Reign Of Richard II Essay

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.

These traits that Richard displayed were not befitting to a king and a man who was suppose to lead. Rather than look out for the

Richard’s political ambition is revealed through his strategic calculations based on the order of birth in his York family which puts him third away from the throne. Ahead of him is his elder brother, George Clarence, a barrier which will have to eradicate. His brother, King Edward, is another political barrier, by simply being alive, in power and equally by being the father of the two young princes . Richard’s creates a political mistrust between his two

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.

Connections of commonality and dissimilarity may be drawn between a multiplicity of texts through an appreciation of the values and attitudes with which they were composed. Accordingly, the values and attitudes of the individual being may be defined as an acute blend of externally induced, or contextual and internally triggered, or inherent factors. Cultural, historical, political, religious and social influences, dictated by the nature of one’s surroundings, imprint a variable pattern of values and attitudes upon the individual. Thus any deviation in any such factor may instigate an alteration of the contextual component of one’s perspective. By contrast, the

A deeper understanding of ambition and identity emerges from pursuing the connections between King Richard III and Looking for Richard.

* Lady Anne scene – Richard turns from the monstrous Machiavellian character we see throughout most of the play, into a romantic wooer. He uses rhetorical language such as pathos to connect with her emotions which assists him in essentially ‘capturing’ Lady Anne. The fact that Richard had just killed her husband King Edward, with her still being with his coffin just makes Richard seem even more powerful as he still manages to pull Lady Anne into marrying him. Although in this scene Lady Anne proves to hold the knowledge of language too as there is constant stichomythia between the two characters through most of the scene but the line which best shows this is when Richard says “Bid me kill myself. I will do it.” And

The texts King Richard III and Looking for Richard both accept the centrality of power and the yearning for it, as a central plot driver and an assumed part of the human condition. However, each presents a different perspective as to the nature of power; its origins and morality.

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.

In Richard's mind he thinks a good outcome excuses any wrongs committed to attain it. The ends justify the means explained Richard the third incredibly in his mind he did nothing wrong his main quest was to get on top and did do anything to get there. Richard's arrogance also thinks that because he will become king all of his wrongdoings will be forgotten and no one will remember him for being the king that killed his way to the throne but instead the best thing around. There are many examples of this in the play that show Richard has killed two take another leap forward towards the throne. No matter whether or not these killings drive Richard to take the steps he does, the murdering innocent people cannot be justified. The most vicious of these killings is the murder of the two princes the children of king Edward. Shakespeare gives the peruser a sickening speech portraying the "ruthless butchery", saying the princes were "fleshed villains, bloody dogs"( shakespeare 1592) In doing as such, the killings that is

Everyone knows the feeling of insecurity. It can cause us to do unexplainable things, some people shut themselves out, and others experience strong emotions. All and all, everyone experiences it in a unique way. In Richard III, Richard’s own insecurity motivates his actions. The insults and verbal abuse that's directed to him regarding his deformity causes him to take evil out back on others. His use of charisma and confidence to win over women in the text is influenced by his insecurities. Lastly, he turns to villainy as a distraction from deeper problems relating to his self confidence issues.

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

If the Duke of York’s speech on the newly kinged Henry Bolingbroke’s coronation procession through London describes the fawning and “greedy” way the populous takes in their new monarch, the Groom’s speech above presents a starkly dissimilar vision of this regime change (5.2, 13). Indeed, when considering the central plot of Richard II, this language of opposition comes most readily to mind. Words like “usurper," “tyrant," and “coup” appear the obvious word choices used to describe the unnatural succession of kings within the first history of Shakespeare’s second tetralogy, but they alone do not adequately realize the fragility of Richard II’s political ground. Rather than utilize only the polarized language custom to a change in authority,

Christopher Fletcher, in the essay, “Manhood and Politics in the reign of Richard II”, has discussed the various criticisms that the king faced. He reports that Thomas Arundel, the Archbishop of Canterbury had delivered a sermon at the king’s deposition, wherein he mocked upon the king’s behavior of being a ‘boy’ and of being impressed by sycophants, thus, being unfit to rule. A subsequent