Richard III (1911) User Reviews

Let's cram all of Shakespeare's RICHARD III into 22 minutes!

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 30 September 2006]

Believe it or not, as of 1911, this was probably the most in-depth and longest Shakespeare movie made! However, this STILL is way too short for any of his plays (even the really bad ones--take that Shakepeare snobs!) and there is no way this film COULD have done the Bard justice even if it had better production values--22 minutes is like trying to sum up the Bible in a half an hour! For 1911, the sets are pretty good and the length of the film would have made it a full-length film--as most movies were significantly shorter. Plus, if you had a general idea what the play was about, you could follow along well enough. However, if you are NOT familiar with the play or history (which, by the way, is a lot different than the way Shakespeare portrayed it), then watch this AFTER you read the Cliff Notes--or better yet, see the TV series BLACK ADDER I! Otherwise, you'll probably get lost and have no idea what's happening.

Richard III review

[JoeytheBrit · 6/10 · 16 May 2020]

Silent Shakespeare movies always seem something of a waste of effort, given that the Bard's reputation is built upon his skill with words. This ambitious British production at least includes a few lines of Shakespeare's prose between its tableaux of key scenes from the play, but it's directed with little flair or imagination by Frank R. Benson, an acclaimed stage actor of the day who also plays the scheming king.

Works Pretty Well, As Long As You're Familiar With the Story

[Snow Leopard · 16 November 2001]

This early filming of Shakespeare's "Richard III" works pretty well, as long as you are already familiar with the story. It would probably be tough to follow for anyone who was not already familiar with the play, because it has a complicated plot with a lot of characters, and much of the time you can only tell who is who if you remember what happens in the play. Shakespeare's dialogue is also missing, of course, but they chose some of the most memorable lines and used them as title cards. It makes up for what's missing with some good energy from Frank Benson as Richard, and by doing a good job of moving quickly and packing all of the important parts of the plot into its 20+ minutes running time. Certainly this is overshadowed by later versions, but in its time was probably quite enjoyable, and now is at least an interesting curio for silent film fans who like Shakespeare.

Only good if you love Shakespeare and know the work

[Horst_In_Translation · 4/10 · 3 September 2015]

Let me start this review by saying that the version of this almost 105-year-old black-and-white silent film I saw ran for almost 28 minutes, not the 23 minuets stated on the title's IMDb profile page. Maybe there were less frames per second in here, but it is certainly the right one written by, directed by and starring Frank R. Benson. Now this man had the most extraordinary career. He made a couple Shakespeare adaptations in 1911, starred in all of these and the never returned to film with one exception 10 years after this one. However, "Richard III" is by far his most known work, even if it is not really known at all. I am not even sure if his other works still exist. I am not familiar with the story of Richard III and even if the intertitles explain it a bit, it's just not even close to understanding the exact contents. The first half of this film apparently is about how he deceives and even kills to get the thrones and the second half is about his reign. All in all, not really a good watch in my opinion. Thumbs down.

bit of a curio

[didi-5 · 23 March 2003]

Now appearing at the end of the 'Silent Shakespeare' video with silent stuff from Vitagraph America and Italy, this is a record of Sir Frank Benson's Stratford-upon-Avon production of 'Richard III', in which he himself stars in the lead. It benefits from excellent title cards which pick the cream of Shakespeare's quotes and move the story along. If you remember who everyone is and get into the spirit this is really quite good. Shakespeare at speed!

Translations, Ghosts

[tedg · 27 May 2005]

There may be few things as rewarding in film as surveying filmed versions of Shakespeare's plays. The process is mostly one of discovering that the experience is unsatisfying and sleuthing the cause. This leads to an examination of what the play really is and what has been added or subtracted.

I won't dwell on what is missing. Its rather obvious. This is rooted in real events that have been abstracted as history. Then it is translated again into the play, then again into the actor's excesses that constitute performances of the day. And finally into a compressed pantomime. That's a lot of layers to expect genius to survive all the filters.

