Richard III, 1955 and 2015 versions compared
I would like to assume there are people out there as geeky and Shakespeare-crazy as I am, someone who won’t pick simply the first adaption they see, perhaps even someone who won’t be satisfied watching just the one adaption, but need a range of different ones, and want to know which one others would recommend, to always make sure they get the best possible experience… Well, a girl can dream. I know it’s by far more likely that you are a student who came here to get a leg up on your next paper. Whoever you might be, this post is about the differences between two adaptations of Richard III, what to look out for in each of them, and for you students I’ve added a little comment in the end, talking about which adaptation might fit first timers better.
So without further ado, let’s start with the major differences, and go into detail as we go along.
The adaptions
The first adaption we’ll look at is from 1955, and Richard III is portrayed by Sir Laurence Oliver (who also instructed and produced the movie). The movie has since been restored with colors. It won several awards, including a couple of BAFTAs and a Golden Globe.
In 2016 Benedict Cumberbatch took up the role in the second series of BBC’s Hollow Crown. It is important to note that this adaption is a part of the series, but can easily be viewed on its own (if for some inexplicable reason you don’t like Henry VI).
Since this is the same story told twice, with the same lines and characters, there isn’t much to change (basically the two Richards are as different as Damon Salvatore and Dean Winchester). Richard was written to be cunning, unloved, and just a tad bit selfish. However, it does vary in degrees between the two portrayals. There are two points I think sums up the differences between the two Richards, the first of which are his dealings in the battle at the end, the second one is his dealing with Lady Anne.On top of that, there are a few differences between the movies overall, but I will get to them as we go. For now, let’s start with the final battle.
My kingdom for a horse
The houses of Lancaster and York both want the thone, and war breaks out in England. King Richard is unsaddled in the middle of the battle and cries out ‘A horse, a horse. My kingdom for a horse’. This famous line turned common saying marks possibly the biggest difference between the two Richards: their courage.
1955
The battle is set, the troops rilled up and in armor, the fight for the crown is coming, and Richard is on his horse, above the battleground, watching. And then his soldiers decide they don’t want to fight for a tyrant.
The troops throw down their swords and join the other side. What is a king to do? Well, this Richard charges with what is left of his army.
He fights bravely until his horse is slain, after which he jumps on the back of another horse and throws the ride off it.
He keeps fighting until this horse too is slain, and he is once again horseless. He then continues to fight on foot while one of his men begs for rescue for the king ere the day be lost.
It’s not until Richard is all alone, not an enemy in sight, that he calls out for a horse so he may pursue Richmond, his enemy. ‘I have set my life upon a cast, and I will stand the hazard of the die‘ he says – in other words: He’ll risk his life to finish the job.
Of course, it is his shouting the draws the enemy to him, and after a short battle with Richmond where he fights until he is set upon by about 15 men at once, Richard dies a slow (and dramatic) death.
2016
The battle is set, the armor on, the dawn coming, and Richard rides to battle with his troops.
There’s no show of soldiers abandoning the battle here, only armor, blood, and mud wherever the eye turns.
When Richard is unsaddled he seems to have a rather hard time getting up again. It could be the combination of his deformity and the weight of the armor, or perhaps his mother’s curse ‘Which, in the day of battle, tire thee more Than all the complete armour thou wear’st.‘
Whatever the cause, the result in the king lying in the mud, trying to not get tramp on by the horses, trying to get up, and screaming desperately for a horse.
The screaming doesn’t stop when he get’s his footing either. Here you see a king robbed of crown (which fell off when he fell off the horse), robbed of horse, and, it would seem, robbed of courage.
He does however still manage to fight Richmond, and in true Hollow Crown fashion, that means rolling around in the mud in an epic fight to the death with no one interfering.
In the end, we see Richard dying slowly and painfully until Richmond in pity finishes him off. There’s a lot less ‘fish on dry land’ about this death than that from 1955.
The most important thing about his death, however, is the part Margaret plays in it, but that’s a whole other thing, and we’ll get to that in good time. First, let me sum this part up: the 1955 version has more (over?) dramatic acting and settings, from the soldiers throwing away their swords to Richard dying. The 2016 version has a more cowardly Richard, offering his kingdom not for a chance to finish his battle, but for a chance to survive it.
