Brian Leighty Dr. Romack ENL 4333 22 April 2014 Richard III: Tyrannical Theatricality and the Illusion of Truth Humanity's version of entertainment undeniably reflects a violent history rife with bloody quests for power. However, the stage has never seen a more villainous protagonist than in Shakespeare's Richard III. Our antihero, Richard of Gloucester, immediately engages the audience with a sweet soliloquy, his plot, filled with goals of betrayal and murder effectively forming a bond between himself and his listeners— a bond built on the illusion of truth. [Queen Elizabeth info] The illusion of truth is the goal of any successful performer, and Richard's ability to influence his listeners, both the audience and the characters in the play, demonstrates his power as a performer, which deteriorates once he is crowned king. His facade cracks and ultimately breaks down once he no longer has an audience to perform for, leaving Richard a victim of his own undoing. Instead of a powerful physical image, like Queen Elizabeth I, Richard implements elegant soliloquies, engages in witty banter, and attunes the audience to his motives with frequent asides. This flexibility demonstrates Richard's thespian superiority and power over the rest of the play's cast, making him a unique character in the play, but why does he do it? This constant battle between characters to claim mastery over a scene leaves the audience with a seemingly overlooked source of power for an actor [clarify/expand]. 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 ... ... middle of paper ... ...f control of scenes and verbal encounters, which finally ends with his magnificent downfall. [implement more Margaret control/curses/competition in the beginning]. Despite Richard's best attempts to write his own ending, the audience is now forced with the truth that it was Margaret's prophecy that ripened to fruition. With Richard's final soliloquy taking blame for his actions and "the outward movement away from any semblance of Richard's control, completes the separation of Richard and audience" (Schellenberg 66). Through the course of Act V, Richard takes part in only two of the six scenes. Of these two scenes, he shares the stage with Richmond, the rising actor to take the lead role. [Concluding (So what) paragraph: Theatricality and the power of kingship. (Tie Queen Elizabeth I's success through performance with Richard's theatricality/lack of theatricality.]
I feel that Richard gains our sympathy when he resigns the crown, refuses to read the paper that highlights his crimes, and smashes the mirror, which represents his vanity. In terms of kingship, I interpret the play as an exploration between the contrast with aristocratic pride in the law and the king's omnipotent powers. It also shows the chain reaction on kingship as past events in history determine present
Composers throughout various zeitgeists are linked by different representations of universal human concerns, and their texts simultaneously embody certain values and agendas individual to themselves. An exploration of Shakespeare’s King Richard III (1592) and Al Pacino’s Looking for Richard (1996) allows for a greater understanding of the composer’s respective contexts, along with their intended agendas, through the lens of their own societal values and concerns. The manipulation of Richard III’s persona, whether by authorial adaptation of historical sources related to his character, or through the differing views of Richards motives, are universal concepts, that when studied in relation to the differing time periods, accentuates the context and our understanding of recurrent aspects of the human experience.
...remained constant regardless of environment. Evidently, the play itself manipulates the audience’s perception of reality as it presents a historical recount designed to solidify the ruling monarch, and condemn Richard. This one-sided portrayal is achieved through animal imagery of a “usurping boar”, as Shakespeare’s pro-monarch propaganda highlights how duplicitous representations of reality may influence a society, regardless of context.
The content and construction of texts are inexorably influenced by the plethora of social, cultural, and historical factors relative to a composer’s context. Context thus becomes the principle medium for deciphering the complex and often didactic meanings within texts. Through the comparative study of Shakespeare’s historical tragedy King Richard III and Al Pacino’s postmodern docudrama Looking For Richard, both texts explore the various connections explored through the protagonist Richard with respective societal influence affecting their portrayal. Shakespeare’s text strongly conveys a sense of providentialism which was influential by the Tudor monarchy whilst Al Pacino thorough the implement of modern day media portrays these influences to a secular, postmodern audience.
