Clarence’s Dream

Clarence’s Dream

Within the multiple scenes, we can find in Richard III of Shakespeare there are many of them that could be adapted because they have enormous flexibility. For instance, in the cinematographic environment, some scenes could be interpreted, and presented with mesmerizing visual effects that may reproduce thoughts, ideas, dreams, visions, and so on. Nevertheless, there is onescene, the one of Clarence’s dream, which in some movie adaptations, is not represented visually speaking. For instance, the movies of Laurence Olivier (1955) and Richard Loncraine (1995) are two versions made in different decades, and they have a common feature: In both movies, the dream is not shown but told. The dream could be taken as a flash forward of Clarence death. Therefore, this term paperis going to present two ideas why this scene was not visually conceptualized on screen.
Shakespeare’s words are certainly powerful and pertinent to describe the dream. Neither Olivier nor Loncraine wanted to remove the dream sequence. Laurence Olivier in an interview says, “If you are going to cut a Shakespeare play, there is only one thing to do, lift out scenes” (1). Probably this is a keyto understand the choice he made in his own film. The two directors, in one hand, did not lift out this scene. On the other hand, the treatment of the same sequence was totally different in each movie. Olivier was a well-known Shakespearean actor who was highly involved in this genre, and his scripts were remarkably close to the play. I think that his intention of keeping the script almost exact isto enhance the theatricality of the dream. The words of Shakespeare produced a high level of anguish and terror, they are full of great and strong images, and successfully describe the ocean world; Clarence (John Gielgud, a recognised Shakespearean actor) gives life to every word and makes us feel the panic he feels. The scene starts in the same way Act I scene 4 starts in the play. After havinga nightmare, an omen of his own death, Clarence tells his dream to Brackenbury. In terms of narrative, this version is close to the diegesis of the play, it means, in the medieval times, the castle, the ambiance, the wardrobe, the props make this fact obvious. Plus, there is a parallelism between the original play and the cinematographic representation of Olivier’s Richard III in terms ofscreenplay. Except for one reduction in Clarence’s intervention, the last five lines in his first speech, the dialogue is the same. As we can see, words are extremely relevant for a stage actor as well as performance. It could be a reason why he did not opt to transform words into literal images. However, the movie of Loncraine has a whole different diagesis. This is a world in which war is depicted.Many risks are taken and shown on the screen and from the beginning of the film we, as spectator, are prepared to expect the unthinkable. It is a totally different cinematographic mise en scene of a traditional piece. It is a very modern version which invites us to admire the versatility of Shakespeare’s plays. The script, in Clarence’s dream scene, is cut. The way he describes the dream is succinct.The lines, which were removed from Clarence’s speech in Olivier’s version, are not omitted in Loncraine’s film. Nevertheless, a great part of Clarence’s speech is shortened in Loncraine’s version. Clarence only describes it in general terms. Why do they want to keep the scene? It seems as if the idea of telling the dream means more than showing images because here what is noteworthy is to presentthe concept of portents. This is a recurrent notion in the whole play: dreams and signs that foretell the destiny of certain characters. For instance, in Locraine’s the pig or wild boar is shown depicting Richard, the image of ferocity and treason. Also in Olivier’s, dreams and the boar are presented as symbols of danger. These elements, the dream and signs, provide the movie with an obscure...