malmborgimplano-92-599820 I borrowed the BBC Henry VI plays and Richard III from the library in preparation for next years' Hollow Crown: The Wars of the Roses. I fully expect Benedict Cumberbatch to be my all-time favorite Richard, but for now it's Ron Cook, who up until now I'd never heard of, who unexpectedly seduced me with his wicked charms.I was familiar with the play from reading it but the only previous productions I've seen were the Olivier and McKellen films, which I HATE, and Pacino's Looking For Richard, which made no impression on me other than I remember loathing its "cool" tricky editing. I thought the Olivier was too high camp and the McKellen terminally concept-ridden. It's possible that younger viewers might be alienated by the fact that this Richard makes no attempts to disguise the fact that it was shot on an inexpensive set in a small studio on videotape using the old three-camera technique. If you demand cutting edge 21st century production values, you'll be better off waiting for Benedict in Hollow Crown II. If you try this one, it'll go down much better if you're willing to enter the spirit of make-believe and pretend you're back in 1983 watching it on a Trinitron.I liked everything about this production but little Ron won my heart. The fact that he is a petite actor does help, as according to the analysis of his rediscovered remains the historical Richard was a slight man who stood well below average height because of his severe scoliosis. Ron handles the physical aspects of Richard superbly, emphasizing the nimbleness and strength the young man has developed to compensate for his disabilities in order to become a formidable warrior. I actually dated a man who, like Shakespeare's Richard, had one leg a few inches shorter than the other, and Ron's rolling gait is uncannily like his--I have to believe Ron did some serious life studies when planning his Richard.Can I also mention without sounding sexist that unlike the usual Richard Ron is young and cute? With his hair grown out to shaggy shoulder length with rough half-bangs, he kept reminding me of pop music icons of my girlhood--one minute Keith Moon, the next Alice Cooper, another time a seriously decadent David Cassidy. Unlike Olivier and McKellen, who seem to have deliberately made their Richards unsexy, Ron is genuinely persuasive in the famous Lady Anne seduction scene and is well-matched in Zoe Wanamaker--an Anne who for once is a woman rather than a cream puff. This may be an artefact of the production having a woman director. Another may be that this and its matching Henry plays feature some unusually non-lame fight scenes. I loved how Richard's final comeuppance is staged as a boar hunt. I recently snagged this and the Henry plays on DVD via ebay and intend to spend many happy hours rewatching them in preparation for the big Cumbervent next year.

Alain English At four hours long, and requiring two DVD discs to take it in, this is the longest and probably most faithful of all the BBC Shakespeare adaptations.This sees the end of the civil War of the Roses that plague England, and the rise and fall of the tyrannical Richard III (Ron Cook). It is one long watch but worth it.Most of the actors who have appeared throughout the tetrology reappear here with the addition of Zoe Wanamaker as Lady Anne, and Annette Crosbie as the Duchess of Gloster.Ron Cook, as the central character, keeps his performance controlled and understated, never feigning to theatrical style or pretension. Wanamaker and Crosbie are relative newcomers, but still excellent and all other actors acquit themselves well.Richard's inevitable demise is a little too gory for my DVD's U certificate, but it is well played and fits his performance. Most of the supporting actors double in various roles but the story remains comprehensible throughout.The concluding image, with Richard confined to hell in the arms of Lady Margaret, above all that have been slaughtered in England's bloody feud, is a fitting and enduring finale.

beeryusa 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???

Hardylane In 1982, the BBC, in their undertaking to produce all of Shakespeare's plays, assembled a company of actors which would take us, in one logical arc, from Henry VI part one right through to Richard III. This is notable in that through all four plays, the principal actors keep their roles (although smaller roles are also undertaken). This gives an unparalleled clarity to the events as you see the chaste Margaret descend to Machiavellian plotting to destroy challengers to her grip on power, and then her downfall as Edward and then Richard take power. It is fitting that she, in a horrific scene at the end of this play, is seen atop a mound of dead. This was, after all, her legacy.In a simple, but effective, set, with authentic costumes and asides taken directly to camera, this brings your closer to Shakespeare's work than much of the praised films and productions in the past.If you found Olivier's version just too hammy to bear..... try this one.