The women
The women is another big difference between the two adaptations. First of all, a little history lesson, just to give you an understanding of who these women are and where they’re coming from: King Edward, Richard’s brother, got the crown through their father’s plot to unseat King Henry VI. Henry VI was married to Margaret of Anjou, and they had a son, Edward of Westminster, who married Anne Neville. In Shakespeare’s plays Richard, to get the crown for his brother, kills Edward of Westminster as well as Henry VI. He later has his brother, Geroge, Duke of Clarence, killed as well as Edward, Prince of Wales, and Richard, Duke of York, sons of Edward IV, Richard’s oldest brother.
So, if you could follow all of that, you’ll see that the ladies we deal with in this play all have pretty good reasons to hate Richard. First of all, there’s Lady Anne, whose husband (Edward of Westminster) and father in law (Henry VI) Richard killed. Then there’s Margaret of Anjou, whose husband (Henry VI) and son (Edward of Westminster) Richard killed. And lastly, there’s Richard’s own mother, Cecily Neville aka Duchess of York, who lost a son (George, Duke of Clarence) and two grandsons (Edward, Prince of Wales, and Richard, Duke of York) at Richard’s design. One could add Elisabeth Woodville to this list (Edward IV’s wife), but since I believe I have plenty in these three, I have chosen not to (but for any students, there’s another name to beware of).
Of these three women, only Lady Anne makes a significant appearance in the 1955 version (significant for my purposes, that is), so I’ll start with her and get to Margaret of Anjou and Cecily Neville after that.
The wooing of Lady Anne
Richard decides that Lady Anne should be his wife, not for so much love but to get closer to the crown. How the two Richard’s take this up, however, that is quite different, as are the portrayals of the dear Lady.
1955
In the 1955 version, the wooing of Lady Anne has been split into two scenes, unlike how Shakespeare wrote it. This adds some (much needed) time to the idea and makes Anne’s change in temper more believable. Here we see Richard in one scene being – well, being the modern meaning of the previously harmless shortening of his name made popular around Shakespeare’s time (plainly put, he’s being a Dick). He stops the funeral procession of Anne’s late husband, threatens any man that will stand against him, and when Anne tells him he is fit for no place but hell replies that he is fit for her bedchamber (in the second picture).
In the second scene, we have a more ‘romantic’ Richard, claiming that he only killed her husband for her love, that it was her beauty that drove him to it so that he ‘might live one hour in your sweet bosom.’
In this version, we see Lady Anne struggle to figure out if Richard is being earnest and true. We see her slowly move closer to him more than once, as if drawn in by his words, and then we see her suddenly pull away as if remembering who he is. This stands in contradiction to her words to some extent, like how she’s calling him a foul toad but still leans closer, clearly at war with herself as to what to believe.
This works very well with the line she later utters when called forth to become queen: ‘Even in so short a space, my woman’s heart Grossly grew captive to his honey words’.
One other big difference is what they do after Lady Anne has left. In this version, Richard seems to consider and wonder when he speaks the words ‘Was ever woman in this manner woo’d? Was ever woman in this humor won? […] What! I that kill’d her husband and his father, To take her in her heart’s extremest hate; With curses in her mouth, tears in her eyes, The bleeding witness of her hatred by; Having God, her conscience, and these bars against me, And I no friends to back my suit withal But the plain devil and dissembling looks, And yet to win her, – all the world for nothing!‘ and ‘Upon my life, she finds, though I cannot, Myself to be a marvelous proper man.’
In short, we see here a Richard who is considering that maybe he isn’t as bad as he believes, that maybe it’s possible for a woman to find him agreeable despite his appearance.
2016
As opposed to how Shakespeare set the scene in a street with people to carry the coffin and everything, this is set in the forest by a poor cross bearing the name King Henry VI and Lady Anne’s escorts have left her alone to mourn.
In contrast to Claire Bloom’s Anne, Pheobe Fox’s Anne speaks more in anger than in sorrow. And I have to say, any man who will look at a face contorted like that and still think he can woo her is either brave beyond belief or incredibly stupid. Or maybe he just enjoys her pain.
This anger makes spitting on Richard a more logical choice. It seems here she spits out of anger where Claire Bloom’s Anne spit on Richard more to remind herself of his foulness than to disgrace or punish him.
And I have to admit, as charming as Richard can appear when it suits him, wiping Anne’s spit off of his face and putting his fingers to his mouth as if to lick it off… This is plain old, shiver down the spine creepy. He’s like one of those stalkers you see on Criminal Minds keeping locks of hair in an ornate chest. I’m repulsed.
