Benedict Cumberbatch plays the hunchback evil king--I understand that he did a splendid job. I also understand that the interpretation is classic.
And I appreciate that Shakespeare went to town when he created a villain to top all villains.
Nevertheless, I find the characterization annoying.
The reason is not because I think that Richard III didn't oversee the deaths of his nephews. I think they likely died from disease in the Tower, leaving Richard III with an almighty problem on his hands. I do think he deposed his oldest nephew and turned both children into bastards. I frankly found the movie The Lost King to be somewhat irritating since it is saturated with a sense of victimhood (poor misunderstood king and poor misunderstood researcher).
What irritates me about Shakespeare's villain to top all villains is the non-historicity. I don't agree with all Josephine Tey's arguments in Daughter of Time but she makes the excellent point that historians tend to see the removal of heirs prior to Henry VII and Henry VIII as barbaric and medieval--yet the same systemic shoring up of a dynasty by the Tudors, they paint as crafty statesmanship. (Uh, folks, it's the same thing.)I continue to believe that Richard III and Henry VII would have understood each other substantially better than they would understand us--or we would understand them.
Tey argues in Daughter of Time that Richard was beloved by the city of York (his primary seat was in the North--as they say in Dr. Who, "Every planet has a North!"). She argues that he loved his wife, Anne Neville, and mourned his son and heir, who died before the age of 10.
At a purely human level, there's no reason to doubt her regarding these relationships. As Shakespeare points out, any single king or magistrate has his supporters.

