When transposing a traditional text, particularly one such as Shakespeare's "Richard III" – deemed classical and therefore sacred – one will undoubtedly run into controversy – if not blatant opposition. However, Ian McKellen's appropriation of the original play has – remarkably – resulted in mass approval. The majority of critics rave about McKellen's (quote) "riveting and wildly original work of cinema" (unquote). Throughout his film, McKellen has managed to achieve an almost accurate portrayal of Richard III as depicted by Shakespeare in the original play, changing only the setting of the text. By transposing the text for contemporary society, and placing the film within the spectrum of Nazi Germany, McKellen has created a more "accessible" Shakespeare – a Shakespeare the responder finds he can relate to. (SUM UP WHOLE SPEECH!)
             Shakespeare's depiction of Richard III is publicly acknowledged by most as being a somewhat exaggerated depiction of the true historical figure. Whilst Shakespeare portrays the king as (quote) "a foul devil", "inhuman and unnatural" "deformed", "unfinished" and "rudely stamped" (unquote), many historians disagree with Shakespeare's version of the events, stating that the real Richard III was not one in the same with Shakespeare's portrayal. Paintings of the king show a pleasant faced man in contrast to Shakespeare's illustration of a hunchback, deformed cripple. Several historical versions praise Richard for the good he did his country, portraying him as a relatively good king.
             Shakespeare seems to have taken Richard III's worst traits and expanded on those evils alone. Shakespeare's play tells of eleven people killed at the hands of this "evil" king, yet historians have trouble linking all of these murders to Richard. Even the time and ...