King Richard The Second

Shakespeare’s and Pacino’s texts both depict Richard’s downfall due to his lack of conscience and virtues in his ambitious quest for power to reflect the beliefs of a Providential and secular society respectively. As such, Shakespeare's use of stichomythia and rhetorical question “Was ever woman in this humour wooed? Was ever woman in this humour won?” accentuates the lack of compassion and morality in Richard’s persuasive abilities to emotionally manipulate Anne to accept him as a suitor in his path to attain greatness. With Richard’s gratification of his achievement, Shakespeare illustrates the tyrant within Richard as his moral conscience diminishes due to over-ambition, hence reflecting the harsh Machiavellian politics in the Elizabethan era. Shakespeare’s underlying message on over-ambition is further exemplified through the dissolution of Richard’s unjust reign and mental stability through the death imagery in “It is now dead midnight. Cold fearful drops stand on my trembling flesh. What do I fear? Myself?”. Richard’s unstable mind in the ghosts’ precession, encapsulates Shakespeare’s message of the ramifications of sacrilegious acts whilst asserting God’s divine retribution on any form of theomachy ambition. In accordance to Shakespeare’s illustration of the fall of man due to ambition,

Upon Richard's return to England, he learns of the events that had transpired in his absence. At first his own arrogance allows him to believe that since it is his God given right to rule as King, he will be protected. But then just as quickly, Richard's arrogance turns into despair upon the realization that Henry has gained support of the nobles and the people of England. Henry and Richard finally meet at Ramparts Castle leading to the climax of the play. Henry demands retribution for the allocation of his families' possessions and

Richard, the main character of the Shakespeare’s play, Richard III is portrayed as socially destructive and politically over-ambitious. His destructive potential is depicted by the way he relates with the other protagonists in the play and also by what he confesses as his intentions.

Shakespeare’s plays were grouped into three categories: comedies, tragedies and histories. The histories were those plays based on the lives of English kings. Shakespeare was one of the first writers to write about English history. According to Garber, “before Shakespeare’s time there were few history plays such written in England--- England history was told in verse and prose chronicles (239)”. It’s considered that Richard II is one of the early “historical plays”. The play became so iconic that even Queen Elizabeth said that she was “Richard the second, know ye not that”. Richard II tells the story about a king’s downfall.

There is no doubt that Shakespeare was the author of great pieces of literature during an interesting time period. Given the circumstances, he was indeed mastering his craft during a very tumultuous juncture in British history. When one reads Richard III, they don’t necessarily have to know a great deal about the War of Roses to understand that there is some serious strife going on. However, if the reader takes some time to understand this fascinating string of events, the story of Richard and his fall becomes much more interesting. In all of his brilliance, Shakespeare manages to toy with the idea of humor in this very morose play. As a matter of fact, he does this in many, if not all of his tragedies.

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

Ambition is an earnest desire for achievement. Both texts are self reflexive and emphasise Richard’s obsessive ambition, desire and longing for the throne. Each Richard strives towards capturing the throne regardless of consequences and bloodshed. Richard is depicted in both texts as an ambitious character who strives to gain power and independence through deception and self confessed villainy. ‘Since I cannot prove a lover. . . I am determined to prove a villain’ This obsession which drives Richard to commit horrific evils to gain and then protect his claim to the throne. His ambition, power and evil blinds him and inevitably is responsible for his downfall in both of the texts. A connection is formed between Looking for Richard and King Richard III in the final scenes Al Pacino’s interpretation and ‘Hollywood’ background influences an ending which can be interpreted as portraying Richmond as a coward. Elizabethan audiences

Shakespeare uses the short stage direction: “they fight; Richard is slain” followed by the animalistic and savage metaphor of “the bloody dog is dead” to convey Richard’s death. He uses animal imagery conveyed by Richmond along with the sudden and immediate death of Richard after he is willing to trade “a kingdom for a horse” to show his audience that God has carried out divine retribution due to Richard’s Machiavellian nature. Pacino transformed this scene so that it lead to a deeper understanding by his mainly secular 20th century audience. By undermining Richmond’s inglorious victory by having the soldiers shoot an arrow into Richard’s back, Pacino shows that Richard’s death was unfair. He also removed Richmond’s monologue to take the audience’s attention away from Richmond’s speech about god and the righteousness of divine retribution. Thus, by portraying conscience as being more important than divine retribution, Pacino transformed Shakespeare’s King Richard III to suit his context where Richard’s guilt killed

