Kevin Spacey Movie:

Editorial Review:
This strange and charming documentary by Al Pacino, in which he also stars, is an exploration of several topics: Shakespeare and his hump-backed villain, the impulse to act, the way actors work--and Pacino's single-minded effort to make the Bard accessible to all audiences and not just the effete few. Over the course of the film, Pacino alternately discusses the role and the text; roams Manhattan, talking about Shakespeare with everyone from scholars to people on the street; and re-creates scenes from the play in a production staged at the Cloisters, an evocative castle-like museum on the north end of Manhattan. He assembles a cast that includes Kevin Spacey, Winona Ryder, Estelle Parsons, and Alec Baldwin to perform the scenes, and he slips back and forth between text and discussion of the play in a way that makes Shakespeare comprehensible and fascinating to viewers who know or care nothing about his writing. --Marshall Fine

Looking for Richard Reviews:
Watch Pacino butcher Shakespeare!
2009-10-19 - This movie is a mess. It claims or implies it intends many things but never particularly focuses on any of its intentions. Soon, it becomes apparent that these many intentions are simply devices to mask the fact that the movies is just Pacino and his actor-friends having a lark.

Pacino states he is attempting to find a way to express his love of Shakespeare, but other than going to Shakespeare's place of birth and the renovation of the Globe Theatre and saying "wow" about a dozen times, there is nothing particularly telling about Pacino's love. Frankly, Pacino is the least open person in this movie. He just stands around and smiles condescendingly or mugs for the camera while his friends open up about their joys and frustrations in acting Shakespearean roles.

Pacino later modifies the "purpose" of the movie, stating he is attempting to get Americans to be more appreciative of Shakespearean theater. This basically entails Pacino asking random people on the street if they know what the play, King Richard III, is about or why they believe people today don't rush to see Shakespearean plays. While the "man on the street" answers are interesting and actually the best part of the movie, asking people why they don't like Shakespeare is not remotely helpful in determining how to make Americans be more "appreciative" of Shakespeare - as if that were a realistic goal in the first place.

Pacino talks to various British actors and historians to get their take on why Americans don't rush to see Shakespeare as he seems to think they should or as he believes the British must do. Once again, it is the other actors who bring common sense by noting that modern theater writing is realistic and Shakespeare wrote highly artificial dialogue.

In one of the better moments, one of the actors, whose name unfortunately escapes me, stated basically that a modern playwright would write, "Hey, could you run over to the desk and grab me that book", whereas Shakespeare might write something along the lines of "Sweet child of Mercury, fly on your winged feet to yon world of wood and steal forth that papered wisdom lying there upon".

Obviously, I have butchered it and it is not very Shakespearean, but it cuts to the chase. Something Pacino could never do, apparently because he would not accept the obvious answer that pretty words are no longer entertaining and most people do not care to parse that prettiness to fathom the subtle beauty lying underneath.

Pacino's counter-argument is that hip hop is not mainstream and takes the average joe some effort to understand the vernacular. Of course, this answer only demonstrates the fallacy of Pacino's logic (or lack thereof). People have to believe there is a benefit to this effort. They believe there is with hip hop, but not with Shakespeare.

So, Pacino never gets around to determining, let alone solving, why Americans do not "dig" Shakespeare because his own apparent love makes him assume all Americans would love Shakespeare if they just put in a little effort. This "logic" is alogical and one of the side effects from watching it is realizing how dumb Pacino can be.

The other side effect is the realization that Pacino is no longer a very good actor. Yes, he is a very good "star", but his acting is atrocious in this movie. While everyone else follows the British actors suggestions of acting Shakespeare as if it was just another script rather than a vaunted piece of literature, Pacino hams it up. None of his line readings are natural and there is no subtly at all to his performance. He either glares intently and speaks loudly or he stares distantly and whispers loudly. Occasionally, he yells just to show King Richard is a passionate guy. If you watch the other actors, you will not see any mannered use of the hands or face, but Pacino mugs ad nauseum and does the very things they warn you not to do in Acting 101 - like point at your eye when talking about what you see or "earnestly" wiping your face to signal frustration. Somehow, Pacino has gotten so lazy that these acting cliches are too common in his portrayal.