Anne is quite like a modern woman in the way that if a man tells her
The Effectiveness of William Shakespeare's Use of Supernatural in the Final Act of Richard III
The value of manipulation and misleading for personal gain has proven to be rewarding for multiple people throughout history. Geoffrey Chaucer and William Shakespeare, exemplify characters and atmospheres that posses these manipulating qualities through personal gain. Othello is a play w...
In Act Scene Two, Richard is very clever and intelligent with his moves in convincing Anne to marry him. In fact his knowledge and organisation led him to having three stages of development in manipulating Anne. Anne was an easy target though. He thought that Elizabeth was just as easy to convince, so he did not put any extra effort in. But little did he know that that extra effort would have saved his life. He totally put aside his manipulation skills and took it calm and easy in Act Four Scene Four, so he had to get quite desperate at the end of the scene. He was satisfied to know that he won both oral battles against the ladies, at least he thought so. But Elizabeth was not as weak as poor Anne was. She had a couple of tricks up her sleeve. She was aware of Richard’s evil plans. She had a feeling Richard had slaughtered her dear sons, as well as innocent lady Anne. She knew for sure that he had murdered Anne’s husband and father in-law. And she had a feeling that he had done more harm than what meets the eye. She acted as though she gave in and made the path clear for Richard to marry her daughter (Elizabeth, of the same name).
the play draws its readers to identify with Richard and thereby to participate in a
Many would perceive madness and corruption to play the most influential role in Hamlet. However, it could be argued that the central theme in the tragedy is Shakespeare's presentation of actors and acting and the way it acts as a framework on which madness and corruption are built. Shakespeare manifests the theme of actors and acting in the disassembly of his characters, the façades that the individuals assume and the presentation of the `play within a play'. This intertwined pretence allows certain characters to manipulate the actions and thoughts of others. For this reason, it could be perceived that Shakespeare views the `Elsinorean' tragedy as one great puppet show, "I could see the puppets dallying".
Throughout William Shakespeare’s works, one can see what true evil is such as Macbeth and Richard III. Shakespeare portrayed evil in his works to make the world aware that evil exists everywhere you look. For instance in Macbeth, Macbeth killed MacDuff and blamed it on his servants, and in King Lear Goneril kills her sister, Regan. As the story of King Lear unfolds, a tale of evil and villainy is shown to the audience. Many characters can be separated respectively in groups of good and evil, evil outweighing the good. The lust for power is the backbone of the story and is the ultimate reason for the downfall of the characters involved. Evil characters are domineering at the beginning of the play, and soon the good begin to be on top.
At the very outset of the play, readers are presented with the power-hungry, self-loathing Duke of Gloucester, defined by his thirst for vengeance and power and by his uncanny ability to manipulate the minds of the people around him. Richard appeals to the audience’s sympathies in his self-deprecating description, when he declares that he is deformed, unfinished, and so hideous and unfashionable that dogs bark at him as he passes by. The imagery he utilizes throughout the opening soliloquy also evokes a feeling of opposition and juxtaposition which speaks to the duality of his nature.The juxtapositions he employs are more than rhetorical devices, as ...
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.
The Derek Jacobi production of Richard II provides its own answers to many of the ambiguities posed by the text alone. Richard is portrayed as an ineffective ruler ripe for overthrow, and Bullingbrook as a more capable man boosted to power by the scheming of the Machiavellian Northumberland. Many other interpretations are valid -- indeed, some of this production's choices were made easier by judicious cuts in the script -- but this production provides an entertaining, reasonable, and self-consistent interpretation of the welter of events surrounding the deposition of a king. And, in so doing, the production proves the almost limitless variety of theater, particularly of Shakespeare.
According to many, Shakespeare intentionally portrays Richard III in ways that would have the world hail him as the ultimate Machiavel. This build up only serves to further the dramatic irony when Richard falls from his throne. The nature of Richard's character is key to discovering the commentary Shakespeare is delivering on the nature of tyrants. By setting up Richard to be seen as the ultimate Machiavel, only to have him utterly destroyed, Shakespeare makes a dramatic commentary on the frailty of tyranny and such men as would aspire to tyrannical rule.