What's been added is rather interesting. There's a dream in which all Richard's victims appear to haunt him. Here the magic of film is used to have them appear and disappear. It is a high point that no one could get away with today.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

Epitome of Stagy

[Cineanalyst · 27 August 2009]

This is emblematic of the problems with the filmed plays made during the transition from short to feature-length films. This version of Shakespeare's play is two reels and over 20 minutes, which was longer than many films in 1911. Multiple-reel films were already becoming increasingly popular, though, especially where the nickelodeon model wasn't as dominant as in the US. In the US, multiple-reel subjects were often split by reel and shown in serial form: the so-called nickelodeon multi-reelers. D.W. Griffith's "Enoch Arden" (1911) was a two-reeler released in two separate parts, although, back then, it was also to the discretion of exhibitors whether they wanted to show it in serial or full form. Vitagraph, in particular, made many multi-reel subjects after 1908; one of their 1911 productions was "A Tale of Two Cities", which exists today minus a reel. In Denmark, France and Italy, they were already making feature-length films. "L'Inferno", at over an hour in length and with some remarkable sets, was the year's biggest production. England, where this film hails, was also already producing multi-reel films, including early adaptations of Dickens and Doyle's tales. "Richard III" is, thus, unexceptional in regards to its production or length for 1911.

It is a bad film by 1911 standards… or by any standard. One only need view one of the aforementioned films, or the interestingly staged 40-minute-plus Danish film "Temptations of a Great City" (1911) or, even more striking, a fast-paced short film with scene dissection such as "The Lonedale Operator" (1911) to see just how awful "Richard III" is. Moreover, there are hundreds of superior and still available films released before 1911, which one may compare to it. Perhaps the most illustrative comparison, however, would be to the 1912 "Richard III", which is also a rather tedious filmed play. In the 1912 production, many of the scenes are photographed outdoors and there are a couple three-dimensional sets—never just a painted backdrop. The 1912 film at least contains some examples of basic continuity editing, too.

In this 1911 play, the camera is nailed to the proscenium arch. The camera takes in a large amount of the floorboards of the stage. There being little more than backdrops for scenery completes the stagy effect. The only cinematic elements are some substitution-splicing for Richard's dream, but that technique had been around since 1895. (The 1912 film employed a superimposition.) A title card splits every shot-scene and describes proceeding action in the typical tableau fashion. The acting is the most ludicrous example of histrionics I've seen in these early pictures. I don't see how it could even be passable acting in theatre, although these were the professionals of their day. Regardless, it's terrible screen acting. I've given poor marks to other stagy and static theatrical adaptations from this period, including to the 1912 "Richard III", "Queen Elizabeth" (1912), "From the Manger to the Cross" (1912), "The Last Days of Pompeii" (1913), "The Squaw Man" (1914), etc. Yet, to my memory they all seem markedly better than this, since they at least do a bit more than bring a camera to a stage and hack to pieces a classic. ("Queen Elizabeth", in particular, didn't do much more than bring a camera to a stage performance, but at least the play had better production values.) On the other hand, and to say something somewhat nice, this film is shorter than those feature- length filmed plays.

Silent Shakespeare

[Michael_Elliott · 13 March 2008]

Richard III (1911)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

Decent version of Shakespeares play benefits from some good performances and some nice atmosphere. The story here is pretty easy to follow and seems to be filmed from an actual stage production.

Merhant of Venice, The (1910)

** (out of 4)

Another weak Shakespeare adaptation, which has no story whatsoever and comes to an abrupt hault.

Twelfth Night (1910)

** (out of 4)

The story is very clear in this one but that's about it. The film drags even though it's a one reeler and the acting, direction and sets are all on the boring side. However, this must have been one of the first films to show a lesbian kiss so perhaps that'll give you a historical reason to see this.

King Lear (1909)

*** (out of 4)

Once again the story doesn't come across too clearly but I've still gotta recommend this baby due to the incredibly hand tinting. The work here is downright beautiful and perfectly done making this look and even feel just like a Technicolor film. Whoever did the drawing on this was way ahead of their time considering what most hand tinting jobs look like.