And if the acting is bad, the interpretation of the role is horrendous. King Richard III is an ugly hunchback, who was fourth in line to the throne. The play is about his use of Real Politik and scheming to surreptitiously remove the competition or, otherwise, outmaneuver those who might stand in his way. Repeatedly, the other characters indicate they find Richard to be simple, apparently believing his defective body reflects a defective mind so that he cannot orchestrate a coup d'etat.

This repeated pattern of others seeing Richard as simple implies Richard must be played as "acting dumb" and weak around others. Instead, Pacino chews up the scenes either snarling or accusing others of malice. His "Richard" is openly conniving and his fawning, when he condescends to briefly play his character that way, is so hammy that it is mocking - as if Pacino wants the audience to see Richard is so clever that he can give away his hand yet still elude discovery. So, Pacino's "Richard" is an anti-hero rather than the villian he is written to be.

This misreading by Pacino is most blatant in a scene with Lady Anna (W. Ryder). After Pacino himself states he believes Lady Anna decides to become engaged to Richard to gain security at court and commenting that Richard clearly is pursuing Lady Anna for his own political needs, he plays the scene as a grand seduction by Richard. Apparently realizing the absurdity of this given the reality of the character, Pacino suddenly decides not to affect the humpback and limp which define Richard. Of course, it would be ludicrous to believe that Lady Anna was "seduced" by the gall of this ugly man who early had stated he had no charms. Therefore, Pacino simply plays him as, well, "Al Pacino" - an overly confident cat who willing gives a knife to a young lady who hates him and has reason to gain revenge and then tells her to stab him 'cause he just knows he's too cool and that lady, despite her rage, will fall under his spell before she can think what to do with that darn knife.

Given Pacino's own analysis, the scene should have been about the characters verbally sparring, using the words of courtship, to determine the others position and to gain time to determine whether or not the relationship is politically beneficial. This is too intellectual for Pacino, the very reason he presumably likes Shakespeare, and so we have this absurd scene where Lady Anna forgives and becomes schoolgirlish around Charles, the murderer of her husband, simply because ... well, for no other apparent reason that Charles is really "Al Pacino" and, therefore, too cool to be a loser.

The only benefit I got from seeing this movie was noting how good an actor Alec Baldwin can be and noting that Kevin Spacey can be a solid actor whenever he respects the material and, therefore, is not trying, like Pacino, to play "star actor" rather than the role.

The down side was realizing the gift actor who played in The Godfather II and Dog Day Afternoon has given up all attempts to honestly portray a character.

Instead, we now have "Hoo-ah" man, a narcissistic, ego-bloated actor who is full of sound and fury, signify nothing.

classic
2009-07-11 - This is brillant. Wheather you like Shakespere, Al Pacino, theatre, film, or acting, Looking For Richard is so fun on so many levels, you have to be numb not to enjoy it.

Even the easiest Shakespere is hard to understand: simply, there is a language barrier. This may be English, but it is 500 year old English in both poetic and dramatic form. Pile on this complex motivations and historical referances Shakespere took for granted his audiance knowing, and yes, I would pick up my Playboy after a few pages too.

Lucky for us, we have none other than Al Pacino to walk us through Richard III, problably one of Billy's most complicated plays. To help, he gets Sir John Geilgood, Kevin Klien, Kevin Spacey, Wanona Rider, Venessa Redgrave, Estelle Parsons (Roseanne's crazy mom) and other, lesser known actors and accidemics to walk us through this play. How? Basically, by walking themselves through it.

They reherse the play, talk about it, fight about it, and talk about it some more. They scout locations, they discuss it in New York City cafes, with passers by on the sidewalk. They work it out on the street, sometimes using trash cans as props. They work in costumes, they work in t-shirts and sunglasses. They talk about the history, the motivations of the characters, and about the politics of it.