Also, when he tells her ‘Teach not thy lips such scorn; for they were made For kissing, lady, not for such contempt.’ though bearing roughly the same meaning as when Benedick tells Beatrice (in Much Ado ABout Nothing) ‘Peace, I will stop thy lips‘ and kisses her, this scene seems a lot less romantic and rather more possessive. It is as if he’s telling her she has no right to speak, only to subcomb to him and let him have his way.
Now, in all fairness, if I met a man like this out in the woods alone, I would probably be just a tad bit scared too. This explains why, though she does not believe his words or think him repentant, she agrees to be his wife.
Her face, when offered his ring, clearly shows she does not want it, and she can barely look at him.
She doesn’t lean in for his kiss, but bears it and looks away as soon as he lets her go.
When she’s gone he speaks the same words as in the 1955 adaptation, but this seems more like mockery that she would accept him, not wonder as to whether she could find him agreeable.
In short, in 1955 Anne was genuinely considering if the snake had shed its skin and become a butterfly, whereas in 2016 she knows full well he is every bit the villain he always was but accepts him anyways out of fear.
Margaret of Anjou
Like I mentioned earlier Margaret is not in the 1955 version, she’s been removed completely. This itself is, of course, a big contrast, but she also speaks to the bigger role of the female characters in the 2016 version since they have more of Margaret in the 2016 version than in Shakespeare’s original play.
Firstly I’d like to talk a little about this scene:
Here we see Margaret (wearing the crown) holding up a mirror to her accused wrongers (Richard who killed her husband and son, and Elisabeth who now bears the title of Queen that once belonged to Margaret). There is no mention in the text of a mirror, but it does carry a resemblance to the scene of the decrowning of Richard II.
The resemblance hints at the decrowning of a king, and at the civil war to come thereafter. Also, just look at these two side by side:
The first is from Richard II, the second is from Richard III. Richard II decrowned and holding up a mirror to see if his sorrows have changed his face, and decrowned Margaret holding up a mirror to Richard and Elisabeth and predicting their futures, and both mirrors being broken. A red line from the first Hollow Crown movie to the last.
Margaret in the original play serves to hint at what will come, she promises Queen Elisabeth ‘For the day will come that thou shalt wish for me To help thee curse that poisonous bunch-backt toad‘ and tells Buckingham to ‘take heed of yonder dog! Look, when he fawns he bites; and when he bites, His venom tooth will rankle to death: Have not to do with him, beware of him;’
The genius of Shakespeare is that she also hints at what has passed – like Richard falsely prophesizing that ‘G of Edward’s heir the murderer shall be‘. There was also the prophecy from Henry VI where the king says that Henry, Earl of Richmond, was born to be king.
Margaret serves as the key for the women standing up against Richard, her prophecies and curses become the stepping stone for the others to openly defy him as Anne was not able to in the beginning when he took her as his wife.
Duchess of York, Richard’s mother
I won’t say much on this point, just show these two images showing the Duchess join with Margaret and Elisabeth, two women who have all the will and reason to want Richard dead.
This puts more focus on the nature vs nurture idea than what was shown in the 1955 version and also shows the women standing up against Richard with all they have – and since they have no swords they use their words to curse and cut him down. Here we clearly see Richard’s mother wishing him dead and regretting that she didn’t kill him the minute he was born.
Through the movie, we have often seen Benedict looking directly at the camera in a close up whenever Richard talks to the audience. This leads to an interesting relationship between Richard and the audience. We have always been privy to his plans and schemes, but this camera work makes it seems as if we are his accomplice, his close friend he trusts with his thoughts (which is a huge prerogative since Richard doesn’t trust anyone, even the Duke of Buckingham must see that in the end). He talks to us directly and closely, face to face and at a distance appropriate for sharing secrets.
All of that means we have a connection with him, we’re not just spectators, and seeing his mother betray him like that, it stings. She might have all the best reasons (like losing two sons and two grandsons to his plots), but she is his mother, and it hurts to see him abandoned like this. It raises the question of whether he ever really had a chance at being a good man and leaves us feeling sorry for the boy who could never get his mother’s love because he was born deformed and imperfect.
Margaret adds a rebellious side to the women, lets them gather and stand up against the man who robbed them of so much family. The Duchess of York makes us ask the question of whether or not he ever had a change, and that combined with the camera work makes the audience almost feel sorry for Richard.
The visual
The 1955 version, of course, didn’t have the same technology as we do nowadays, so naturally, that won’t be my focus. Instead, I’ll talk a bit about one specific type of framing from each movie and the effects of this as well as what it puts the focus on.
