Smaug at Bosworth Field
Created | Updated Jan 22, 2017
Awix is the expert. For ridiculous opinions on cinema, you get me.
Smaug at Bosworth Field
The other night, I was privileged to watch a splendid performance by the always-amazing Benedict Cumberbatch1. No, not Sherlock. Yes, Sherlock was wonderful. Clever, absorbing, had us all in tears. But I'm talking about his performance in Richard III, part of the series called The Hollow Crown.
It's a horror movie. It's an impressive horror movie, to be sure. Cumberbatch does a splendid job. His Richard is a real monster, sort of like a certain dragon. I had a great time.
Now, what does this play have to do with the king under the car park, is what we want to know? Cumberbatch told the BBC, 'In terms of tackling the real historical figure versus the fictionalised version in Shakespeare, I think we’re smart enough as audiences that the two can coexist.' I'm touched that he has so much faith in his audience. I don't.
Watching the play this time, I was struck by how ridiculous the story was. Unless you took it as a Nightmare on Elm Street-style horror, with the English monarch as Freddy Krueger, it makes no sense at all. Historically, of course, we know Richard III was nothing like that. He didn't murder all his relatives. In fact, he was way up in Yorkshire most of the time, minding his own business. And although he had scoliosis, his unearthed skeleton reveals that he was nothing like the deformed creature of Shakespeare's imagination. People probably didn't even notice the abnormality much when he was dressed.
So where did this image of Richard III as an evil character come from? Not Shakespeare. The Bard got it from a source. So who was responsible for this nasty piece of propaganda? Wait for it. . .
Thomas More. Yep. Saint Thomas More. Author of Utopia. Persecutor of 'heretics' like William Tyndale, who only wanted people to have free access to Bibles. Politician, schemer, burner of Lutherans. That Thomas More. More wrote a book about Richard III, though More was only seven when the Battle of Bosworth Field took place. More painted Richard III as the worst thing since Herod. Mostly lies.
About the only thing that was true in that book was that on the night before the battle, Richard had a bad dream. You could hardly blame him. He was sleeping awfully close to that future car park.
The BBC has put up The Hollow Crown series in order to let high culture ride in on the tide of Game of Thrones popularity. See, history's interesting. It has action and sex and everything. It's just like your favourite fiction. Only it isn't. Richard III is just like House of Cards, where the scheming villain mugs and quips at the audience. Sure, it is. And it's just as made-up. In reality, Richard III is even more like Breitbart News, or one of those websites put up out of a Macedonian bedsit. It's. . . Fake News. It's a story that falls apart as soon as you realise that there's no basement in that pizza parlour, so nobody can be scheming down there.
'Oh,' you say, 'but Richard III is great literature. My English teacher said so. Besides, it illuminates the Human Condition.' I agree that the play is a wonderful showcase for some great scenery-chewing by accomplished actors. And a great source of amusement at auditions. But does it really illuminate the Human Condition? Is this a realistic portrayal of human behaviour? Or does the fiction mask the real motivations of other players? Just who killed all those people, anyway? Was Henry Tudor a good guy?
I don't mind watching old Fake News. Debunking it gets the blood pumping on a winter day. And I can rant on to you about it. Besides, Benedict Cumberbatch is so much fun to watch, whether he's wearing a deerstalker or several pounds of latex. Find the film if you can, and enjoy. Just don't mistake it for history.
