Richard III by William ShakespeareWilliam Shakespeare's characterization of the historic British monarch Richard III, former Duke of Gloucester, is one of the most controversial in literature. Even today there are arguments that support the wickedness of Richard III and establish the murder of the princes in the tower, just as there are those who believe that he was falsely represented by Shakespeare's work and fight eagerly to clear his name of all crimes. Because of the uncertainty surrounding his true character, Richard III is an intriguing personality to insert into modern culture, which is exactly what Ian McKellen does in his portrayal of the infamous ruler. However, McKellen's portrayal of Richard III preserves the basic personality of Shakespeare's character and continues the idea of ​​Richard III as a tyrant and murderer; there's no doubt that McKellen captures Richard's bestial nature, but while this core element of the play is kept intact, there are other aspects of this adaptation that aren't so true to Shakespeare's vision. Overall, however, I believe that this is an honest modernization of a classic work, and that Shakespeare would have approved of most of the changes made, with only a few exceptions. The film adaptation of Richard III was relatively simple and some scenes were clearer on the screen than on the page, but there were several confusing episodes that detracted from an otherwise good rendition of Richard III. Without having read the book first, I have the feeling that the viewer would be completely lost during the opening scenes of destruction because no names are given until ten minutes into the film, and even those are dropped rather randomly. Since I read… half the paper… a written play, there is no indication to let the audience know that Anne may not be aware of her intentions or desires. It is quite possible that when this play was performed in Shakespeare's time this was exactly how the actor delivered his lines, but it is not clear one way or the other from the printed page. All in all, the film version of Richard III may be even more terrifying and brutal than the print version, because modern audiences will likely connect more with a visual image of the atrocity rather than a purely written one. I believe this is the power of Shakespeare's work: it is powerful on paper, but even more powerful in performance. It is the performance that gives his work its full potential, and as such the film of Richard III is faithful to the central subject of Shakespeare's original text, illustrating the inner beast that lies within a man's soul..