Tower of London [DVD]

The story of Richard III's bloody rise to the throne of England has been told many times, most memorably in Shakespeare's highly fictionalised play. This version perpetuates the "Richard as Demon King" legend and is a helluva lot of fun.

Basil Rathbone is a wonderful Richard, malevolent, driven, utterly ruthless and goes just far enough over the top without straying into the realm of pantomime. Karloff is, as always, superb, as the sinister Mord, executioner and henchman to the Duke and a young Vincent Price (later to play Richard himself in a low-budget remake) is the doomed Clarence, drowning in a vat of Malmsey (actually flat Coca Cola) after an outrageously hammy drinking scene with Rathbone. The ladies are pretty much sidelined. Nan Grey is a pretty nonentity and Barbara O'Neill really abandons any thoughts of restraint, playing bug-eyed horror directly into the camera lens on more than one occasion, which is curious when one considers her wonderful performance the same year as Mrs O'Hara in "Gone With the Wind". Incidentally, the two young princes in the tower are very effectively modelled on Millais' famous painting. The only serious disappointment is John Sutton as the "hero". He's truly terrible (and appears to be wearing more make up than all the females put together). It's a HORRIBLE performance.

The production looks magnificent both in terms of sets and costumes, well directed by the ever-dependable Rowland V Lee and although the score seems to be mostly recycled from other Universal horrors, it works well. All in all, a highly entertaining 92 minutes.

Wonderful acting and a great story line - these guys never age and have that magic quality to be able to hold their audience spellbound!

When Jack Nicholson, swinging that axe, is lurching around the Overlook Hotel in THE SHINING it reminds me instantly of Karloff as Mord the Executioner right down to the limp. Jack and Boris had worked together for Roger Corman in the Sixties and I'm sure this was Jack's way of paying homage to the great veteran.
TOWER OF LONDON is a Classics Illustrated take on Richard III, favouring Shakespeare's potent vision though not his dialogue and effectively splitting the murky monarch into two characters - Basil Rathbone's evil genius and Karloff's devoted sidekick, the Public Headsman with a club-foot who's in charge of the dirty work. Though both stars are truly chilling in their dedicated malevolence the film they grace is a scrappy affair. It looks good in its grey no-nonsense Thirties style but the narrative is fragmented and some of the support inadequate. Barbara O'Neil as the Queen is given staring close-ups but there's nothing going on in her eyes while John Sutton's noble hero suffers hideous torture from which he emerges strangely unmarked. A young Vincent Price makes a snarling stooge of the Duke of Clarence who almost drinks Richard under the table in a grimly amusing set-piece before being drowned in a vat of wine but the murder of the boy-princes is brutally uncompromised. There's a great moment prior to this scene when Karloff seems in two minds about killing them. He stares down at the sleeping pair as if undecided then abruptly calculates the space needed to dig a hole for them. The two super-villains die together on Bosworth Field but though the battle is strikingly drawn, mostly in dank close-ups, their actual demise is disappointingly sudden and we're off to a happy ending for the young lovers and England safe under a bland Harry Tudor.

The vexed question of guilt or innocence is thoroughly aired in THE TRIAL OF RICHARD III, a London Weekend TV programme from 1984 unseen since its first transmission but now a companion-piece to Olivier's film on dvd. It runs as long as LAWRENCE OF ARABIA on just the one set but it's absolutely riveting. A real judge presides while real counsel argue the case before an actual everyday jury and a medieval murder-mystery unfolds. The 'witnesses' for and against are historians with their documented evidence and one of them is a certain Dr. David Starkey, looking absurdly young with an H.G.Wells moustache but otherwise recognisable as the man we know today and giving the defence - Starkey's 'against' - some wasp-stings when the poor chap gets his name wrong - twice. The incontrovertible fact is that the princes disappeared after their induction into the Tower for 'protection' and were never seen again and no one apparently raised a peep about it afterwards. Did Richard's silence indicate guilt or political discretion ? Was Buckingham the instigator, the man who changed sides, was he working with the Tudors who in the event of victory over Richard wouldn't want the princes around ? Henry Tudor never mounted an enquiry after becoming King, was he behind it all ? If Richard was stitched up Shakespeare's later hatchet-job to please the Elizabethans was to skewer his image for centuries. Paintings of him are produced in court to contend that they were 'doctored' afterwards to distort his appearance. There's discussion about the bones discovered in an alcove in modern times.. The jury's eventual verdict is not legally binding, of course, and never can be but it feels satisfying. One thing's for sure, you can't keep a good story down. Add to that here the intoxicating pleasure of hearing the English language spoken throughout so beautifully and with authority. Sublime.