The One Ring Forums: Off Topic: Off Topic:
Richard Armitage as Richard III?



Kimtc
Rohan


Feb 9 2013, 4:12pm


Views: 1054
Richard Armitage as Richard III?
I don't have the link to the Scottish newspaper that reported this, but buried (pardon the pun) in this otherwise very funny op-ed by Gail Collins in the New York Times is that someone has written a screenplay about the new, rehabilitated Richard III and has supposedly offered it to RA (who is not identified by name, since I guess he's not on Gail Collins' radar screen). This all sounds very sketchy and speculative, but I can actually see it. He's a bit old (which is funny, since many thought him a bit young for Thorin), and a bit tall (again, previous complaint), but he has the look.

http://www.nytimes.com/...ml?emc=eta1&_r=0


arithmancer
Grey Havens

Feb 9 2013, 5:06pm


Views: 669
I would go watch that, if it ever comes out!//
.


Annael
Immortal


Feb 9 2013, 5:14pm


Views: 674
interesting
Richard III, at 5'8", was at the tall end of the range for men of his time (although bent by his skeletal deformation), so it works for me to cast a man who is tall by our standards.

Although as a friend remarks, the virtual reconstruction of Richard's face looks more like Lord Farquaad . . .
The way we imagine our lives is the way we are going to go on living our lives.

- James Hillman, Healing Fiction

* * * * * * * * * *

NARF and member of Deplorable Cultus since 1967


TwirlingThorin
Bree

Feb 9 2013, 5:31pm


Views: 675
Links
It has been truly fascinating to follow the news on Richard III from Leicester this week.

You can find links to various Richard III articles on the "King Richard Armitage-site" http://kingrichardarmitage.rgcwp.com/...g-live-king-richard/ .

RA mentions his interest in Richard III in this excellent interview from Vulpes Libres in 2009 http://vulpeslibris.wordpress.com/...th-richard-armitage/

I hope that Richard will be involved in some way if this film gets made. As Thorin he has shown considerable talent for portraying short kings with nephews, I just hope he doesn't risk getting typecast Wink


willowing
Lorien

Feb 9 2013, 10:07pm


Views: 635
Richard III
4.54 seconds into the interview with Phillipa Langley from the Richardarmitagenet.com site she mentions that there is already a major distributor on board for the script.


Brethil
Half-elven


Feb 9 2013, 10:08pm


Views: 638
We will hear more about this
if its so, especially with what appears to be the recovery of the body last week. I will watch with a lot of interest to see how the writers portray him. The movement to rehab his reputation has been around for a long time and Shakespeare fan though I am history probably significantly misrepresents a good portion of his life.
But I do think he had the Princes killed. A puzzle of a man. Can see RA giving the complexity it deserves.
Thanks for the pos!
...she took the point at once, but she also took the spoons.


Brethil
Half-elven


Feb 9 2013, 10:19pm


Views: 618
Great point!
In Reply To

As Thorin he has shown considerable talent for portraying short kings with nephews, I just hope he doesn't risk getting typecast Wink
...she took the point at once, but she also took the spoons.


Radagast-Aiwendil
Gondor


Feb 9 2013, 10:48pm


Views: 630
Sounds great to me!
I'd definitely go and see it, Armitage would be pretty good in that role. It's unlikely that he'd be able to live up to McKellen's Richard III, but then Thorin will never be Gandalf. Laugh
"These are Gundabad Wargs! They will outrun you!"

"THESE are Rhosgobel Rabbits! I'd like to see them try...."



Kimtc
Rohan


Feb 9 2013, 11:06pm


Views: 620
I forgot about McKellen's Richard!
I guess the difference would be McKellen was playing evil, Shakespeare Richard and RA would be playing conflicted, rehabilitated Richard.

In Reply To
I'd definitely go and see it, Armitage would be pretty good in that role. It's unlikely that he'd be able to live up to McKellen's Richard III, but then Thorin will never be Gandalf. Laugh


ryouko
Lorien

Feb 10 2013, 1:35am


Views: 609
Well for years...
fans have been saying how great he'd be in the role! If he does do the role, I hope they film it, as I'd never be able to see him live on stage. Unsure


Kelly of Water's Edge
Rohan

Feb 10 2013, 1:44pm


Views: 613
I don't know if he had them killed
if only because, morality aside, it would have been a stupid move on his part to not be able to trot them out to prove that they were being treated humanely. Edward's precontract seems to have been valid, so they wouldn't have been much of a political threat if they indeed weren't eligible for the throne. Most of the problems came from the Woodvilles trying to hold on to power they no longer had a right to with Richard in charge during Edward V's youth.

