Similarities Between Richard III And The Grand Inquisitor

In exploring the fragility of humanity throughout contextual shifts, individuals develop a deeper insight into the ramifications of one’s downfall as a result of the unbridled pursuit of power. This is due to a reflection on an individual's’ duplicity and conscience as values of honesty and compassion are corrupted and influenced by reckless ambition within texts. In a comparative study of Shakespeare’s morality play King Richard III and Al Pacino’s docudrama

Upon Richard's return to England, he learns of the events that had transpired in his absence. At first his own arrogance allows him to believe that since it is his God given right to rule as King, he will be protected. But then just as quickly, Richard's arrogance turns into despair upon the realization that Henry has gained support of the nobles and the people of England. Henry and Richard finally meet at Ramparts Castle leading to the climax of the play. Henry demands retribution for the allocation of his families' possessions and

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.

According to the article History and Tragedy in Richard II, written by Elliot, he writes “Richard is a failure as a king not because he is immoral, nor because he is too sensitive and refined for the job, but because he misunderstands the nature of kingship (260)”. Richard’s downfall is not all his fault but as a king he should have understood the idea of what a great king needs to do to succeed in the life of royalty.

Since Richard cannot do anything about his deformity and ugliness he turns his bitterness to ambition and lays the groundwork for his plan to betray King Edward IV. Richard tells the audience, “plots have I laid, inductions dangerous, by drunken prophecies, libels and dreams, to set my brother Clarence and the King in deadly hate against the other; and if King Edward be as true and just as I am subtle, false, and treacherous, this day should Clarence closely be mewed up, about a prophecy, which says that G OF Edward’s heirs the murderer shall be” (1.1.32-40). In these lines, Richard reveals his plan that he will turn Clarence and King Edward against each other so Edward will banish Clarence to the tower because he believes Clarence will be his murderer. Richard will do this through declaring a prophecy that this will be so. Richard explains that this will work because King Edward is as just as Richard is treacherous and Richard will use that against King Edward to cause his and Clarence’s demise. It is not known whether the character Richard would have revealed more about his plan this early in the play because he is interrupted by Clarence. Richard ends the speech with the lines, “dive thoughts down to my soul, here Clarence comes” (1.1.41), which basically means that he better keep

There is no doubt that Shakespeare was the author of great pieces of literature during an interesting time period. Given the circumstances, he was indeed mastering his craft during a very tumultuous juncture in British history. When one reads Richard III, they don’t necessarily have to know a great deal about the War of Roses to understand that there is some serious strife going on. However, if the reader takes some time to understand this fascinating string of events, the story of Richard and his fall becomes much more interesting. In all of his brilliance, Shakespeare manages to toy with the idea of humor in this very morose play. As a matter of fact, he does this in many, if not all of his tragedies.

    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.

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,

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

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.

Losing the crown and being stripped of all his power is a great blow for Richard, but he continues to believe that God is going to protect him, and also his redemption through self-knowledge and an awakening of his human compassion are significant for his transition from being The King to an average man. It seems that in the end Richard transforms himself into another person, a man who is not the king anymore, and has to continue “searching” who he actually is. At the end of the play, after a reflective soliloquy and a “tender” moment, Richard finally takes bold action against his attackers and dies bravely. This is a slim attempt for making a tragic hero out of him, but it has not prevented Jan Kott's heady claim that "Just before being hurled

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.

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

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.