King Richard Iii and Looking for Richard Essay Plan

Pacino similarly, conveys Richards as a villainous and Machiavellian character, however in a contrasting approach, downplays the effects of Richard’s deformities, and conveys Richards’s loss of power as due to the effects of his conscience and his short-sighted alienation or betrayal of his supporters. These changes to the character of Richard allow Pacino’s modern audience, unfamiliar with the Tudor myth, to understand the downfall of Richard as being due to his evil character and conscience not the power of god. In order to achieve his purpose of bringing the appeal of Shakespeare to the twentieth century, Pacino recreates Shakespeare’s timeless themes and insights within a modern

Moreover, Richard’s multifaceted nature in his determination to attain power is further accentuated through the striking metaphor “And thus I clothe my naked villainy …And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.”, which Shakespeare employs to represent Richard as an embodiment of absolute evil and amorality. Hence, the Shakespearean audience becomes aware of the destruction of Richard’s moral compass as he sacrifices the value of honesty in his ambitious plan to gain power and engage in sacrilegious acts to create his own fate. Comparatively, Pacino reshapes the downfall of Richard as a result of his ambition for power to reflect the secular perspective of free will and aspiration. As such, Pacino’s reimagining of the opening soliloquy with a mid shot of Pacino leaning over the sick King Edward effectively encapsulates the control Richard possesses, which allows him to deceive the king and maneuver his way

The purpose of this report is to compare and contrast two movies made about Hamlet. I will present and discuss different aspects of the version directed by Kenneth Branagh to that of Franco Zefirelli. During this paper you will be presented with my opinions in reference to determining which version of Hamlet best reflects the original text by Shakespeare. I will end this paper with my belief and explanation of which movie is true to the original play.

William Shakespeare’s Richard III is a historical play that focuses on one of his most famous and complex villainous characters. Richard III or The Duke of Gloucester, who eventually becomes king, is ambitious, bitter, ugly and deformed. He manipulates and murders his way to the throne and sets the tone for the whole play with his very first speech, which is the opening of the play.

    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.

Baz Lurhmann’s creation of the film Romeo and Juliet has shown that today’s audience can still understand and appreciate William Shakespeare. Typically, when a modern audience think of Shakespeare, they immediately think it will be boring, yet Lurhmann successfully rejuvenates Romeo and Juliet. In his film production he uses a number of different cinematic techniques, costumes and a formidably enjoyable soundtrack; yet changes not one word from Shakespeare’s original play, thus making it appeal to a modern audience.

It is not terribly odd to see directors adapt Shakespearian plays to a different era. In fact, contemporary elements in films like Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo and Juliet and the most recent Much Ado About Nothing by Joss Whedon have definitely bring valuable new readings to the text. Embracing this trend, Richard III (1995) by Richard Loncraine shifts its background to 1930s Britain. Starring Ian McKellen as Richard, the movie makes an undeniable connection to Nazi Germany; very details include costume design, set and prop, and cinematography choices all closely relate Richard to Hitler, an equivalent villain from modern history. The choice of blending Hitler into Richard puts viewers now into the shoes of audience from Shakespeare’s time to

This derives from the play as a recount of historical events with a known outcome and a medium for propaganda in support of the monarchy, an avid determinist. Nevertheless, the aforementioned tension is prevalent throughout and epitomised by the paradoxical pun ‘I am determined to prove a villain’. Uttered with a tone of poise and self-assuredness, the term ‘determined’ implies a conscious statement of purpose and a preordained villainy. Thus Richard is aligned with the stock character of the Vice, an instrument of predestination, and the innovative Machiavel, an advocator of humanism. Despite this, the ultimate decline of Richard is consequential of the reign of determinism. The directly antithetic correctio ‘I am a villain. Yet I lie, I am not’ yields an implicit self-doubt and acknowledgment of an inability to fulfil his humanist purpose. Providentialism thus displays precedence over self-determination. This is in direct contrast to Pacino’s docudrama, composed for a secular modern American audience disengaged with traditional notions of determinism. A greatly diminished and altered portrayal of Margaret, the primary instrument of determinism in the play, is expressive of this. Pacino devalues her curses by reducing her to a ‘sort of ghost of the past’. A frenzied montage of informative discourse and the activity of the play complete with

Shakespeare’s King Richard III and Al Pacino’s 1996 documentary ‘Looking for Richard’ enhance a deeper understanding of ambition and identity through depicting explicit connections between each text and their audience. Enhancement of each text is gained through differing contexts and text types which are presented through literary and cinematic techniques. Both composers use anachronisms to parallel beliefs and values such as ambition and identity which transcend both contexts.

