An exploration of intertextual connections reveals the relationship between context and key values. This view is reiterated throughout William Shakespeare’s 16th Century play “King Richard III”, examining the moral ramifications of the relentless pursuit of power, reflected by the politically unstable period of the Elizabethan era. Al Pacino’s docudrama “Looking for Richard” reconstructs history to explore man’s intrinsic desire to act on their ambition for power and the notion of outer appearance versus inner reality. Pacino reincarnates Shakespeare’s depiction of power and deception for his contemporary audience to explicate the enduring nature of these concerns.
Shakespeare depicts Richard’s duplicity under influence of the Elizabethan context, where Richard is heavily condemned by the monarchy and society. Richard’s deception
…show more content…
The Elizabethan audience for whom Shakespeare wrote could understand the political struggles before Queen Elizabeth’s rule, and the corruptive quality of pursuing power. Richard’s desire for power causes him to abandon his notions of virtue in order to obtain power at any cost. The extent that Richard will go to if necessary is exemplified through the emphatic diction “O bitter consequence”. Richard blames his appearance for his immortal acts “deformed, unfinished, sent before my time” and uses it to fulfill his hunger for power. Shakespeare employs the immediate death of Richard and the animal imagery, “bloody dog”, conveyed by Richmond to portray to his audience that God has restored power to those divinely ordained, “in God’s name, cheerly on courageous friends”, due to Richard’s Machiavellian nature. By depicting Richard’s ability to employ language to deceive and usurp the hand of God in such a manner, Shakespeare reflects the sacred values towards God that existed during the Elizabethan
Texts provide insight into the lifestyles of individuals from past and allow the modern audience to understand shifts in contexts and values through time. William Shakespeare’s play The Tragedy of King Richard III presents its audience with the values of the sixteenth century, whilst Al Pacino’s film Looking for Richard highlights the shift in context and creatively reshapes these values in order to make them more accessible to a twentieth century audience. Both Pacino and Shakespeare employ different mediums in order to attract the audience of their time. Both texts explore the idea of ambition overriding the values of integrity and honesty. They both utilised the ideology of an abolished hierarchy in order to gain the adoration of the common
Shakespeare constructs King Richard III to perform his contextual agenda, or to perpetrate political propaganda in the light of a historical power struggle, mirroring the political concerns of his era through his adaptation and selection of source material. Shakespeare’s influences include Thomas More’s The History of King Richard the Third, both constructing a certain historical perspective of the play. The negative perspective of Richard III’s character is a perpetuation of established Tudor history, where Vergil constructed a history intermixed with Tudor history, and More’s connection to John Morton affected the villainous image of the tyrannous king. This negative image is accentuated through the antithesis of Richards treachery in juxtaposition of Richmond’s devotion, exemplified in the parallelism of ‘God and Saint George! Richmond and victory.’ The need to legitimize Elizabeth’s reign influenced Shakespeare’s portra...
Richard III's Usurpation and His Downfall Richards rule was always unstable due to his unlawful usurpation to the throne and his part as far as the public was concerned in the death of the two princes. As a result right from the start he didn't have the trust or support from his country. As soon as he became King people were already plotting against him. After he was crowned he travelled the country trying to raise support by refusing the generous gifts offered to him by various cities. However unknown to him a rebellion was been planned in the South.
Shakespeare’s portrayal of power reflects the conflicting influences of Medieval Morality plays and Renaissance literature during the Tudor period, demonstrating that the text is a reflection of contextual beliefs. The Third Citizen’s submission to a monotheistic deity in the pathetic fallacy of “The water swell before a boisterous storm – but leave it all to God” qualifies the theological determinism of power due to the rise of Calvinism. Pacino embodies Richard’s desire for royalty in LFR through the emphasis on celebrity culture, as he is determined to film himself in close-up, which although emphasizes the importance of Pacino, leaves out the broader scene. Soliloquies are substituted with breaches in the fourth wall, and his metatheatrical aside to the audience “I love the silence… whatever I’m saying, I know Shakespeare said it”, subverts the cultural boundaries which, deter contemporary American actors in performing Shakespeare. Shakespeare’s breach of the iambic pentameter in “Chop off his head…And when I’m king” strengthens the Renaissance influence, as Richa...
