Customer Reviews

Looking for Richard [VHS]

5 star:		(30)
4 star:		(13)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I really like looking behind the scenes of making a film - or, as in this case - putting on a play.

I've been searching for this film for quite a while, and I'm glad it is again available. It's a must-see for students of acting, Shakespeare, or both.

Al Pacino is faced with mounting a free production of Richard III in Central Park. Along the way, he has to assemble his crew of actors and actresses, coordinate the production, and try to get his arms around one of the Bard's more difficult plays.

There is a world of difference in reading Shakespeare, and watching it on stage. I think we've all done penance reading Shakespeare, with mixed results. I've found the language in the abstract (i.e. simply reading the play) to be difficult. Seeing it on stage (or screen) adds the visual element, that makes it more understandable. (After all, the plays were meant to be seen, not read.)

This is a film that will bear watching over and over again. Follow it by watching the play itself.

Highly recommended.

Some reviewers have complained about this film. This is a documentary that illustrates how Shakespeare can be seen as both art and history, both as literature and as entertainment. One reviewer called it an introductory for grade school children. That's exactly the point. "looking for Richard" is an introductory to the complexities and richn ess of Shakespeare and those who act and perform his plays. Certainly the general audience at "The Rose" and "The Globe" were not scholars, teachers or students of English literature or history. Few were alive in 1600 that lived in the days of the last Plantagenet and the first Tudor. To them, history was oral and immediate. Historical accuracy is not high on the Bard's priorities or of in those of his audiences. What matters is the interplay of characters, the tone and thrust of its plot and the relevance to its audiences. Thus there is a correlation between those Renaissance English audiences and most American audiences. How many Americans even know what the "War of the Roses" was about? Most would link it to the Mike Douglas/Kathleen Turner movie before a period of desperate political and military conflict, full of violence and treachery, ambition, greed and pride, in England which almost wiped out the old noble families and set the stage for Henry the VIII and Elizabeth Rex. The play uses the "historical" background to explore these issues. It has also been described as a piece of Tudor propaganda, written to buttress Elizabeth's legitimacy on the throne by painting the loser of the last conflict of the war as a villain, defeated by the hero, her grandfather. All this background and the richness of human emotion contained in the play come forth from this documentary like effort. Given the time constraints it does the best it can to set the stage and then draws you into the art of Shakespeare, as being as relevant today as in the reign of Elizabeth. Yes, it has its flaws, but there is no comparable effort out there that will enage a group of American teenagers and, maybe, just maybe, inspire a couple to give the Bard a second look. Keep in mind that something caught Kurasawa's attention to inspire him to produce so many Shakespeare plays within the context of Japanese history and myth, so maybe this will do the same for someone in our generation.

Few people know that Al Pacino "did" Shakespeare before moving on to the big Hollywood roles we know him for. This film is intelligent, witty, and downright entertaining. In fact, there's two stories being told: in one sense, the film is an abridged version of Shakespeare's Richard III; simultaneously this is the story of the actors, directors, and producers concerns in producing a Shakespearean play. Production is interpretation, and people have made their entire careers interpreting Shakespeare in wildly abstract ways. "Looking for Richard" is far from wildly abstract. As a graduate student in literature, and specifically, Shakespeare, I can say that this film succesfully put into layman's terms many of the issues that are discussed by scholars in elitist terms. It's fun and offers a glimpse of what those wildly abstract literary scholars truly love, but not so oft express. As to another reviewer who cautioned that this play ignores the historical inaccuracy of the play, I offer "so what"- this movie and play are not about history. Highly recommend

Shakespeare's plays are an inextinguishable source of inspiration for movie-makers. His works are approached from very different stands: classical as "Julius Caesar" (1953) and "Antony and Cleopatra" (1972); as transposition to other time and surroundings as "West Side Story" (1961) and "Ran" (1985) or as in the present case from a very personal optic.

Al Pacino gives the viewer a very personal and enlightening sight of one of Shakespeare's more famous plays. Here Al is actor, director, producer and scrip writer. Can you ask more compromise with a movie?
He is really fascinated with the play and the character. Pacino conducts a thoroughly investigation on the historical Richard III and compares him with the play's personage.
This film is a strange but tasty mixture of documentary and drama. It comprises interviews, rehearsals, and character and playacting discussion.

The ordinary viewer, as me, is enriched by getting in touch with the inner work of an actor when preparing his/her stage performance; the problems that a director must face to deliver an enticing play.

Pacino is paramount in his acting; especially some Richard's monologues are gripping. The rest of the cast is on par with high points in Wynona Ryder, Harris Yulin and Kevin Spacey performances. Vanessa Redgrave, Kenneth Branagh, James Earl Jones and John Gielgud amongst other give helpful insights in their interviews.

A very good and entertaining movie for a wide range of audiences.
Reviewed by Max Yofre.

An extremely enjoyable video. Pacino shows how shakespeare (specifically Richard III) can be fun and understandable. The video is a journey into an attempt to make the play comprehensible,and why most people do not enjoy or understand it. Shakespeare's plays are not written for our current common ear; that must be acknowledged. Yes, the film does not parse Richard III totally. Clearly is not meant to. Instead it shows how to get to the meat of the story and have fun doing it. All the actors...All seem to be having fun with the effort and the fun is contagious. Ignore the shakespeare snobs and their nose raising reviews. They express Pretentious, Egocentric Nonsense.