To understand the complexity of the lineage of the English monarchy, it is imperative to make a connection between present values and those of the past. While contemporary society demonstrate an appreciation of William Shakespeare’s play King Richard III (1851) it is not one of his plays they can readily connect with. Al Pacino’s docu-drama, Looking for Richard, (henceforth Looking for...) (1996) attempts to bridge that gap through intertextual connections. Both composers elucidate their respective contexts through their exploration of the English monarch, King Richard III, through their representation of the Elizabethan struggle for power and Pacino’s attempts to connect the post-modern world to the 16th century. Pacino attempts to transform the Elizabethan play in light of

Throughout my comparative study of texts and context, I have explored various connections shared between William Shakespeare’s ‘Richard the 3rd’ and Al Pacino’s ‘Looking for Richard’. As both of these items are based on the same character, King Richard the 3rd, they share a lot in common. The connection that I have chosen to concentrate on though is the idea of power, and how both texts explore this theme.

The pursuit of individual recognition in the form of power and authority remains intrinsic in texts despite the change in contexts. This is evident in William Shakespeare’s 16th century play, King Richard III and Al Pacino’s 19th century docu-drama, Looking for Richard. Both texts explore that the pursuit of individual recognition can be initiated by an individual’s flaw in character caused by the corruption of their sense of morality in order to gain power. This is depicted through the malicious and treacherous nature of the central character, Richard in both texts. There are central ideas conveyed in these texts, including the nature of authority, the acquisition of power and the significant impact determinism plays in one’s decisions and actions. However, due to the difference in cultural context, Pacino reshapes these values to make Shakespeare accessible to a modern day audience. As a result, Pacino sequentially follows the plot of King Richard III in order to emphasise the relevance of Shakespeare’s plays in a modern society. Pacino addresses this through an emphasis on film techniques instead of dramatic techniques. Therefore, it is evident that the comparative study of these texts allows the responder to appreciate the connection between contexts and values, allowing the responder to reflect upon their own society’s concerns.

Richard is a victim of bullying throughout the play, and this causes him to do harmful things to others. His deformity is something that he is very insecure about, and when characters in the play insult him, it leads to him getting revenge on them. Anne, when Richard is talking to her as a potential love interest, insults him, “Blush, blush, thou lump of deformity” (1.2.58). As Richard is trying to be charming, Anne strikes his insecurity, which upsets him, and causes him to hurt her later. Queen Margaret calls Richard names as well, “Thou elvish-marked, abortive, rooting hog” (1.3.228). This is especially hurtful to Richard, because he is trying to be especially desirable to win over her daughter, yet he is still called rude names. Later in the play, Richard implies that he is going to kill Anne, “Come hither; Catesby. Rumor it abroad / That Anne my wife is very grievous sick; / I will take order for keeping close”(4.2.50-52). This is awfully suspicious and implying that he is going to kill her, which is his revenge for her calling him a lump of deformity, as well as allowing him to proceed in his plans to take the throne. He is insecure about the insults, but he still tries his best to be kind to the women in the play.

Shakespeare adapts these tenants to construct a power thirsty character. Consequently, while the London elite was introduced to these ideals, Shakespeare shaped the overall plot of the play to exemplify the discussed the power quest introduced by Machiavelli. This results in Richard’s actions that lead him to kill his brother and manipulate his family into getting the throne.

Richard II is an authoritative and greedy king of England, and he is living in a period of transition that medieval knights who are swearing total loyalty to a king has been disappearing and an aristocracy starts to gain a power for their own good. However, Richard II keeps believing the power of kingship, and he also is too confident himself. He overestimates his authority and power; furthermore, he ignores the periodical change. Therefore, he speaks confidently how firm his position as king is to the people in Wales, but his attitude changes when he suffers a defeat by Henry Bolingbroke that he