I just heard that BBC cast Benedict Cumberbatch as Richard III. This is so wrong. Cumberbatch is a talented actor but it’s clear that the production where he stars as Richard will be very anti-Ricardian. His look doesn’t lend itself to anything else. Imagine, instead, if Colin Firth were cast as Richard. That would be an entirely different interpretation of the story.
12 responses to “Cumberbatch as Richard III”
-
It’s a sign of the times. An unfairly maligned doomed ruler is out of fashion.
A moral monster who kills children in cold blood is ‘edgy’ and much more likely to attract buzz.
I happened to see part of the 1995 film recently and it was visually interesting (I would have hated being in 1920s-30s Britain but I love stylized reconstructied film versions of it like the Poirot series) But I thought most of the performances were …. off (I’m being charitable)
LikeLike
-
“A moral monster who kills children in cold blood is ‘edgy’ and much more likely to attract buzz.”
- Good point! People are jaded and want something outrageous to tickle their sensibilities.
LikeLike
-
-
LikeLike
-
I agree absolutely! I watched it last night and wrote a brief blog post about it afterwards.
http://sugswritersblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/bbcs-hollow-crown-wars-of-roses-richard.html
Totally anti-Ricardian, as was the whole season. The Beeb were trying to give Shakespeare a ‘popular’ look with identifiable villain and hero, patronising the viewers whose poor little minds are plainly not up to the subtleties of the language, let alone any subtle acting. Very annoying, I’d been looking forward to it.
LikeLike
-
“The Beeb were trying to give Shakespeare a ‘popular’ look with identifiable villain and hero, patronising the viewers whose poor little minds are plainly not up to the subtleties of the language, let alone any subtle acting.”
- I hate this sort of pandering. 😦 It’s so unimaginative.
LikeLike
-
-
How do you think Cumberbatch’s physicality is anti-Ricardian and Firth’s is somehow more pro-Ricardian?
My impression of Cumberbatch is he’s extremely odd looking and plays odd, somewhat cold characters (Sherlock, Turing). Firth is more conventional looking and is more famous for playing various versions of Darcy.
I don’t think either of them fit “tragic misunderstood king” (the Ricardian understanding of Richard III).LikeLike
-
Cumberbatch is ugly and weird. Firth is conventionally beautiful and dreamy. So yea, it’s what you say but in a less polite form. 🙂
LikeLike
-
-
My favourite performance of Richard III was Robert Lindsay with the RSC in around 2000. I remember it vividly. Cumberbatch did the occasional aside to the viewer, but Lindsay conspired with the theatre audience, got us on his side with laughter and wit, he even made Richard sexy, the seduction scene with Anne Nevill worked, which it usually doesnt. Then he led us into the darker stuff with us on his side, making the others seem like the villains! It was very skilfully done, but I don’t know if it was filmed.
LikeLike
-
Sounds beautiful! I wish I’d seen it.
LikeLike
-
-
Well, at least he’ll make a great Doctor Strange….:)
…And he’s still better looking than me, so I’m not going to rag on his looks (honestly, I’m more in the “ogre” category). 🙂
LikeLike
-
My most recent conference paper was about the Hollow Crown series. The whole thing is a mess. I’ve been waiting for this second installment for a couple of years now, and I anticipate that I’ll be very annoyed. Shakespeare’s histories are my research area, so I am very irritated with all the details they get wrong, not to mention the casting inconsistencies. Ugh!
LikeLike
A conservative literary critic and college professor
Clarissa's Blog 
Leave a comment