Head-to-Head: Richard III, Laurence Olivier v.s. Ian McKellen, 1955/1995

'Richard III' is a very interesting Shakespeare play. I would not put it among my favourite of the Bard's works as I do feel it does not quite have the intensity of depth, and fascinating interpersonal dynamics among the supporting players as say, 'King Lear', 'Hamlet', or 'Measure for Measure', to name but a few, but nevertheless it has moments of true greatness, and one hell of a main character...but more about that later. As a history play I don't think it ever quite reaches the rousing heights of say, 'Henry V', but then again it is a very different play to begin with, which focuses on one rather distinct, odd, and very malevolent monarch.

I'll get onto Ian McKellen first. Sir Ian McKellen is a great actor who has yet to disappoint me in anything I've seen him in. Alongside John Hurt, he's one of those actors who simply enlivens and enriches a film just by being there. From Gandalf to Magneto he's impressed upon these pop culture mainstays with such intelligence and grace; whether it be a small supporting role in the likes of 'Scandal' to a grandstanding lead turn in the likes of 'Gods and Monsters' and 'Apt Pupil', he never fails to impress with his towering presence that's moulded into so many different ways onscreen. 'Richard III' (1995) is a unique take on the play in that it sets the play's events in a fictionalized 1930s Fascist Britain, I won't say it works 100% as some of the stylistic approaches go a bit over the top (though never Baz Luhrmann in its excesses) and some of the acting leaves much to be desired, except for one performance I think you can guess who. It is a solid enough film as far as Shakesperean adaptations go though, and though brief and brisk it never really feels lacking.

Sir Laurence Olivier is commonly regarded as one of the greatest actors of all time. I'm rather in two minds about this view. Post-1960 Olivier is in my books entirely deserving of this title of one of the greats; from his terrific deconstruction of his stage persona in 'The Entertainer' and 'Sleuth' (one of those performances where I really don't mind the fact that the actor is purely having fun since we, the audience, are in on it too), to his chilling villainous turns in 'Spartacus' and 'Marathon Man', and his amazing portrayal of Lord Marchmain in the seminal television miniseries 'Brideshead Revisited', I really do love most of his work and find him an incredible talent.

On the other hand, some of his earlier work leaves something to be desired, in my opinion. I really dislike his work (and the film as a whole) in 'Wuthering Heights' (1939) where he really fails to capture the essence of Heathcliff, and find him incredibly dull in some of his other 1930s and even early 1940s works like 'Q Planes' (where he was incredibly overshadowed and upstaged by the true star of the film, Ralph Richardson), 'Pride and Prejudice', his collaborations with Vivien Leigh, and many other of his stock leading man roles where he really is no Jimmy Stewart and simply failed to impress me with his decidedly lackluster approach and lack of charm. This however is a bit of a nitpicky reservation since he was clearly ill-suited to that sort of role, I mean think  and once he began finding his stride in roles that suited his talents (starting with 'Rebecca' ), so I guess in the end I will not question his all-time great status as a screen actor.

But what about his grasp of Shakespeare? Well I do have to take slight issue with those who consider Olivier to be the unquestionable King of Shakespeare, upon whose royal prerogative no other shall tread. His 'Henry V' is a solid enough adaptation which is on par with the Kenneth Branagh version or 'The Hollow Crown' series does (as for the performances, I'll leave that to another time). His 'Hamlet' though is an incredibly problematic, very underwhelming and overly trimmed-down adaptation that is no match for Branagh's version or indeed, performance (but more about that at some other point). But what about 'Richard III'? Well, I for one really enjoyed Olivier's take on this play. The Technicolor lens really brings a lot out of the beautiful set design, costumes; the performances are generally quite solid; and the whole directorial flair is very effective, as a director Olivier shines.

