Looking For Richard Analysis

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

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,

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.

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.

To play one of Shakespeare’s most complex roles successfully on stage or on screen has been the aspiration of many actors. William Shakespeare’s Hamlet has been the focus on various accounts throughout the 20th Century, each actor attempting to bring something unique and unmarked to the focal character. Franco Zeffirelli and Kenneth Branagh, both film directors, introduce varying levels of success on the screen through downright differences in ways of translation and original ideas. Zeffirelli’s much shorter interpretation of the film is able to convey the importance of Hamlet as a masterwork by using modern approaches to film but still capturing the traditional work behind Shakespeare’s well-known 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.

His guilty conscience causes his once quick and witty mind that always knows the next step in his master plan to spiral into a slow and unsure mind. Richard’s guilt causes him to use unnecessary and exorbitant force. For example, he sends “Anne [his] wife [to] bid the world good night” (4.3 43), a death that has no political necessity. The conscience consumes Richard as he dreams about a parade of the ghosts of those he murdered. The dream sequence fulfills queen Margaret’s prophecy that “the worm of conscience still begnaw [Richard’s] soul”. (1.3 233) The eerie dream sequence sends Richard into a dialogue with himself exclaiming, “O coward conscience, how dost thou afflict me!” (5.3 191) This shows how Richard’s guilt consumes his mind, which leads Richard to lose the battle against Norfolk.

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

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

Texts are shaped by their compositional context and thus offer new insights about the composer’s era. However, as there are ongoing concerns of humanity, key ideologies resonate over time and are affirmed between texts as shown in William Shakespeare’s play ‘King Richard III’ (1591) and Al Pacino’s docudrama ‘Looking For Richard’ (1996). King Richard III examines the irrational behaviours and moral ramifications of a power lust Richard to explore ideas of the relentless pursuit of power, betrayal and deceit, reflective of the theocentric context of the Elizabethan society. Centuries later, Looking For Richard explores Pacino’s journey to reshape a Shakespearean text that is representative of the changing contextual norms and values of a contemporary American audience who are confused and sceptical about the relevance of Shakespeare’s plays. Both texts provide an image of Richard’s deceit reflective of their distinctive contexts. However, despite the disparity of time, both texts display how key ideas such as deceit, endure and resonate over time.

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

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.

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.