Maurice Hunt's Analysis

Both William Shakespeare’s play “Richard III” and Al Pacino’s docudrama “Looking for Richard” explore the timeless themes of Richards’s pursuit of power and the impacts of his villainous and evil nature. Shakespeare’s Elizabethan context is far different from the humanist and secular context of Pacino. Shakespeare highlights the importance of the church and the divine right to rule of monarchs within Richards’s pursuit of power and downfall; this is not relevant within Pacino’s contemporary times. Hence Pacino employs this key theme to reframe the play's focus from divine rule to political power whilst still exploring Richards’s achievement of this power. Through his portrayal of King Richard, Shakespeare creates a character meant to be hated by his audience who were familiar with the Tudor myth.

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.

The relationship between a father and his son is an important theme in Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part One, as it relates to the two main characters of the play, Prince Hal and Hotspur. These two characters, considered as youths and future rulers to the reader, are exposed to father-figures whose actions will influence their actions in later years. Both characters have two such father-figures; Henry IV and Falstaff for Prince Hal, and the Earl of Northumberland and the Earl of Worcester for Hotspur. Both father-figures for Hal and Hotspur have obvious good and bad connotations in their influence on the character. For example, Falstaff, in his drinking and reveling,

Shakespeare’s Richard III, is filled with desires and determination to achieve and fulfill ambition. Shakespeare uses the power of language to explicate Richard’s manipulative ways to fulfill his desires of becoming king, thus doing so by bringing darkness to the content world of others. According to Anderson’s article The Death of a Mind: Study of Shakespeare’s Richard III Richard’s state of mind is oriented around imposing “dark shadows over the positive dispositions of the others’ lives” (Anderson 701); he works at spreading destruction and grievance to those around him. Throughout the play Richard is in his own state of mind, with his main focus on the crown. Act I scene ii, illustrates Richard’s power and manipulative ways through language in order to gain advantage and gain a step forward in achieving the crown. The dialogue between Richard and Lady Anne at King Henry’s funeral exemplifies his manipulation when he uses charming and charismatic words to obtain her attention. Throughout this essay I will agree with Anderson’s point that Richard’s manipulative ploy is a means of fulfilling his ambition. This essay will explicate how Richard manipulates and uses the power of language to exemplify what his deranged state of mind can do to unsuspecting and naive minds. Lady Anne, her character at the beginning of the scene is distressed and angered, however as the scene progresses, Richard’s dialogue with Lady Anne begins to illustrate her naive mind and weak character

King Henry IV must also contend with his son, Prince Hal, who’s not the honorable prince he had hoped him to be. He feels it is “an honorable spoil” not to have “a son who is the theme of honor’s tongue,” when he learns of Northumberland’s son Hotspur’s victories, which, should be “a conquest for a prince to boast of” (1.1.74,80, & 76). Pangs of jealousy strike Henry’s heart caused by the differences between his son and Northumberland’s. So much so, he wishes “it could be proved that” someone, or something, “had exchanged in cradle clothes, their sons at birth” (1.1.85-87).

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

Destruction of one’s state of existence is not only evident in 1984 but also in Shakespeare’s King Lear. Unlike 1984, the destructive love in this classic is not romantic love, but the love between a father and his son. Gloucester, a noble that serves King Lear, has two sons. His eldest son, Edgar, is legitimate while his younger son, Edmund is illegitimate. Edmund resents his status as a

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.

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.

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.

Additionally, the plot of the play portrays a turning point for English history, the rise of the Tudor dynasty. In combination with Machiavelli’s tenants, the fact that Elizabeth was the patron of the arts also influenced Shakespeare’s piece. Shakespeare evidently courts the Queen with the twisted characterization of Richard that leads to her current role as Queen of England. For example, in Act V scene V Richmond exclaims,

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

By examining Shakespeare’s treatment of familial ties in his plays The Life and Death of King John and The Winter’s Tale, we can see how his attitudes and opinions towards family relationships evolved. In King John (written between 1594 and 1596), Shakespeare adopts what was then a fairly conventional attitude towards family relationships: his characters never question the highly patriarchal family hierarchy. They also assume that the majority of wives will be unfaithful, simply because they are female—however, they take the charge of adultery rather lightly. By contrast, in The Winter’s Tale (written between 1610 and 1611), he adopts a much more progressive, feminist view of family

Men rule the world, but women rule the men. This has become glaringly obvious when deciding how to analyse critically, patriarchy in Shakespeare’s play The Winter’s Tale. There is little doubt that this play represents English patriarchal society in the Jacobean Era, and how the men in power, or authority, treated the ‘fairer sex’: their wives, daughters, and women in general. In this essay, elements examined will surround King Leontes and his relationships, such as with his old friend King Polixenes of Bohemia, his young son Mamillius, and finally with the women in his life, Queen Hermione, and Lady Paulina. Leontes is not only head of his household; he is also King of Sicilia, thus head of all households in the country, an incredibly pressurised

Edmund’s frustration at the treatment of illegitimate children was present from the start of the play, as he exclaimed: “Why ‘bastard’?/ [..] When my mind as generous and my shape as true / As honest madam’s issue?” (I ii 6-7). He considered himself an