To examine Shakespeare’s exploration of identity as a means of control, it is important to understand what all constitutes each character’s identity. In the case of Henry, for one, it is apparent that the actions of his past alter his perceived identity throughout the play. Before Henry speaks his first lines in the play, the Bishop of Ely calls Henry a “true lover of the holy Church,” to which the Archbishop of Canterbury replies, “The courses of [Henry’s] youth promised it not” (1.1.23-24). This reckless reputation follows Henry further into the play when an ambassador from France delivers a message to Henry from the Dauphin: “…the prince our master says that you savor too much of your youth and bids you to be advised there’s naught in France that can be with a nimble galliard won: you cannot revel into dukedoms there” (1.2.250-254). Along with this message, the Dauphin included a gift of tennis balls meant to further insult Henry. Even later in the play, after the English won the battle at Harfleur, the noble Frenchmen continue to underestimate Henry’s ability as a leader: “What a wretched and peevish fellow is this King of England, to mope with his fat-brained followers so far out of his knowledge” (3.8.120-122).

Richard’s aspiration for power caused him to sacrifice his morals and loyalties in order to gain the throne of England. Shakespeare refers to the political instability of England, which is evident through the War of the Roses between the Yorks and Lancastrians fighting for the right to rule. In order to educate and entertain the audience of the instability of politics, Shakespeare poses Richard as a caricature of the Vice who is willing to do anything to get what he wants. As a result, the plans Richard executed were unethical, but done with pride and cunningness. Additionally, his physically crippled figure that was, “so lamely and unfashionable, that dogs bark at me as I halt by them,” reflects the deformity and corruption of his soul. The constant fauna imagery of Richard as the boar reflected his greedy nature and emphasises that he has lost his sense of humanity.

William Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part 1, composed during the last years of the 16th century, is as much as character study as it is a retelling of a moment in history. Though the play is titled for one king, it truly seems to revolve around the actions of the titular character's successor. Indeed, Henry IV is a story of the coming-of-age of Prince Hal and of the opposition that he must face in this evolution. This process gives narrative velocity to what is essentially a conflagration between two personality types. In Prince Hal, the audience is given a flawed but thoughtful individual. Equally flawed but more given over to action than thought is his former ally and now-nemesis, Hotspur. In the latter, Shakespeare offers a warrior and a man of action and in the former, the playwright shows a politician in his nascent stages of development. The contrast between them will drive the play's action.

A defining feature between these two men’s fate is Richard’s dependence on good fortune through divine intervention, whereas Henry and Machiavelli rely on free will, what they themselves can do to manipulate the situation. Richard calls upon God to defend him, thinking that he can manipulate God’s will to fit his desires, “angels fight, weak men must fall, for heaven still guards the right” (III.ii pg 409) This idea of unearthly abilities that allow him to manipulate nature itself, even England is stupid and shows how incompetent he is. Compared to Henry in this play, he is someone who wants to serve England, not how England can serve them; in other words what you can do for your country. Machiavelli states that “so long as fortune varies, and men stand still, they will prosper while they suit the times, and fail when they do not”, Richard in all ways fills this statement, his reliance on fortune seals his fate in the end (Machiavelli 148). Shakespeare shows this antiquated idea to show how much England needed a change of leadership and rule, the end of medievalism and the rise of Machiavellianism.

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.

however it was not and he had to face him in battle. "My lord he doth

           Shakespeare's plays beginning with Richard II and concluding with Henry V presents an interesting look at the role of a king. England's search for "the mirror of all Christian kings" provided the opportunity to explore the many facets of kingship showing the strengths and weaknesses of both the position and the men who filled that position. Through careful examination, Shakespeare develops the "king" as a physical, emotional, and psychological being. By presenting the strengths and weaknesses of these characteristics, Shakespeare presents a unified look at the concept of "kingship" and demonstrates that failure to achieve