I'm surprised to hear positive feedback from Looking for Richard. I was rolling my eyes throughout most of the movie. Towards the beginning, Pacino says that his mission is to "translate our passion and what we've learned to portray how we think and feel today." Why is this unique to Pacino? Don't we still perform Shakespeare today because the plays are passionate and relevant to what we think and feel today? Granted, there are antiquated, dispassionate productions done with overt pretense, but who is Pacino to 'save' us from these productions? After he makes this claim about making it "relevant today," there seems very little in the rest of the movie to accomplish this goal. His production is no more modern and interesting than the many BBC produced classical Shakespearean productions. As far as making it more accessible to American audiences, I think he is insulting American culture by claiming we can't access it without his help. It's even more insulting that, as far as I could tell, the only thing he did to make it more accessible to the American public was cast American actors-himself [of course], Kevin Spacy, Winona Ryder- bankable stars that make a film accessible to the public, not necessarily Shakespeare. Many of these performances (especially Ryder's) had be convinced that his counterargument was correct: American actors can't handle Shakespeare.

The most illuminating parts of the film, I felt, were the interviews with the English actors who are Shakespeare veterans. Vanessa Redgrave in particular supplied a lot of insight. But Pacino is placing these actors on a pedastal. I would have been interested to hear Pacino interview American actors who frequent Shakespeare and how they managed to bridge the gap between the American culture and this allegedly British tradition. Instead, Pacino spent most of his time interviewing people on the street who have nothing illuminating to say; most of them just seem excited to be talking to Al Pacino.

By the end of the film, I had written in my notes "WHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS MOVIE?" It was poorly planned with no conclusion. Pacino did not make Richard III accessible, but he hurt his cause by speaking for American actors and producing this mess of a film. The film seemed nothing but self-indulgence from an actor who can afford to be self-indulgent. The documentary side of the film's disarray suggested to me that halfway through filming, Pacino realized he had no relevant footage and just threw together the nonsensical, pretentious arguments he did have in a pathetic attempt at a narrative. At one point, Pacino is trying to explain one of Shakespeare's lines and then dismisses it by saying "it's very confusing. I don't even know why I'm bothering." Neither do I.