As a performer? He shines as well. I love how Olivier does not leave all the work to his excellently devised appearance (the nose, that odd long black hair, his hump) but adds to it with his mannerisms. I really like the eloquent diction he uses to convey the intelligence of Richard, but also how he changes pitch at different intervals depending on who he's interacting with, without turning it into a flurry of unnatural tics. His first big speech where he reveals his intent to 'prove a villain', he makes you both feel an odd tinge of sympathy for his 'oddly stamped' deformities, yet also a surge of fear at that underlying rage, and discontent with the fopperies of the world is just waiting to burst. Yet Olivier always maintains that degree of cool calculation to his manner; Olivier, with that mellifluous baritone voice of his, could never sound anything less than quite intelligent, but he is particularly astute here as Richard. Incredibly self-aware within the character, sharing his thoughts with the audience yet never giving the game away, each movement, each little way his voice is pitched, is just great.

As for McKellen? Well as I mentioned before, the 1995 version of 'Richard III' is in a fascist mock-propoganda vein, and McKellen's performance follows this approach impeccably. I really, really liked how Olivier pitches his Richard at the outset but I must say I LOVE McKellen's character creation of Richard. Technically speaking not that much is done to his appearance to make him look grotesque, and it's testament to McKellen's portrayal that he manages to convey the embellishments through just that supremely odd way he walks and talks, moving around with that gait and that sort of disconnect he has when talking to others; yet also makes it clear why people are so prone to falling under his spell with the sheer energy he instills into his performance, outwardly predatory yet strangely charming in his playfulness of tongue. I love how his opening speech is delivered half as a political manifesto speech, Henry V-esque in its sheer resonance, rousing and yet beneath McKellen's eyes there's always that hint of malevolence behind it which is revealed in all its glory when McKellen literally begins taking the piss.

As he moves into the private domains of a lavatory, McKellen's tone of speech and delivery becomes intensely dialogic and interpersonal; it is so impressive how Olivier and McKellen, despite taking such different approaches (stagey monologuing and a more subtle form of clin d'oeil) are both equally effective at establishing just how messed up Richard III is, and yet how compelling he is because of it. They are both so good (though McKellen particularly so) at merging their verse asides and prosaic dialogue, breaking out and back into the fourth wall (I particularly love their different approaches to the line, 'I thank God for my humility', from McKellen's blunt, dryly comedic delivery to Olivier's nonchalant yet sweeping statement).

With Richard III, the important thing to look at is how the actor takes on his various interactions with the other (somewhat less interesting) characters of the play. Both do so with aplomb. With Anne, wife of the former King Edward whom Richard murdered in cold blood, Olivier almost singlehandedly strikes up such an interesting blend of arrogance and self-effacing black humour to how he goes about seducing a rather dull Claire Bloom, his constant scheming is still there for us to see and yet he masterfully masks it from everyone else with that odd charm of his. He's devious, and yet so deviously fun to watch. With McKellen and Kristin Scott Thomas (significantly better than Bloom), the scene carries more serious undertones and McKellen follows this approach very well, his praises of her being a 'divine perfection of a woman' carrying such 'sincere' conviction that when he bounds out of his soldierly, dignified posturing he uses to seduce Anne and into unrestrained, demoinc glee, it's all the more disconcerting. With the Duke of Clarence (played well in both versions by Nigel Hawthorne and John Gieguld), both McKellen and Olivier imbued some modicum of brotherly warmth that you can see being effective, yet also emphasising its artifice with the coldness behind their eyes.

With his nephews I must say though Olivier's silent reaction when he gives one of them a chilling glare for mentioning his hump, is pure perfection, McKellen makes the bigger impression overall in this scene as he is just so good at being the perfect 'kind' uncle, it's almost like he's doing his wacky wizard routine in 'Lord of the Rings', with that hint of artifice beneath it which is great. Also the scene where he accuses Elizabeth of treason against the throne is great stuff by McKellen as he literally eats Annette Bening and Robert Downey Jr. alive at the dinner table, fully earning the description of him as being one 'when he fawns, he bites'. Olivier's highlight in dealing with the other cast members is probably when he delivers news of Clarence's death, really playing up the whole playful routine of his character to remove suspicion before delivering the news in such a cold manner that is most striking. Olivier's Richard is always knowing yet somehow manages to maintain this facade of being a clueless observer, a 'plain man' it may not have worked in most hands but in Olivier's it works perfectly. McKellen too is equally convincing in managing to somehow impress upon others that fact that ;the world has grown so bad' that each and every one of his actions are somehow not immoral in his view, but a necessary evil.

