IMDb > Richard III (1912) > IMDb user comments

IMDb user comments for
Richard III (1912) More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Index 7 comments in total 

3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Creative & Effective Adaptation, 13 February 2002
Author: Snow Leopard from Ohio

Besides its historical importance, this silent screen adaptation of Shakespeare's "Richard III" is a pretty good movie in its own right. It has several good features that compensate for the lack of dialogue and the other cinematic limitations of the time. The result is something a bit different from watching the play, but still a good story that does retain much of the emphasis of the original.

The adaptation is noteworthy for the liveliness and the detail that went into most of the scenes. They also made generally good decisions in adapting the story, by high-lighting the parts that would work most effectively on film without dialogue, and also in filming some events that were not actually in the play but to which characters in the play refer. While the lack of dialogue means that the character of Richard is not as complex as he is in the play, Frederick Warde does a good job of making his basic character come out. Some of his scenes work better than you might have expected them to without the advantage of spoken lines. The camera is fixed for each scene, as was then the norm, and it also uses the old-fashioned 'tableau' format, but there are a number of uses of cross-cutting, and there are also a couple of simple tracking shots at effectively chosen moments.

Overall, this is creative for its era, and it works quite well. It deserves to be seen in its own right, as well as for its more well-known historical significance.

Was the above comment useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Definitely a Film, Not a Play, 11 February 2007
6/10
Author: Bologna King from Backwoods Canada

The viewer would do well to compare this film with Frank Benson's British film of the same play released in 1911, one year before Warde's. Both the similarities and differences are illuminating. The costumes are of course very similar--it would be years before modern dress Shakespeare would get onto film. The way the scenes of Edward's court are set are very similar. Such scenes were the staple of Victorian Shakespeare. Both films use narrative title cards to explain to the viewer what is going on; later in the silent era they would contain dialogue more than narration. The similarities show us what was the state of Shakespearean production and cinema standards at the time.

The major difference that one sees is that Benson tries to put you in row fifteen of the Drury lane theatre during one of his performances. The camera never moves and every shot is a long shot. You can't see Benson's face in any of them. All have what is clearly a stage set behind them, and the actors move from side to side primarily because they feel constrained by the backdrop and the footlights.

Warde's approach is best shown in a scene where Richard is riding to the Tower to do in Henry VI. It is shot outside on location. The camera is raised above head level. Richard rides from the distance toward the camera passing behind the camera to the right. It is a scene only possible in film; you could never see such a thing on stage.

Warde's camera is consistently closer to the action than Benson's so that the actor's faces are usually visible. He makes use of high level cameras to see Richard on a balcony and a crowd below and intercuts these with interiors so that one imagines the balcony to be attached to the interior.

In other words, the scenes here are conceived cinematically not theatrically. Warde was not the first to do this even in a Shakespeare film but it does make his film easier and more interesting to watch than his contemporary's.

Alas, his characterization of Richard leaves something to be desired; he stomps about like a troll from a Brothers Grimm story. Before closeups became standard, the only tool an actor could use in a silent film was his bodily movement, and Warde's lacks the subtlety to convey anything more than a caricature. As a result the film, despite being of historical interest, reasonably well paced and shot with a cinematic eye, will fail, I think, to really grip most modern viewers' interest.

Was the above comment useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
Excellent early American feature, 25 February 2009
8/10
Author: sean4554

Watching Shakespeare without dialog isn't as challenging as you might think. Indeed, this 1912 film manages to condense the play neatly and still retains much of the power of the piece without hearing - or even reading - the words. Much of the success of "Richard III" is due to the vivid characterization by Frederick Warde, but his costars are excellent too. The direction is basic, of course, and every so often director-star James Keane wastes precious time (what's up with that long semi-tracking shot of the ship?), but generally his work is more than adequate. Comparing Keane's work here to the pioneering 1911 Italian feature "L'Inferno", it's clear that the American did have knowledge of what was going on elsewhere, even if he (of course) fell far short of what D.W. Griffith was already doing. Overall, "Richard III" will be of considerable interest to silent-film fans as well as stage performers interested in viewing the work of 19th century master Warde. Otherwise, I doubt this movie will thrill many other viewers. But I could be wrong; check it out for yourself.