It must be said, however, that the boys almost definitely died on his watch and very few historians really believe that they survived into Henry's reign, particularly since Richard never produced them to squash rumors. Whether the act was carried out on his orders or someone (possibly Buckingham) committed an act of treachery to ruin his reputation or better their own chances of gaining power, he ultimately failed in his moral responsibility to protect them. Illegitemate or not, they were still young children owed safety.


Rostron2
Gondor


Feb 11 2013, 12:52am


Views: 575
History
In Richard's case, the history was written by people that had cause to malign him. Like the whole 'who wrote Shakespeare's plays' argument, there' ample evidence to support any position you want.


Brethil
Half-elven


Feb 11 2013, 1:46am


Views: 556
True
though even with the legalized illegitimacy the Princes could have provided a popular and highly sentimental focus for rebellion. If the murders were carried out by Burckingham alone it could foreshadow his later turncoating by showing his jostling for position (?) or as an unappreciated gesture of loyalty (?). If Richard and Buckingham were in collusion, it doesn't exp[lain the later drift; but neither does it make sense that Buckingham never attempted to place the blame for deaths at Richard's door at some point before his execution. The other puzzle is the complete lack of investigation by Richard - as reigning King - into their disappearance; I go back and forth, but that's why I feel that guilt at least partially lies with Richard.
Either way it left an awkward void, as you said. If you can't show them around people are going to figure out that something is wrong!

All in all....what a potentially fascinating script!
People compare RA's potential performance to Sir Ian's, but as one is Shakespearean and one will be a modern script they will be very different productions. I would guess the project RA is concerned in will be filmed period as well and not 20th century.

Also just read that the Queen has forbidden DNA testing of the children's remains. So no confirmation or refution of identity any time soon. Too bad.
...she took the point at once, but she also took the spoons.

(This post was edited by Brethil on Feb 11 2013, 1:49am)


Brethil
Half-elven


Feb 11 2013, 1:47am


Views: 548
Yes
and the Tudor PR machine was a large and wealthy one woth a lot at stake.
...she took the point at once, but she also took the spoons.


Brethil
Half-elven


Feb 11 2013, 2:19am


Views: 542
Other casting questions
Andif they are writing and casting the fair RA as Richard...do Buckingham and Henry Tudor become a bit darker?

Or will we watch two the fall of two angels, Richard and Buckingham? Wonder who they are considering
...she took the point at once, but she also took the spoons.


Kelly of Water's Edge
Rohan

Feb 11 2013, 2:22am


Views: 560
I remember reading that
the Queen denied one of the more recent requests, a few years ago I believe. There are just so many times that the remains can be disturbed and utilized, and there would have to be an earth-shattering technological advancement to justify another disturbance. Perhaps it's time that the remains of the two preteens found in the White Tower, most likely the Princes, be left to rest in peace.


Kimtc
Rohan


Feb 11 2013, 2:27am


Views: 552
I can understand her reluctance...
But still, it's amazing what they were able to do with Richard III's remains. This was a scientific and research marvel, and I'd love to see it go further.

In Reply To
the Queen denied one of the more recent requests, a few years ago I believe. There are just so many times that the remains can be disturbed and utilized, and there would have to be an earth-shattering technological advancement to justify another disturbance. Perhaps it's time that the remains of the two preteens found in the White Tower, most likely the Princes, be left to rest in peace.


Brethil
Half-elven


Feb 11 2013, 2:42am


Views: 542
Still I am curious
In Reply To
But still, it's amazing what they were able to do with Richard III's remains. This was a scientific and research marvel, and I'd love to see it go further
That's just it, ans answer one way or the other would be marvelous. Cannot help but want to know for sure.
...she took the point at once, but she also took the spoons.


Kimtc
Rohan


Feb 11 2013, 2:44am


Views: 534
Well, it sounds like this script is sympathetic to Richard
The question is do they make someone an obvious villain, or more subtle? How about Mark Strong?

I'm also interested to see how RA would handle the scoliosis. If he thinks dwarf prosthetics are uncomfortable, try walking around with one of your shoulders in your ear.

In Reply To
Andif they are writing and casting the fair RA as Richard...do Buckingham and Henry Tudor become a bit darker?

Or will we watch two the fall of two angels, Richard and Buckingham? Wonder who they are considering


Brethil
Half-elven


Feb 11 2013, 2:47am


Views: 546
R.I.P.
and I believe the Queen is reluctant because of the ethical qualms of what to do with the children if they AREN'T the Princes. As of now even in their unidentified state they have a resting place. Plus I can't help but think that there must be a bit of worry that if you shake DNA trees to hard you never know what might fall and squash on your head. Smile
...she took the point at once, but she also took the spoons.

(This post was edited by Brethil on Feb 11 2013, 2:48am)


Brethil
Half-elven


Feb 11 2013, 3:04am


Views: 531
exactly
We will have to see how they end up writing it, but I think with the modern school of thought it will be VERY subtle and show the change in charactar(s), not just the actions proceeding from an intial starting point!
Mark Strong has done a range of different parts. Dark side for him perhaps? Selfishly would love to see some of my favorites like Nicholas Farrell and Rufus Sewell.

