Replicating Richard: Body Doubles, Body Politics

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.

Kenneth Branagh’s interpretation of Hamlet emphasized different importance's of the play. His version differs from that of Zeffirelli’s because; he makes use of the entire text from Shakespeare’s original work. Branagh also does not hold the time period authentic. Although his version of the play was not altered as much as Zeffirelli’s, he is still able to hold the attention of modern critics and viewers. However, by transfiguring the play into a Victorian background, Branagh’s film completely alters the mindset and feel of a true Shakespearean 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.

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

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.

* Shakespeare shows the journey in Richard III of Richard himself on his dark quest to becoming king by both using his literary skills and performance to attain what he wants, ultimately being power.

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.

Over the course of the past fifty years there have been many cinematic productions of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, some of which remain true to the text while others take greater liberties with the original format. Director Kenneth Branagh’s 1996 production of Hamlet was true to Shakespeare’s work in that the film’s dialogue was delivered word or word as it is presented in the text. In contrast, Franco Zeffirelli conducted his 1990 production of Hamlet in a much more liberal direction in which lines, scenes and characters were omitted from the film. I argue that from the perspective of an individual with moderate knowledge in Shakespearian literature, that the best film versions of Hamlet are those that take the most liberties from the text. I

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.

In William Shakespeare’s Hamlet there are many unanswered questions such as if Hamlet is really mad or if it is just an act. There are many film adaptations which use their movie elements in order to hint towards the answer of these questions. In Gregory Doran’s film interpretation Hamlet starring David Tennant, David Tennant truly shows the raw emotions of Hamlet. He shows how Hamlet feels through his movements and facial expressions. These little things allow the viewer to see the true meaning and intention behind Hamlet’s words.

This comparison essay will be focusing on the similarities and differences between the film Richard III directed by Richard Loncraine in 1995, to the short film Ten Minutes directed by Ahmed Imamović released in 2002. These two films both focus on the topics of war, and normal life combining. These two films can be easily compared because they both contrast the ideas of life and death, and how things can change drastically within a few years, months, or even only ten minutes. Richard III, adapted from William Shakespeare’s play, depicted a fascist dictator plotting to usurp the throne. Richard murdered his father who withheld the throne, and his brother Edward.

Hamlet, one of the most intricate and influential plays by Shakespeare, debatably of all time. It has inspired not only appreciative readers and writing critiques but continuous generations of people. The inspiration led to the fabrication of many great movies, which wasn’t achievable until the 20th century. Before cinema was the prevalent method of sharing appreciation and spilling emotion for a specific subject, art portrayed what would fly through our minds such as the many interpretations of Ophelia’s death. With the imagery put into motion we can try and pick apart how certain people might view the play being portrayed and choose what best suits our expectation of this tragedy. Other things that only film has been able to present to