With the manipulative Buckingham I would say Olivier is more effective, but mostly because he has the excellent Ralph Richardson to work with, while McKellen can only do so much with Jim Broadbent who does his best, but can't make too much out of a rather trimmed down role. Olivier and Richardson are terrific in creating this dynamic of (sort of) cordial play-acting between the two, a sense of glee in how they're essentially fucking things up entirely for every one else, yet also never forgetting to add in a hint of how the sheer deceptiveness of both characters means they can never fully trust in one another. The scene in which the two work to improve Richard's public image among the people are in my opinion the high points of the film (though not of Olivier's performance) as they work in perfect harmony with their equally manipulative natures. McKellen has less to do with Broadbent but still does well, and I do like how despite taking advice he never loses that self-defensive mechanism of Richard; even with his eyes shut and languidly smoking on a couch, you feel him baring down into your soul. When he orders that 'I wish the bastards dead', it is a great scene as McKellen shows just how deranged becoming king has made him into a dictator who sees a killing as just another killing, another body as just another body, with not hint of remorse...or is that so?

Of course when discussing 'Richard III' the final battle scenes are what really makes the film in most people's opinions, I disagree as I've always found the whole buildup more interesting than the actual climax of the play. Anyway, this is where both actors shine in very different ways. McKellen shows a casual sort of friendliness to his troops as he gears them up for killing against the men who wish to conquer them, yet he is also terrific in showing the growing fear which stems from the 'bloody' curses of Maggie Smith's Duchess of York; he is great in showing how this tower of strength slowly crumbles inwardly, best shown by him waking from a troubled sleep where he bemoans his 'hateful deeds'. In this scene McKellen shows a man consumed by his conscience; 'Richard loves Richard', he begs himself to remember, and McKellen is amazing in showing the inner torment of the man inside.

Olivier's last act of his performance is more overt but no less impressive. His odd speech before the battle is wonderfully delivered, showing that Richard, despite the worries and insecurities Olivier brilliantly shows on the night before the battle, he still retains this sprightly manner of treating death trippingly on the tongue. As the battle proceeds, Olivier is equally effective in showing the magnificent downfall of a man who watches all that he has created slowly crumbling down around him; I will say that a significant reservation of mine for the 1995 version is that the battle itself, while viscerally and technically striking, kind of overshadows McKellen for a while. McKellen is extremely good in showing the ferocity with which Richard fights till literally his very last breath, lone pistol in hand and hopelessly outnumbered yet still with that fire in his eye as he laughs his way down to hell. I have to say though that for me, Olivier makes the bigger impression with the sheer desperation he shows when he cries 'a horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!'. Though his Richard has not done a face heel turn, and is still as despicable as ever, you almost feel a hint of sympathy for him as he begins to see himself as a man, more sinned against than sinning. His reaction to being hopelessly outnumbered is possibly even greater than McKellen as in the calm before the storm that display of hate in his face for his enemies is unforgettable, and if his death scene is a BIT cartoony in how he wriggles about, it's a minor flaw which does not hinder the power of his ending at all, as well as somewhat fitting for his playful interpretation of Richard.

I hate to have to choose between these two equally great performances, and in the end I shall have to resort to my least favourite chore of all: nitpicking. In terms of just loving a performance I probably love McKellen's just a bit more as I really, really do love how he goes out on a limb and takes such a daring approach to a character who's too often played in an overly caricatured manner, his fascist interpretation of Richard is a masterstroke in blending humour, malice and even empathy into a great character and it's just clear he's both having so much fun, and also put so much work, into the role. But Olivier, in the end, I will give the win due to my somewhat problematic reservations with the 1995 which kind of limits McKellen not performance-wise, but I would say there was even more potential to be had for McKellen than the film allowed, whereas Olivier really makes the most of what he's given himself and relishes Richard III for the devious, sly rogue he's known for with all he's got. It's a great performance, they're both great performances, and this ranking will probably switch and change some point in the future.

1. Laurence Olivier in Richard III (5/5)
2. Ian McKellen in Richard III (5/5)

youtube.com
theguardian.com