Updated: 12 July 1997

LOOKING FOR RICHARD

The criticism for this film coalesced into one main problem: that this ended up looking less like a documentary and more like a vanity project for Al Pacino. And the critics are right. But don't write this thing off so fast.

The pseudo-documentary begins with a very clear mission statement: to communicate Al's love of Shakespeare to his audience. Why he loves it, how he loves it, let him count the ways. Mid- way through the film is a line--the fact that it's still there after editing is an amazing bit of honesty on Pacino's part--that asserts something to the effect that the film is becoming less of a documentary on sharing Shakespeare with the modern masses than an expensive cliff notes version of RICHARD III. And, again, the criticism is right.

But, in fairness, it does make you really want to see this version of RICHARD in its entirety.

Some of the better parts of what's left of the documentary are very candid remarks by--I believe- -New Yorkers sharing their thoughts about Shakespeare. These range from "who?," to one man's very interesting diatribe on "feeling," and how people today lack it.

Also, we have clips of various Brits, from Kenneth Branagh and Derek Jacobi to the great John Gielgud, explaining--with reserve--why they think Americans may have hang-ups doing Shakespeare. I have my own theories about this, expounded in the review for ROMEO + JULIET, and won't go into it here. Suffice it to say that these stately Brits gamely put their best foot forward in an awkward situation.

That's about it. The only other parts of attempted docu-whatever are the scenes where the actors have been gathered and are doing readings, which are actually painful sometimes. Cameras shouldn't be in those rooms. These are people who are performers (read: hams) and also--at least usually--somewhat insecure. What ends up happening is predictable: minor grandstanding and holding forth on issues that are largely inconsequential. This is neither comfortable nor genuine when you're actually in the room with actors doing this, nor is it comfortable or genuine on the screen. Documentaries need not be comfortable, but at least a veneer of being genuine is crucial.

Which leaves us with the drama half of the docu-drama. It is here that I think Al Pacino's real purpose begins to emerge. An entirely American cast has been gathered to prove that they can, indeed, perform Shakespeare with a vengeance. And they do. With the exception of one scene with Lady Anne (Winona Ryder), in which Richard's arm is miraculously healed for a moment, Al Pacino does make a very good Richard.

His point is worth making. Because whenever I watch MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING, I am reminded of just how very ineffective some of our name-brand actors are at doing Shakespeare. Good Actors like Denzel Washington, and bad actors like Keanu Reeves, are suddenly and sadly put on a level playing field when woodenly reciting iambic pentameter. Especially when standing next to Emma Thompson and Kenneth Branagh. The contrast then becomes glaring and--if you're an American--embarrassing.

In LOOKING FOR RICHARD, however, Al Pacino has, for the most part, assembled a group of extremely capable actors and actresses. There are still holdouts. Winona Ryder, good actress that she is, can't master the cadences of formal speech. In THE AGE OF INNOCENCE, THE CRUCIBLE, and LOOKING FOR RICHARD, she sounds like a little girl holding a tea party with her dolls and trying to mimic grown-up talk. I don't want to give the impression that I don't like her, because I really do. In BEETLEJUICE, in EDWARD SCISSORHANDS, and even in REALITY BITES, her performances are outstanding; and her dialogue, interestingly enough, is all very modern. It is just those scripts devoid of contractions that present her with problems.

Others fare better. From Estelle Parsons as Queen Margaret to Alec Baldwin in a surprisingly good turn as Clarence, these actors do not seem at all intimidated by the text. Add Kevin Spacey and the rest, and you have a particularly capable cast in a performance that is disappointing only because you never get to see it in its entirety.

So, as a documentary, the film leaves a lot to be desired. As a Shakespearean play, it is frustrating in its incompleteness. As a video cliff notes, it is unsurpassed.