Is this my voodoo doll? Wrong genre this time, kids!
Vincent Price may not burn the castle down in this one, but chances are you won’t care at the end of Tower Of London (1962), an imaginative take on the accession of Richard III to the throne of England in 1483. Compressing the events, both real and fictional, from 2+ years to perhaps a month or so, Price, in the lead role, introduces the audience to Richard’s raging ambition. His brother, King Edward, lies in his death bed, and commands the youngest of the three brothers, the Duke of Clarence, to be Protector of Edward’s sons, the elder the heir. Thus, Richard’s first hurdle is created, and he leaps it with flair, and soon the bodies are piling up as the matter of a kingship is a costly undertaking.
But Richard’s mind, already twisted like his crooked back through resentment of those he thinks laughs at him, now suffers a touch of Macbeth’s disease – the affliction of guilt, of shame for what he’s done and will do. But this does not stop him, and when the unstoppable force of guilt meets the immovable object that is Richard’s ambition, the result is a man whose descent into madness goes deeper and deeper as he ascends to the throne, trampling upon the bodies of those in his way, both determined and innocent. His delusions lead him into further murder, danger, and misjudgment, and soon he takes on the mantle of invincibility; the audience may suspect that, to him, it’s not whether he has been touched by God, but whether he has touched God.
And, as often happens to the hubristic, he meets an ignominious doom suitable for the foolish at Bosworth.
Price displays a wider range than is usual for him, dragging his way from courtly manners to outright murder to gibbering terror, and he pulls all off with equal competency, treading a fine line between convincing performance and chewing the scenery. His supporting cast, too, is at least equal to their tasks; his minion, Ratcliffe (Michael Pate), brings a delicious little extra to his role. The cinematography is excellent, as is the audio, and the special effects generally did not repel me for want of competency. The sets were adequate to the needs of the story.
And the story, constrained as it has to be by the historical events, is not bad. The madness of ambition is well conveyed, and if its fidelity to real events is somewhat low, what of it? This is a story that teaches a lesson concerning over-reaching and the dangers that accompany it; these purposes benefit from the modifications to the base reality. And if Richard is not met with effective opposition at his forcible and traitorous usurpation of the throne, the opposition he does meet is that within himself. His betrayal of his own family results, in the end, in his own betrayal.
Roger Corman was the director, a famed (or infamous) B-film director. We’ve seen a number of his efforts, and this may be his best so far.
For all the positives, I won’t quite recommend it. The pacing needed some work, I think, and some of the actual murders could have been clarified to emphasize the real horror generated by Richard’s ambition. For example, the horror associated with the murders is heightened as it violates some special norms, so we’re expected to recoil at the idea of murdering one’s brother; if there had been stronger apparent affection between Richard and Clarence, we might have been more horrified.
Perhaps more importantly, one of the most important facets of this sort of story is the generation of pity for the man who commits these crimes, and it was difficult to feel real pity for the wreck of a man who would be King, in the end. Achieving such a quality would have elevated his movie up the ladder of accomplishment.
But if you do get the opportunity, you may find this entertaining on a lazy afternoon.
And if you prefer your entertainment to be purely escapist, you should probably stop reading at this juncture.
Midway through I began to see some parallels with the Trump Administration. The denial of facts, the desperate ambition, turning to dubious means as well as dubious actors (not in the theatrical sense), all are shared between Price’s Richard III and various members of the Administration – not just its head. A general dissatisfaction with reality, the delusions of grandeur, and how it leads to a disaster for both the Crown and the People were unexpected reminders of the current sad drama unfolding in our nation’s capitol. One suspects, however, that there is little guilt, little introspection, little self-awareness in this Administration, simply greedy grasping and knee-jerk fear in equal measures.