I looked at the skeleton again and wow the curvature is shocking. He probably would have only looked straight when sitting. Though its so low it may not have caused disruption above upper thorax. The clavicles look symmetrical. Maybe like FDR he sort of stage-managed his appearances.
...she took the point at once, but she also took the spoons.

(This post was edited by Brethil on Feb 11 2013, 3:10am)


Kelly of Water's Edge
Rohan

Feb 11 2013, 3:22am


Views: 537
They're almost definitely the Princes.
The ages and time period of the remains are consistent, and how many kids are likely to have been walled up in the White Tower? There would have to be a pretty wild story indeed for them to be anyone else.

I think it's more the ethical issue of how many times you disturb the remains and that there's a finite amount of material rather than the possibility of opening a can of worms.


Rostron2
Gondor


Feb 11 2013, 4:17pm


Views: 507
True, and if you think about it
Anyone with a deformity in those days -- even a prince -- was probably viewed with suspicion by people, given the religious underscoring of the times. That made it easy. Who would you want as king, this twisted, creepy guy obviously possessed by demons, or this handsome warrior? Not so different from today, really...


Annael
Immortal


Feb 11 2013, 4:55pm


Views: 531
Tey argues
that as far as Richard being responsible for the boys' death:
a) He did not stand to benefit; there were nine other heirs to the house of York, including three males.
b) There is no contemporary accusation [not even rumors]
c) The boys' mother continued on friendly terms with him until her death, and her daughter attended Palace festivities.
d) He showed no fear of the other heirs of York, providing generously for their upkeep and granting all of them their royal state.
e) His own right to the crown was unassailable, approved by Act of Parliament and public acclamation; the boys were out of the succession and of no danger to him.
f) If he had been nervous about disaffection then the person to have got rid of was not the two boys, but the person who really was next in succession to him: young Warwick. Whom he publicly created his heir when his own son died.

Henry VII:
a) It was of great importance to him that the boys should not continue to live. By repealing the Act acknowledging the children's illegitimacy, he made the elder boy King of England, and the youngest boy the next heir.
b) In the Act which he brought before Parliament for the attainting of Richard, he accused RIchard of the usual tyranny and cruelty but made no mention of the two young Princes. The conclusion is inevitable that at that time the two boys were alive and their whereabouts known.
c) The boys' mother was deprived of her livelihood and consigned to a nunnery eighteen months after his succession.
d) He took immediate steps to secure the persons of all the other heirs to the crown, and kept them in close arrest until he could with the minimum of scandal get rid of them.
f) He had no right whatever to the throne. Since the death of Richard, young Warwick was the de jure King of England.

She makes a pretty convincing case that Sir James Tyrrell actually killed the boys and was promptly rewarded lavishly by Henry (and also got safely out of England).
The way we imagine our lives is the way we are going to go on living our lives.

- James Hillman, Healing Fiction

* * * * * * * * * *

NARF and member of Deplorable Cultus since 1967

(This post was edited by Annael on Feb 11 2013, 4:57pm)


Brethil
Half-elven


Feb 12 2013, 1:45am


Views: 491
Interesting
But it seems the two year gap from 1483 (last sighting) and 1485 (attainter granted, Bosworth) would mean that the skeleton purported to be Edward V would have matured at least a year above the upper limit of identified age.

There is more than material to test with minimal disruption. Even Tut's fetuses yielded DNA in much older and fragmented remains.
But I yield that just because we could doesn't always mean we should.
...she took the point at once, but she also took the spoons.

(This post was edited by Brethil on Feb 12 2013, 1:49am)


Brethil
Half-elven


Feb 12 2013, 1:46am


Views: 277
Human nature
right? I can't help but thtink looking at that skeleton that me must have suffered a lot, day to day.
...she took the point at once, but she also took the spoons.


Brethil
Half-elven


Feb 12 2013, 1:58am


Views: 287
typo
meant HE suffered a lot. Hate my typing when Im tired,

Hope for a strong cast if the project moves ahead. With AUJ and RA's success it might get extra impetus.
...she took the point at once, but she also took the spoons.

(This post was edited by Brethil on Feb 12 2013, 2:00am)


Brethil
Half-elven


Feb 12 2013, 2:24am


Views: 278
Will look for the Tey book
Feel like I might have read it, because it sounds familiar.
Would love to see Robert Massie write about Richard.
...she took the point at once, but she also took the spoons.


Brethil
Half-elven


Feb 12 2013, 3:25pm


Views: 443
If a film gets done
we should all meet here again and discuss. Personally I am going to hit Amazon and download something good and meaty on the topic.
...she took the point at once, but she also took the spoons.