The undeniable pursuit for power is Richard’s flaw as a Vice character. This aspect is demonstrated in Shakespeare’s play King Richard III through the actions Richard portrays in an attempt to take the throne, allowing the audience to perceive this as an abhorrent transgression against the divine order. The deformity of Richards arm and back also symbolically imply a sense of villainy through Shakespeare’s context. In one of Richard’s soliloquies, he states how ‘thus like the formal Vice Iniquity/ I moralize two meanings in one word’. Through the use of immoral jargons, Shakespeare emphasises Richard’s tenacity to attain a sense of power. However, Richard’s personal struggle with power causes him to become paranoid and demanding, as demonstrated through the use of modality ‘I wish’ in ‘I wish the bastards dead’. This act thus becomes heavily discordant to the accepted great chain of being and conveys Richard’s consumption by power.
Anne is quite like a modern woman in the way that if a man tells her
“I am determined to prove a villain / and hate the idle pleasures of these days. / Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous, / by drunken prophecies, libels and dreams.” Richard III, the evil Duke of Gloucester, is fighting a bloody road to the crown in Shakespeare's dramatic play. Stopped by nothing and with brilliant intelligence, Richard fights his way to the king’s position, clothing his villany with “old odd ends stolen out of holy writ.” With no one to fully trust, Richard breaks many hearts by killing all people in his way, and becomes the unstoppable villain. He hides behind a shield of kindness and care, but when he is alone, his real soul comes alive. Sending murderers, or killing people himself, he has no mercy. Manipulating Lady Anne to marry him and promising Buckingham rewards for his deeds, he knows what he is doing, and won’t stop until the crown lies at his feet.
Prince Hal is initially portrayed as being incapable of princely responsibilities in light of his drinking, robbery and trickery. Yet, Shakespeare reveals that Hal is in fact only constructing this false impression for the purpose of deceit. Prince Hal’s manipulative nature is evident in his first soliloquy, when he professes his intention to “imitate the sun” and “break through the foul and ugly mists”. The ‘sun’ Prince Hal seeks to ‘imitate’ can in this case be understood as his true capacity, as opposed to the false impression of his incapacity, which is symbolised by the ‘foul and ugly mists’. The differentiation of Hal’s capacity into two categories of that which is false and that which is true reveals the duplicity of his character. Moreover, Hal is further shown to be manipulative in the same soliloquy by explaining his tactic of using the “foil” of a lowly reputation against his true capacity to “attract more eyes” and “show more goodly”. The diction of “eyes” symbolically represents public deception, concluding political actions are based on strategy. It is through representation and textual form that we obtain insight into this
Despite Richard's deformity, Shakespeare presents Richard as an all-powerful master of the stage. Initially, Richard's power appears to know no limits. From the first act, the audience is persuaded that he can merely appear on stage and his will is carried ...
In this speech, Shakespeare targeted his Elizabethan audience through allusions to the Great Chain of Being, which governed their society, with the intent of influencing the themes that his audience interpreted. Targeting the audience with that aspect of their lives had the effect of developing Hamlet’s underlying themes: the frailty of man, appearance versus reality, and the uncertainty of death.
This passage summarizes the chaos which Richard III has caused, in its disruptive entirety. He is seemingly cognizant of the damage he has done in this passage, although the reader already knows by this point in the play that Richard is a master orator and
The task which Shakespeare undertook was to mold the hateful constitution of Richard's Moral; character. Richard had to contend with the prejudices arising from his bodily deformity which was considered an indication of the depravity and wickedness of his nature. Richard's ambitious nature, his elastic intellect, and his want of faith in goodness conspire to produce his tendency to despise and degrade every surrounding being and object, even as his own person. He is never sincere except when he is about to commit a murder.
Shakespeare, William. Richard III. The Norton Shakespeare. Ed. Stephen Greenblatt. (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1997), 515-600.
Examples of this can be seen in Richard’s interactions with his subordinates and those who were loyal to him. These people were the pieces Richard’s metaphorical chess game, and were disposed of and used as he saw
"What tongue speaks my right drawn sword may prove" is the sentence which concludes a short speech delivered by Henry Bolingbroke to King Richard II (1.1.6). These words are but the first demonstration of the marked difference between the above-mentioned characters in The Tragedy of Richard II. The line presents a man intent on action, a foil to the title character, a man of words.