And this is a very interesting device employed by Olivier. For example right at the beginning when all the courtiers have left the hall the camera shows the hug doors opening and Richard faces and talks looking right into the camera. It created an illusion that he is talking directly to you. I haven't seen this done for a while and in this particular case this device is very impressive. Then Richard describes what he is about to do, reveals his devious plans to conspire against those who stands between him and a throne still looking right into the camera. His facial expression changes according to the part he is currently plays. The scenes with him interacting with other characters and commenting on his own actions are handled brilliantly. Another thing he did was to break the scene with lady Anne in two parts so otherwise the scene of seduction looked to quick to the spectators to believe in it. Also note his face when he casts a libel against Clarence: he does not have that expression again in the movie except when he waves good-bye to him.
The DVD I watched contained some additional material including an interview with Olivier and he gave some other insights in the matter. For example he comments that one way to achieve a success performing some popular character in a famous play is to do it differently from his predecessors. It sure worked in his case. He paid much attention to the looks of his character and his Richard looks just like one imagines him or starts to imagine him anyway.
Laurence Olivier being an actor of the highest caliber also employed other great actor of his time, the most familiar name probably that of John Guilgud who plays his brother duke of Clarence. But all other actors, even those in episodic parts are excellent. I'll only comment on the part of Jane Shore, mistress of the king Edward who hardly said a word in the whole movie. Yet what richness of emotions does the actress performs in this part. If you watch it a second time you might notice little details that escaped you the first time like small gestures, facial expressions, touches and so on. They are brilliant.
What was not so good? The movie was quite long but that was expected. The thing that I did not like was a lack of subtlety in Richard's actions and motives. And I don't mean just to us, observers. Seems like all the characters involved knew what type of person Richard was: untrustworthy, wicked, murderous yet they seemed to get along with it and only in the end they finally united their forces. By this time most of his former allies were dead anyway. I wanted more subtle interplay of actions and motivations. But this is not really a complain. Shakespeare wrote in a different epoch and he had to make his plays clear to the audience. I feel the same think about Shylock: the author of the play is on the verge of expressing overt sympathy towards Shylock but in the end he handles him in a rather ugly way. I understand that he had to go with morals of his time.
