These two were consummate actors, meaning they obviously studied their craft, established a persona all their own and always performed well in good films. Of course the same is true, and then some, for Olivier. Hard to say which of the two was better but I do think Richardson had a bit of an edge in that Gielgud seemed to keep the upper class look in all his films. All three from the classic era of movies and not to be seen again I think.

This message has been deleted.

Gielguds film performances have dated very badly (except ARTHUR and CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE), hes far too plummy and posh to the extent he stands out like a sore thumb in most films he did. Cant stand him in Hitchcocks SECRET AGENT, hes terrible in it, very unconvincing.

What a question!
You can't compare coffee and bread, moon and stars.
Be thankful that a tiny proportion of their genius has been recorded for the coming generations.

Gielgud was truly brilliant but, there's just a little more sparkle with Richardson! However, I much prefer Olivier over both - by far! He was the greatest of the great!
"The essence of all art is giving pleasure in order to recieve it" - Mikhail Baryshnikov.

Richardson had a more impressive voice and commanding stage presence, while Gielgud was more subtle and low-key.
I just watched
The Fallen Idol
again yesterday and was struck by how subtle and low-key Richardson's performance was.
Which is not to say that Gielgud could not be commanding. I don't think I'll ever forget how he dominated so much of the 1981 version of
Brideshead Revisited
. His performance was masterful.
"The night was sultry."

Richardson had a more impressive voice and commanding stage presence, while Gielgud was more subtle and low-key.
Casting them together in
Home
and other plays/films works very well, as they complement each other's strengths and talents.

I can only speak to their film work, having never had the privilege of seeing either one on stage. But I definitely prefer Richardson over Gielgud.
As you say, Richardson's quirkiness is charming, I'd go further and say it's compelling, even riveting. (The ONLY black and white film my husband has ever willingly sat through was The Heiress, due to Richardson's mesmerizing performance as Dr. Sloper. I'm still taken aback by that.)
I adore Richardson, his preternaturally intelligent face, his incisive voice, and above all, the way he allows us to sense so much more about his characters than we see.
This is not to detract from the lovely John Gielgud, whose brilliantly witty performance in Brideshead Revisited alone is, or should be, enough to ensure his immortality as an actor. I was lucky enough to see him on The Dick Cavett Show and he was the essence of charm, wit and freshness (this last despite his advanced years).
How lucky we are to have had them both.

Very interesting rrb. Thanks for sharing your recollections. I might try to find a copy of the TV version of No Man's Land that they both did.
As far as their movie performances are concerned, do you still think that Gielgud was the better of the two, or is that judgment limited to what you saw onstage?

I saw No Man's Land in New York in '76. Gielgud stole the show. He was electrifying, and the audience went mad when he took his curtain call. Gielgud was a very fine film actor, but based on what I saw, his first world was undoubtedly the stage.
Gielgud played Spooner, the impoverished, pretentious poet, to Richardson's wealthy one, Hirst. Gielgud adored playing against type and understood his character to the marrow. In contrast, Richardson made no bones about the fact that he'd no idea what was going on in the play. That, no doubt, is why Sir John so outshone him.
BTW, I saw No Man's Land in London last month, with Michael Gambon as Hirst and David Bradley as Spooner. It couldn't compare to the original production.

Interesting. What were they like in the theatre? Do you think they were better on stage or in movies?
No Man's Land would be a great one to compare the two actors. Interesting to hear that you would prefer Richardson.

I saw them both on stage in Pinter's NO MAN'S LAND in the 70's and they were incredible. I slightly prefer Richardson, although I've probably seen him in more films.

Wow, it's so tough to compare those three.
true legends of acting, no doubt.
There are not too many around today who come close to these guys, for what they did anyway.
All 3 of them brought an incredible amount of gravitas to the screen - I think it was some shared British old-school element, common to them all which brought something extra to what they did, and which unfortunately is not around too much today.

I prefer Ralph. For several reason. One is he was a real master at falling down. Seriously.
I like John and Laurence both though.
Why settle for the lesser of two evils? Vote Cthulhu!

Richardson, usually, though Gielgud seemed a tad more sophisticated as an actor. I hate to say it, and I may be wrong, but I don't think we have the likes of these two today. I guess we're not meant to.

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

I vote for Richardson, too. Gielgud was great but I don't think he was given as much of a chance to shine on film as Sir Ralph. If I had ever seen them perform onstage then I would probably be able to offer a different perspective.