isn't that really), but he is also suitably malevolent. He does well with the challenges of the physical side of the role, speaking as a scoliosis sufferer myself before my pretty traumatic major spinal surgery. Have spoken a lot about him, slightly unintentional but somewhat appropriate considering the role.

But one mustn't overlook the rest of the cast, and it is the acting that other than Shakespeare's timeless writing that is one of the production's biggest strengths. Standouts being Rowena Cooper's dignified Elizabeth and especially Julia Foster's ruthless Margaret (more interesting and much more juicily written role than in the 'Henry VI' three parter, and by now Foster, who didn't do it for me at first in 'Henry VI' has really grown into the role and made it her own. Brian Protheroe doesn't overdo the bluster thankfully and Paul Jesson is an interesting Clarence. Interesting to see Zoe Wanamaker and Annette Crosbie. Those doing more than one character, intriguing and brave choice, do a great job making each character different from each other which helps not confuse the drama.

In conclusion, wonderful production and the 'Richard III' to learn from if studying it. 10/10

I'm fairly sure that many educated and interested-in-film folk have seen the superb and terrifying McKellen version, but sadly, I'd bet hardly anyone remembers this version, which in the original was the capstone of the cycle of plays that begins with Richard II and continues through the various Henry plays (six of 'em). The series was cast as a whole, and the list of actors is a who's-who of British acting skill, culminating in this horrorshow of a play. From the opening moments, when the camera pulls back from the last frame of Henry VI, Part III to reveal a small blackboard, onto which a disembodied hand scrawls Richard III in chalk, to the final frame, where Margaret sits, cackling hysterically atop a pile of bodies (all the characters killed in the preceding eight plays), this version assaults you and tests your ability to withstand true, and intentional villainy, as personified in the demonic Richard. See this version...plague the BBC with letters asking for it to be reissued...write to the actors and shower them with adulation..whatever it takes to return this play to the public eye, where it richardly belongs. Cheers!

As a fan of Richard III, I've seen every version produced. I still do not understand why anyone likes Laurence Olivier's version with its grim, heavy-handed performance. Ron Cook is the perfect Richard, upbeat and energetic, sly and humorous, delighting in his mission until the weight of his crimes begin to trouble his conscience. Jane Powell's direction, as she did with Henry VI parts I, II and III (my favorite of the series), keeps the action moving and the characters in sharp focus, especially King Edward, whose final speech is one you'll always remember. This is the Richard that Shakespeare wanted his audience to see, a man of a courage who loses control of his ambition.

That period known in the 15th century as the War Of The Roses ended with the reign of Richard III who has come down to us through a well written play and a host of great actors playing one of the great Machiavellian villains of all time. Was Richard really as bad as all that. He was no saint, but he was living in a time when one of the few saints around was Henry VI of Lancaster and he paid as dearly for sainthood as Richard did for villainy.

If you can get over the fact that Ron Cook who plays Richard III bears an uncanny resemblance to Dudley Moore, you will enjoy this BBC production of The Tragedy Of Richard III. Richard III in his time was called 'Crookback' because he was supposedly a hunchback though it never affected him on the battlefield, even his enemies conceded he was quite the man at arms. That was a bit of Tudor propaganda as spun by the court favorite William Shakespeare.

The two roles that really make this production are that of Rowena Cooper as Elizabeth Woodville, the commoner who married Edward IV and bore him the two sons who were killed in the Tower in 1483. She spent a lot of time making sure her generous and indulgent husband took care of his many in-laws. She transforms remarkably as the Queen enjoying privileges to the distraught mother whose sons were taken and murdered, probably on Richard's wishes if not unwritten orders.

One thing that should be clear. This incident with the murder of the child king Edward V and his brother Richard plays more shocking for today's audience than back at the Globe Theater in Shakespeare's day. People had an abundance of kids because the majority of them died before reaching their majority. And child monarchs mean regencies and regencies always mean court politics on steroids and dynastic challenges. People in those time need only look in Scotland to the north which had a series of child monarchs which weakened the realm so totally that it's only remedy was union with England which happened not long after people saw the first production of this play. And the three parts of Henry VI that led up to the events here began with an infant king and the struggles for power which turned into the War Of The Roses.

The other female role that stands out is Margaret Of Anjou, late the Queen consort of Henry VI who singlehandedly for her husband and son kept the Lancastrian claims going. She was and is a controversial figure in English history still. Julia Foster played her in all the stages of her life in the three parts of Henry VI and in Richard III. Ironically enough this role was eliminated in Laurence Olivier's acclaimed big screen film of this play. But seeing it now that kind of diminishes Olivier's work somewhat. Foster is a bitter figure of passion, grief, and revenge in equal parts as she curses all the new Yorkist royalty and nobility and most especially Richard of Gloucester.

For Richard it was a case of what went around really did come around for him.