Looking for Richard

Looking for Richard frames the essential postmodern question in its own terms: Is this a film about Richard III, or is this a film about a film about Richard III? Cameras follow Al Pacino as he wanders New York, sometimes on foot, but more often in the back of a limousine. We're not sure what he's doing, except it has something to do with Shakespeare's play Richard III. There are rehearsals with familiar actors, and actual performances, some seemingly on stage, some on sets, some on location, all of it interspersed with discussion about the play. Is the play actually to be staged, or is it all a show for the film? We don't know, and really, it doesn't matter. For the most part, this is a pleasant meditation on its subject.

Pacino has chosen a treacherous path: on one side stands the dauntingly complex Shakespeare play, and on the other the patronizing attempts to simplify it for the modern audience. There were several times when I felt talked down to by the actors, but just as many where I felt I benefited from the expanded explanation. Also, with Pacino so vibrantly at the center of every scene and little attention given to others, the film unavoidably has the flavor of a vanity project.

What the film does convey effectively is the power of theater to transport people intellectually and emotionally. The contrast between Pacino's stuttering attempts to summarize certain plot points and his magnificent animation as Richard is fascinating. Like the story (possibly apocryphal) about how Picasso, when asked to explain the meaning of one of his paintings, replied that if he could do that, he wouldn't need to paint, even inarticulate actors possess remarkable powers when inhabiting their roles. This insight was the film's central revelation for me.

My understanding of this movie is that Pacino had been panned for a stage performance of Richard III, and that the motivation behind this movie was to emphasize the seriousness with which Pacino takes his craft. There were some suggestions that Pacino had thought he might be resting on his laurels to some extent, or otherwise thought he could simply perform Shakespeare as he had any previous role. Making this movie was a clear statement that if his previous performance was not up to snuff, he would demonstrate his willingness to learn and desire to be successful in such a challenging role.

I think the movie seems less self-indulgent if viewed in this light, and it is even more fascinating to watch someone who's as highly regarded as Pacino show so much desire and interest in further perfecting his craft.

Al Pacino brings Shakespeare to the common man in this documentary exploring the complexities of Richard III. If you can get past the insinuation that the "every day ordinary man (or woman)" is too slow to understand the intricacies of Shakespeare, you are left with quite an interesting, entertaining film. I have to be honest and say that many people do find Shakespeare a little bewildering, and tackling Richard III, one of his deepest, confusing plays, is no easy task. Therefore, let down your guard, and let the actors and scholars give us their interpretation of this most fascinating play. I found much irony in this simple effort, which made the film all the more enjoyable. In telling us of a story of a man, who wants so badly to become king as to betray all those he knows and loves, we learn the story of a singular, power hungry man, with an urge to rule his people. In his own admission, Pacino himself is on a quest to be the ultimate monarch of his own film, and tell us all, us commoners, the true meaning of this classic work. Whether or not the parallel is intentional, I don't know, but it still makes for interesting story telling. And the ultimate irony of all is that some of the deepest and most intelligent quotes come from interviews with Joe Q. Public; the man on the street.

I saw this movie in English-language version at midnight in April 2004 on a Dutch commercial TV-station. Al Pacino is to be praised for making this movie, of which I have the feeling that it could not be made in these times (are there any indies left?). I was fascinated to see what a gap there is between American and 'European' (i.e. British) ways of tackling the problem of performing a play of Shakespeare: the British interviewees were cool as cucumbers, the American actors (who all do a fine job) were sometimes desperate to find ways of passage through the labyrinth of the play. Pacino used a fine parallel: he made a historic event (the play written by Shakespeare) into a work of art, as did Shakespeare when he turned the rise and fall of the Richard III of the fifteenth century into a play. I think Pacino also tried to do something with one of the most fascinating Shakespearean themes: how life and play (or: men and actors) are intertwined and often cannot be separated. But Pacino could not elaborate on that, probably because he felt that the film otherwise would be too long. Pacino did well in trying to find the most appropriate locations for the scenes. I was mesmerized to see how Richard could do all that he wanted when inside castles and towers, but was at a loss when he found himself in the open fields. Al Pacino, there are still a lot of Shakespeare's plays waiting for you!

Who would have thought that an Italian from New York City could play Richard the 3rd. ? Al Pacino is marvellous as he searches the stage and beyond for the true Richard the 3rd. Kevin Spacey, Winonna Ryder, and Alex Baldwin are just some who join him in the journey as he wonders the streets of New York and London for the true love of Shakespeare.