All this is done as they are hanging out, playing with the words and emotions, the way actors do. Pacino adds voice overs, explaining the parts of the play in convorsational languge, as if you are having a cup of coffee with him. This is no high-brow excursion; this is making Shakespere accessable to anyone willing to watch.

As if this is not enough, you also get to see some of our best actors as people, working, relaxing, and thinking. You see them as people. Pacino reminds me more of my easy-going jazz bass teacher than the driven cops and hoods he usually plays.


Also great is the insight you gain into how actors work. Since there are many actors in this film, there are many opinions on this material. Pacino may have taken the initative here, but he really lets things roll. You get to see how scenes (from Richard III) are dicected, experimented on, and the fun these guys are having.


If you want to have some fun too, check Looking For Richard out.

A Must See For Actors Of Any Stripe
2008-11-30 - I've always caught this movie on cable whenever I could, as it's a great treatment of the art of acting and the play itself. Pacino takes us on a journey not only through the play, but also through Manhattan as he drums up interest in seeing the play at a Shakespearian Festival. Here we hear from erudite panhandlers as well as learned experts on Shakespear and famous Shakespearian actors. We also see him going through the city looking for locations to film his version of the play, settling on The Cloisters, the museum, and having to shoo away curious pedestrians while he rehearses a scene. He shows readings with luminaries like F. Murray Abraham; Kevin Spacey and a host of familiar faces from the stage and screen. We get to hear them argue about what the characters are feeling; how they should react and other behind-the-scenes stuff we don't have the privaledge of seeing otherwise. There are parties with guests talking about their experiences with Shakespear and street filming broken up by the police. The actual play is abridged and told mainly in soliloquies by Al between and even during scenes. He speaks to acting students, cab drivers, and practically anyone else who'd give him the time of day.
As an amature actor/director who's been in community theater for a few years, this film offers much in the way of style and thought behind the style. The actual scenes are studies in minimalism and having the actors carry the play on their backs, just as Shakespear intended. Even Ol' Willy shows up here and there for comic relief.
Even if you're not into acting or Shakespear in particular, this film will open your eyes to the craft and art behind the words. A true masterpiece of film making.

Pacino gets to the truth about Shakespeare's Richard III
2008-07-08 - I really enjoyed this film because it makes accessible one of the greatest written English stories to another generation on whom otherwise it would be lost. The Bard's play is a story written after the fact during the victorious Tudor era. Hence the creation of a dark hearted villain and his manipulative lust for power. Richard really was a brave king who died in battle at the head of his troops at Bosworth in 1485, the victorious Henry Tudor's family thus having the opportunity to enjoy Shakespeares re-write of history as they clung to power.
The villain is a true monster and has been the basis of many a similar character that Pacino himself has played in a more modern setting.

I studied the play at school and at first was baffled by the language. I persevered with it, and suddenly the sheer brilliance of it became apparent. I've loved it ever since and have seen it performed in Statford, seen all the movies etc etc. Pacino get's together a powerful bunch of actors who illuminate the characters. Alec Baldwin's Duke of Clarence, Kevin Spacey's Hastings all get to the nub of what Shakespeare intended.

Thinking person's film. Highly recommended.

Good directing debut by Al Pacino
2008-01-13 - Al Pacino's directing debut is a (sort of) documentary of him as he prepares to film Shakespeare's Richard III (with him on the title role, of course). We see him researching the material, going to Shakespeare's house in England, rehearsing with the actors, interviewing people on the street about Shakespeare, interviewing scholars. As the film progresses, we actually see him performing (parts) of the play with the actors (including Alec Baldwin and Winona Ryder, among others). Its enjoyable and informative, though it is sometimes irritating when Pacino asks questions to the scholars he already knows the answer to. It's a bit self-indulgent, also, though Pacino does come as a likable person. But his unpretentiousness seems a little too studied, a little too forced (hey, Shakespeare is for normal people too, he seems to say, a little too many times).