Studying an urban context and appropriation simultaneously reveals a textual conversation in which contextual values and social paradigms may align or collide. While analysing William Shakespeare’s King Richard III (1593) alongside Robert Al Pacino’s Looking for Richard (1996), these shifts become apparent through the resonances and dissonances between the portrayal of theatricality as a tool for obtaining power. The notion of manipulation and the role of women contributing to one’s use of theatricality to obtain power is explored in both texts, where Shakespeare looks through the lens of providentialism, revealing the consequences that have arisen from a higher power, while Pacino explores through a secularist lens, illustrating the psychological …show more content…
Due to the limited Shakespearean knowledge in 20th century America, the manipulation of his audience allowed Pacino to make Shakespeare more accessible to modern America and exert power over the viewer’s interpretations. Pacino’s omission of more complex soliloquies and agreement with Kimball’s proposal of “I suggest you change it to C” regarding Richard’s prophecy on Edward’s downfall utilises casual dialogue to employ manipulation and theatricality in order to gain power over the audience’s perception of Shakespeare’s work. Pacino’s manipulation of language also exemplifies his purpose, as at the end of the docudrama, Pacino’s degradation of language is shown, through use of method acting, in his monosyllabic exclamation of “I want to be king already.” By simplifying Shakespeare’s phrasing, Pacino takes into account his audience of the early digital age, who exhibit lower attention spans, and therefore makes the play more accessible to the modern audience. Thus, Looking for Richard also exemplifies the notion of manipulation in using theatricality to gain
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
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.
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.
Therefore, through the comparative study of Shakespeare’s historical tragedy King Richard III and Al Pacino’s postmodern docudrama Looking For Richard, it can be clearly demonstrated how the distinctive contexts between both composers inevitably affect their portrayal of ideas. In Pacino’s docudrama ‘Looking For Richard’, not only has he ‘found Richard’ but has also redefined his character portrayal of Richard for his post-modern secular audience.
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].
Many people have fears of things that they are afraid of. It’s natural to have fears because it’s part of human nature. In the play Juliet has to decide wether or not to drink the potion. In Shakespeare’s play he shows Juliet’s fear by using choice of words and imagery.
Kenneth Branagh creates his own individualistic adaptation of this classic through the use of visual imagery, characterization, and setting. Branagh cut many lines and speeches from the text to better support his interpretation of a more open and informal society of warm-hearted, affectionate characters. Though Shakespeare's mood is more formal, Branagh remains true to the essence of the play as all of the same characters and most of the dialogue are justly included in the film. Although distinct differences can be made between Branagh’s film and Shakespeare’s written work, they both share a common denominator of good old-fashioned entertainment; and in the world of theater, nothing else really matters.
Zeffirelli’s filmic Hamlet evidently interprets the original play especially considering Mel Gibson’s performance making it easy for the audience to understand Shakespearean dialect. Shakespeare’s Hamlet is a man with friends who proves to be much more reserved, and manipulative than someone might imagine today. His hamlet is considerate in his plans, but with no tact interpersonally. Zeffirelli’s audience is required to focus on the troubles, and character of Hamlet, who is nonstop, and unfriendly, but a sensitive loner when the time is right. Zeffirelli accomplishes this mixture while staying faithful to his starting place my maintaining solid screenplay with a constant flow supporting his own take on the story. Concisely, Zeffirelli’s Hamlet is both a free and a loyal understanding of its source, which is, for today’s viewers, a Hamlet in its own right.
"Elizabethan Theatre Audiences." Elizabethan Theatre Audiences. Strayer University, 16 May 2012. Web. 24 Mar. 2014.
In Hamlet’s speech, Shakespeare’s efforts to target his Elizabethan audience develop the theme of the frailty of man. Shakespeare conveys this underlying theme of the play by subt...
The interpretation of Hamlet’s, To Be or Not to Be soliloquy, from the Shakespearean classic of the same name, is an important part of the way that the audience understands an interpretation of the play. Although the words are the same, the scene is presented by the actors who portray Hamlet can vary between versions of the play. These differences, no matter how seemingly miniscule, affect the way in which someone watching the play connects with the title character. For example, one way that the Kenneth Branagh and David Tennant interpretations differ is in the speed and inflection of the soliloquys, as well as the ambient audio or lack of, in Tennant’s case, during the respective scenes. During the Kenneth Branagh portrayal of Hamlet, the speech is fast and in a forceful tone that gives a feeling that Hamlet is trying to make a point rather than understand the complexity of the situation in his own right.
Texts and their appropriations reflect the context and values of their times. Within Shakespeare’s Othello and Geoffrey Sax’s appropriation of Othello, the evolution of the attitudes held by Elizabethan audiences and those held by contemporary audiences can be seen through the context of the female coupled with the context of racism. The role of the female has developed from being submissive and “obedient” in the Elizabethan era to being independent and liberated within the contemporary setting. The racism of the first text is overtly xenophobic and natural, whilst the “moor” is unnatural whereas the updated context portrays Othello’s race as natural and racism as unnatural. Therefore these examples show how Shakespeare’s Othello, and it’s appropriation, Geoffrey sax’s Othello, reflect the context and values of their times.
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.
William Shakespeare and the new millennium seem to be diametrically opposed, yet his works are having a renaissance of their own after 400 years in the public domain. Why have some major film producers revisited his works when their language and staging would seem to be hopelessly outdated in our society?Perhaps because unlike modern writers, who struggle with political correctness, Shakespeare speaks his mind with an uncompromising directness that has kept its relevance in this otherwise jaded world.
Through the elements of technique portrayed in this essay, it is clear to see that Shakespeare is able to influence the reader through soliloquies, imagery, and dual understanding. This overall influence being both the communication of a deeper meaning, and a more complex understanding of the events and statements within Hamlet.