'Richard III' is a really difficult play to film - it's involved, often obscure. I felt it absolutely necessary to do more simplification than I've ever done before.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I would love to play Richard III.
I love 'Richard III,' but in terms of a general play, 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' has always been a big one for me. It's just so sexy.
Theater will cast in a more open way; Denzel Washington might play Richard III. Television and film don't really cast openly like that. The theater world has always been a leader in diversity.
Richard III is not likeable. Macbeth is not likeable. Hamlet is not likeable. And yet you can't take your eyes off them. I'm far more interested in that than I am in any sort of likeability.
The 16th-century theatre witnessed the particularly English manifestation of 'the history play.' There can be no doubt that Shakespeare's presentations of 'Henry V' and 'Richard III' have been incalculably more influential than any more sober historical study.
I must confess that the original 'Pretty Woman' was terrific and a hit, but I always felt that creatively I didn't do justice to Richard Gere's character. So in the musical, we have some great new moments for Richard's character.
Yes, and it's my third movie with Richard. American Gigolo was my first.
The trap in Hamlet is he's the most passive of Shakespeare's characters. He's not a Richard III, not out there taking a lot of action. It's a lot of asides and soliloquies where he's wrapped in angst, and that's not a very interesting character.
With 'Richard,' I was excited to make this film with such an amazing role for an actor. Play a wide range of emotion and really invest myself in the character.
I've played almost every lead character from Henry VI to Othello. I'm dying to tackle Richard III sometime.