Shadows
The 1955 version has worked a lot with their shadows. First, we have Richard standing against the door, having just spoken to Lady Anne for the first time. Only a few minutes prior we have heard him say that he is too ugly and deformed to ‘strut before a wanton ambling nymph’ (Wanton: done, shown, used; ambling: a slow and easy peace; nymph: a beautiful or graceful maiden. Or to put it plainly: a good looking slut) and that he has nothing better to pass the time with than to ‘spy my shadow in the sun, and descant on mine own deformity’ (descant: sing).
When Richard walks forward the camera stays still, watching his undefined shadow sink lower to the ground. This trick with the door is repeated after the second time he woos Lady Anne too, but this time with the line ‘Shine out, fair sun, till I have bought a glass, That I may see my shadow as I pass’ – and then he walks into her bedchamber (remember, the only place besides hell he was fit for).
The idea is used many times, like here where we see Richard whisper lies to his brother the king. Here Richard’s head almost morphs with the king’s until the crown is all but Richard’s.
This obsession with shadows serves to indicate towards Richard’s true self, the person he is deep down but never lets the others see if he can help it. The scene with the crown serves to show his true desire (though known by us), and if that logic is applied to Lady Anne as well it could imply that he secretly does desire her for other purposes than a power play. It could be that he actually wants her, or perhaps more likely: he wants the love of a woman, despite his misshapeness. Through the way he speaks, it’s quite possible this is a desire he’s not entirely aware of himself, though it is supported by the line from Henry VI where he says ‘And am I then a man to be loved? O monstrous fault, to harbor such a thought!’
Reflections
I have already gone over Margaret’s role in the play, but in 2016 she was added as a silent ghost in many other scenes and served as a visual manifestation of Richard’s guilty conscience.
In the first image we see Richard looking in his daggar and seeing his reflection, int he second we see Richard and his two brothers (in Henry VI part III) which is accompinied by the line ‘Three glories suns, each one a perfect sun; Not separated with racking clouds, But sever’d in a pale clear-shinning sky. See, see! they join, embrace, and seem to kiss, as if they but one lamp, one light, one sun. In this the heaven figures some event.’ In Shakespeare original, the line was said by Edward, and George wasn’t even there. In this version, the line is spoken by Richard himself, and all three brothers are there looking at their own reflections rather than actual suns in the sky.
Next, we see Margaret appear next to him out of nowhere. Of course when he turns around she’s not actually there.
The imagery is repeated when Richard lies dying on the battlefield. We watch him take his last breath in Margaret’s mirror from earlier (which she broke then, but is whole now). This gives the sense that he is being condemned, and leads back to when Margaret said ‘That I may live to say, ‘the dog is dead!”
Unless she can somehow walk across the battlefield without a scratch on her, or teleport and remain invisible to any but Richard, she is not really there. She does, however, appear once again, when graves are being dug and the fallen buried in mass graves. We see her there, alone on the battlefield in a labyrinth of corpses, and she smiles. The dog is dead, and she has lived to see it.
To summarise
People are more angry in 2016 – both Richard and Anne shows us this. Richard is a lot braver in 1955. The women are featured more prominently in 2016. Anne is more naive in 1955.
In 1955 they play around with the question of whether Richard really is as evil as he seems – he even considers it himself after seeing Anne’s reaction to his proposal. I 2016 they establish that he is every bit a villainous as he seems, but asks rather ‘why’ by featuring his mother more prominently.
I won’t say that one is better than the other, but given the sometimes hurried speech of the 1955 version, I’ll say for people who are new to Shakespeare (or for students) the 2016 version would be more recommendable. This too goes for people interested in more than the one historical play since the 2016 version is part of a series with the actors continuing with their characters throughout, making it is easier to keep track of who is who and to see development in characters when there is but one actor making choices.
For people used to the language, familiar with the story, and wishing to gain a deeper understanding of the play, the 1955 version offers just that – deeper insight and the possibility of noting new things when put in a new light.
What I personally have taken away from watching these two adaptions is that I need to watch the 1995 version too! I need to see what Ian McKellen can do with that character, I just need to (and also, Robert Downey Jr. in a Shakespeare play? I need to see this, there’s simply no way around it).
So there you have it, hopefully, that gave you some insights for your paper or maybe even convinced you to watch one (or both) of them just for fun. Do you have any other versions I should be aware of? Any that stand out as ‘brilliant!’ in your mind? I would love to hear about, so leave a comment.
