Richard III Compare And Contrast

The language of Shakespeare connects both King Richard III & Looking for Richard, enriching the significance of each & enabling both to provide continuous meaning for a range of contexts. The apparently outdated language of Shakespeare is given new life for the modern context, enabling audiences to better understand the original text & thus elevating the play. The film Looking for Richard, through rehearsals of actors, cuts between scholars and ‘random’ people on the street,

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

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

Due to circumstances, it seems highly inappropriate that Richard intends to court Lady Anne, let alone in front of her dead husband’s corpse. Through this, Shakespeare allows us to see Richards’s twisted personality and the measures he will go to in order to obtain power and the throne. These actions parallel Richard to Machiavellianism – a controversial theory adapted by Niccolo Machiavelli whereby craft

To understand the complexity of the lineage of the English monarchy, it is imperative to make a connection between present values and those of the past. While contemporary society demonstrate an appreciation of William Shakespeare’s play King Richard III (1851) it is not one of his plays they can readily connect with. Al Pacino’s docu-drama, Looking for Richard, (henceforth Looking for...) (1996) attempts to bridge that gap through intertextual connections. Both composers elucidate their respective contexts through their exploration of the English monarch, King Richard III, through their representation of the Elizabethan struggle for power and Pacino’s attempts to connect the post-modern world to the 16th century. Pacino attempts to transform the Elizabethan play in light of

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.

Shakespeare’s King Richard III examines the nature of villainy. Richard announces himself as a villain in the opening soliloquy, when he declares his intention to be evil “I am determined to prove a villain” due to his “unfished…deformed…rudely stamped nature”. This hyperbolic description of Richards’ deformities exposes the audience to his inner thoughts, while also representing his ‘unnaturalness’ – an outward sign of his inner corruption. This reflects the Elizabethan context in which the play was written. Queen Elizabeth I is the granddaughter of the play’s Richmond, whose supporters lent the Tudor dynasty legitimacy by claiming that not only was Richard a “monster of evil” (Stephen Greenblatt), but that Richmond’s reign as King Henry

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.

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.

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, 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 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

Shakespeare wrote many plays during his lifetime, but possibly none as complex and busy as Richard III. It is an intricate play where many different characters are portrayed in many different roles. One of those characters is the Duke of Buckingham, a villain and for the majority of the play the trusted accomplice for Richard. In almost every scene in which Buckingham was portrayed, he proved himself to be a rebellious villain over and over. As a rebel, he fought as a revolutionist, craving a change of events for self-seeking power. Buckingham exemplifies the definition of a revolutionist rebel because of his willingness to be part of a revolution in order to change his surroundings and increase his own eminence. He followed through with almost every plan given to him by Richard to accomplish his purposes until the final order to kill the young princes.

It is only during his deposition and his imprisonment that Richard shows his greatest strength as a dramatic figure. Although occasionally he seems to demonstrate self-pity, he also reveals himself to have an acute awareness of the ironies and absurdities in the structure of power of his kingdom. He still compels the court to reconsider his initial claim that the crown is divinely appointed: “Not all the water… can wash the balm of an anointed king (3.2.55)”. Although he keeps reminding those present of his God-given mandate to rule, he seems also to take pleasure in passing on the trails of kingship to his successor. As a King, He does have a God-given position of being the king. But as a king one should know the difference between moral values and ethics values. Just because Richard is King and is appointed by God doesn’t give him any rights to be an awful ruler. He can’t always fight a problem by saying that he is

A general conclusion of most critics is that Richard II is a play about the deposition of a "weak and effeminate" king. That he was a weak king, will be conceded. That he was an inferior person, will not. The insight to Richard's character and motivation is to view him as a person consistently acting his way through life. Richard was a man who held great love for show and ceremony. This idiosyncrasy certainly led him to make decisions as king that were poor, and in effect an inept ruler. If not for this defect in character, Richard could be viewed as a witty, intelligent person, albeit ill-suited for his inherited occupation.