This movie isn't historically accurate, Americans can't do Shakespeare, blah, blah, blah. That's what some people who reviewed this movie are saying. These are probably the same people who insist that Shakespeare must be performed in the Queen's English- which is ridiculous, as the English accent during Shakespeare's time is rather similar to the accent still preserved in Appalachia, and, which, dare I say, is closer to the American accent than the British! I'll be the first to admit that as a result of several hundred years worth of linguistic evolution, much of Shakespeare IS hard to understand. It's unreasonable to assume that people watching a production will understand it. But this film helped to bring me to Shakespeare: it understood where I was coming from, and, more than offering in-depth explanatory notes on "Richard III," which would have been incredibly boring, it tried to simplify the Bard and explain his magic. I saw lively scenes of a production, and actors enjoying themselves during it. Shakespeare is done well when done by actors who care about it (like these), so that, at best, it becomes wonderful- and understandable- drama and comedy, and, at worst, it is not understood by the audience, but is treated passionately enough that the audience might enjoy it without full understanding, much like when going to an opera.

Most--not all, but most--of those reviewers who grouse and whine about this film's historical inaccuracies, Pacino's ego, or the actors' failure to "understand" Shakespeare betray their own cultural pretentiousness and/or ignorance of what this film attempts to do.

This film is neither an academic introduction to Shakespeare nor a history lesson. Nor is it supposed to be an exemplary production of the play Richard III. It is, rather, a documentary about the difficulties inherent in producing Shakespeare in a culture that--for all the bard-worshipping--is fundamentally ignorant about Shakespeare's works.

And it works. If you've ever attempted either to teach or to act Shakespeare, you'll recognize some of the dilemmas with which the cast of this film wrestles, the primary dilemma being the cast's own difficulty in understanding just what the heck is happening in the play. The very fact that people--both within the film and outside it--become so worked up about the whole thing demonstrates the importance that Shakespeare still has in western culture. Or, to be more precise, it demonstrates the importance that we *want* Shakespeare still to have. And in some of the comments--especially from the toothless guy, as several reviewers have noted--we can glimpse, perhaps, the power that Shakespeare still has for those who attempt to read and appreciate his works not as academic icons but as literature with a small "l."

I showed this film to a group of high school students as a way of introducing them to Shakespeare, and I was very surprised at how engrossed they were especially with the scenes from the play. A few of them even went looking for the play on their own, so that they could see what the film didn't show them.

As one student remarked, after watching the scene in which Richard seduces Anne, "He's the man!" I don't know if he was referring to Richard or to Shakespeare, and it probably doesn't matter. He both enjoyed the film and learned something from it.

That's what counts.

I read "Richard III" last year and, I confess, there were times I got somewhat lost. However, there were a lot of times that I found myself engrossed in this story of lust for power. I'm not one to read Cliff Notes or other such helps; I prefer to just read the play. I have found that, too often, such sources tend to direct your understanding away from where the text may have taken you. Later on, I have found such sources helpful but I prefer to form my own first impressions. "Looking for Richard" was, for me, a very helpful insight to "Richard III".

The main actor and director is Al Pacino who proceeds throughout the movie with an approach that facilitates the discovery of perspective (or maybe that should read perspective of discovery). At times he asks people on the street what they think of Shakespeare and, in the case of one rather toothless man, works quite well. He also uses other formats such as cast brainstorming sessions. Other methods don't always work quite that well but we tend to get the points he strives to make. All of this is interposed with scenes from the play itself.

There are some problems, however. I noted earlier that not all of Pacino's ideas work. There is a discussion about why Americans don't do Shakespeare well. Well, I'm not sure that I accept the premiss although I think there was an American actor or two in this film that may have supplied supporting evidence. Pacino is constantly involved with one "expert" in particular which I found contrary to the concept of looking at everything through a variety of perspectives. I don't know that I necessarily disageed with anything this person had to say but I got tired of his near-exclusive right to an opinion. I wanted to add that I felt the movie was too serious at times while too casual at other times. However, the more I reflect on that point, the more I come to the conclusion that this is actually an asset of the movie. Pacino approaches the subject seemingly unrehearsed and without any direction. He questions everything and leaves us feeling that we discovered something together.

I saw this movie in 1996 while in college on a "movie night" with other actors in my field of study. We were simply electrified by Pacino's depth and power that he put into the understanding of this amazing Shakespeare character. I have performed in Richard III, and believe me, i wished that i had this film to look at during that time to help me with some difficult scenes! I found Pacino to be extremely human, bendable, and thought-provoking; it's a definate must for the Shakespeare lover, and will expand your mind if you love Pacino! At least rent it!

"Looking for Richard" is an outstanding new approach on understanding Shakespeare. In a documentary-style film, Pacino delves into Shakespeare, Richard III in particular, and exposes the meaning and history behind the work. This film is Pacino's recognition of a "Shakespeare illiterate" society in the United States, and the complexity in understanding which accompanies Shakespeare's works. With focus on bringing Shakespeare to the average American, Pacino dissects Richard III, the most difficult play of Shakespeare's to understand. He takes the viewer on a journey of time and understanding. Pacino's intention is to make Shakespeare tangible, and he succeeds. Even if one has never read a line of Shakespeare, after viewing "Looking for Richard", he/she will walk away with a great understanding of Richard III. Pacino analyzes and scrutinizes every aspect of meaning behind the verse through research, interviews, character analysis (from other actors), and opinions of people off the street. "Looking for Richard" is a superb film.