Evil is a product of human corruption, and it comes in many different styles and forms. Evil individuals have sprung up all throughout the history of man, from the very beginning until present day. Though the evil took on different forms, be they subtle or undisguised, it has always been a perceptible thing. One such evil individual was Richard III, King of England. It is a generally agreed upon thing that Richard was, in fact, evil, and will most likely continue to remain that way. Something which is not so amicably settled, is on Richard certain brand of evil. Evil, as mentioned before, takes on many different forms. In modern times, there are 3 evils which have their own respective attributes and sub-categories. These three different evil archetypes are used to identify evil actions, and further the motive behind said evil. …show more content…
Richard, while showing traits of all three, is predominantly a Machiavel. This is apparent in his initial soliloquy, when he states, “And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover -- to entertain these fair well-spoken days, -- I am determinèd to prove a villain -- and hate the idle pleasures of these days.” Richard’s decision to be evil in his beginning soliloquy shows that he is not an incarnation of the Devil, as would be characteristic of the Vice. By stating that becoming evil was a choice of his, subconsciously or not, he shows that the evil within him is not necessarily an intrinsic part of his being. Throughout the play and movie both, we can see that Richard is more prone to tactics which are Machiavellian in nature, and is more subtle in his machinations. 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
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.
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.
To explore connections between texts is to heighten understanding of humanity’s progressing values and the underlying relevant themes that continue to engage societies regardless of context. William Shakespeare’s King Richard III (1592) (RIII) and Al Pacino’s docudrama Looking for Richard (1996) (LFR) demonstrate how opinion is created through comparative study, both explore the struggle for power within differing contexts to determine the duplicity of humanity. Ultimately, despite the divergent eras of composition and textual form, these connections expose the relevant social commentaries of their composers, highlighting innately human values, which remain constant.
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.
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].
There are two kinds of evil, moral and natural. Moral evil is things like murder, rape, stealing, terrorism, etc. Natural evil is things like suffering and unpleasantness typically as a result of moral evil. Evil is that which has no power of its own. Evil is darkness, a negation of light. Its power is in us, in our fear of it, in that we consider it a "something" worth responding to.
Richard had weakened since he had become king and was no longer ruthless as he had no reason to be ruthless. He had got what he wanted and was pleased with himself. He thought he was invincible, and he was too confident, which cost him his life. If he had been more careful, he would have been aware of the danger that lied before him. But, he did use some similar techniques in both the scenes.
This contributes to a very villainous role. Richard begins his journey to the throne. He manipulates Lady Anne. into marrying him, even though she knows that he murdered her first. husband.
Shakespeare Richard III was a traitor, a murderer, a tyrant, and a hypocrite. The leading characteristics of his mind are scorn, sarcasm, and an overwhelming contempt. It appears that the contempt for his victims rather than active hatred or cruelty was the motive for murdering them. Upon meeting him he sounds the keynote to his whole character. " I, that am curtailed of this proportion, cheated of feature by dissembling nature, Deform'd, unfinish'd sent before my time Into this word scarce half made up"( 1.1.20-23)
Casting a darkly mythical aura around Richard III, supernatural elements are intrinsic to this Shakespearean history play. The prophetic dreams of Clarence and Stanley blur the line between dream and reality, serving to foreshadow impending doom. The ghosts that appear before Richard III and Richmond before their battle create an atmosphere of dread and suspense, and they also herald Richard's destiny. The curses of three female royalties are fulfilled at the end, serving as reminders that the divine powers are stronger than Richard's malice. Together, the supernatural elements of dreams, ghosts, and curses unify the plot of Richard III and allow the divine to triumph over evil.
From the outset of the play, it is obvious that Richard subscribes to the majority of the Machiavellian principles. Certainly, he is not ashamed or afraid to plot heinous murder, and he does so with an ever-present false front. "I do mistake my person all this while,"1 he muses, plotting Anne's death minutes after having won her hand. He will not even entertain the ideas in public, demanding they "Dive...down to [his] soul."2 He knows that he must be cunning and soulless to succeed in his tasks. Richard also knows it is essential to guard against the hatred of the populace, as Machiavelli warned.
Richard II is not your average king. He is useless with his power and does not know how to use it. He is the king of England when the play begins but shortly after his kingship is taken away from him. Richard II is a young man who has not matured much since his adolescence. He is disconnected from his land and its people, which becomes one of the downfalls of his crown. He has an extraordinary flair for poetic language. He is witty and poetic personality doesn’t work with his higher calling in life. A king should be strong and fearless. King Richard II is not a man of action and as the play advances, he gets into more and more trouble. As his end approaches, he becomes very poetic. Like most Shakespearean heroes, Richard II has a strong theatrical personality. He likes putting on a show and enjoys a bit of wordplay, even at his own expense. What sets him apart from other Shakespearean characters is the perverse joy he takes in his downfall.
In actuality, his mind overpowers his self. Because he firmly holds on to the belief that he “cannot prove a lover” without offering any proof that he really is incapable of wooing “a wanton ambling nymph,” Richard chooses “to prove a villain” (Shakespeare 6). His mind constantly rejects optimism and instead thrusts him back into the darkness where he can protect himself from disappointment. By doing so, Richard’s body becomes a canvas upon which his mind can paint any identity. Richard plays the concerned, supportive brother to an imprisoned Clarence, a good-hearted, loyal citizen in front of Brackenbury, and a drooling lover in front of Lady Anne. In reality, however, neither of these personas come even remotely close to the truth of his identity. By hiding behind these facades as well as expressing evil intentions and a strong connection to the dark side, Richard finds himself capable of being someone amazing. But that someone is not him. He revels in being able to “seem a saint…when mostly…play[ing] the devil,” and thus gains an identity through his villainous and monstrous ideas (36) Every physical action he takes can be traced back to its origin in the mind as a carefully crafted piece of his overall plan to ascend the