Was the above comment useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
19th Century Stage Actor becomes Richard, 22 December 2006
8/10
Author: Randy_Kryn from Calgary

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

High-scored this movie not by today's standards, but by what a viewer in 1912 may have experienced. For what they saw on screen, the flickering light fairly new to their worldview, captured the spirit of Shakespeare's Richard in gory detail (well, semi-gory, but probably upped to gory by the imagination).

The specific treat here lies in the man who introduces the film--both on screen without costume and, when the film played, traveled the country to both introduce it and speak to the audience between reels)--the 19th-Century stage actor Frederick Warde. A youthful 61 when he made the film, he hunchbackingly runs and plots and creates on-screen emotion via hand and facial expressions. Shakespeare may have beamed well-pleased at this chosen Richard, a fellow thespian who, according to an interview reproduced on the DVD, had to mouth the words to fully capture the role even though no sound would survive the flowing decades.

The film contains an interested use of backlighting, as the ghosts of all his recent victims point accusingly, in unison and determination, at Richard just before he goes out to join them in the back-lit-hereafter. Great costumes in this film, for its time or any other, and who can say they don't come close to the originals of the depicted era.

An interesting scholarship question remains. Although the only surviving print came into the hands of the American Film Institute (AFI) from a serious print collector, William Buffum (Buffum interviewed in the extras on the DVD), I'm wondering where he got it. May have missed the explanation, but it may have come in a trade with another collector. Film history owes a thanks to all involved.

Was the above comment useful to you?

quite good, 28 August 2006
7/10
Author: romarblanc from spain

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

This silent movie concerns the road to the throne in late fourteen century England of scheming and ruthless Richard Duke of Gloucester. I am really interested in the character created by Shakespeare and the historical Richard both. But trying to make a movie based upon a play in 1912 when cinema was silent is quite difficult; so if you haven't read the play, is possible that sometimes you find yourself puzzled about what is going on, although restored titles summarize the plot well. Mr Warde gives a creepy feeling to the character, showing at the same time a brutal and fearful man, as possibly the real Richard III was. I recommend this movie to all Shakespeare lovers…, a long time go I watched the movie made by Lawrence Olivier…, like too… Keep in mind that this movie was done when cinema tricks, like editing or crosscutting, was yet not in use; so the way of filming is quite simple: they put the camera and shoot all the scenes in a medium shot…, there is only a brief shot closer to Richard…, reminds me all the movie the Frankenstein made by Edison in 1910. So, if you love Shakespeare, old movies (well transferred to DVD) and tasting the feeling of watching a near 100 years old flick…, see it. I give it 7 stars out of 10.

Was the above comment useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Not horrible for 1912, but pretty much unwatchable today, 23 August 2006
4/10
Author: planktonrules from Bradenton, Florida

This was a very, very early full-length film. According to the video box, it was the first full-length American-made film, but that is debatable--as several films have made that claim and exactly what constitutes "full-length" is pretty vague. Regardless, I have to commend the cast for trying something unique and epic, though in today's light the film is a totally boring mess and only of interest to cinephiles. Instead of the modern notion of story-telling and action, the crew was breaking new ground and made a bizarre film that appears more like a series of vignettes instead of a coherent film. Instead of a moving and evolving narrative like we are used to, the film was made with a real-life traveling acting troop. But, instead of having them act out the story, the film shows inter-title cards that describe what has occurred and the cast pose like they are going to be photographed or just make a few minimal movements or actions until the next card appears to describe an all-new scene. It's almost like looking at a series of stereoscope cards that move just a little and all together tell a very, very dull story. Very static and horrid to watch, it DID try something different and this is an amazingly important film historically--I just would NEVER want to have to watch it again!

Was the above comment useful to you?

3 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
Symptom of its Time, 3 May 2004
2/10
Author: Cineanalyst

Credited as the earliest complete feature-length American film known to still exist and restored by the American Film Institute, 'The Life and Death of King Richard III' is otherwise of little value. Rarely is Shakespeare nearly as boring. Yes, the film is a symptom of its time; I also watched 'Queen Elizabeth' (1912) today (it wasn't a very good day), and both are arid and static adaptations from the stage, histrionic acting included, but without sound, or any other qualities of the theatre. Films such as these, however, were coincident with films by others like D.W. Griffith; one can easily see which was advancing the medium and which was hampering it.

Was the above comment useful to you?

Add another comment

Related Links

Plot summary Amazon.com summary Ratings
External reviews Plot keywords Main details
Your user comments Your vote history