The Portrayal of Socially Destructive and Over-Ambitious Richard, in Shakespeare's Richard III

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.

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

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

the play draws its readers to identify with Richard and thereby to participate in a

This derives from the play as a recount of historical events with a known outcome and a medium for propaganda in support of the monarchy, an avid determinist. Nevertheless, the aforementioned tension is prevalent throughout and epitomised by the paradoxical pun ‘I am determined to prove a villain’. Uttered with a tone of poise and self-assuredness, the term ‘determined’ implies a conscious statement of purpose and a preordained villainy. Thus Richard is aligned with the stock character of the Vice, an instrument of predestination, and the innovative Machiavel, an advocator of humanism. Despite this, the ultimate decline of Richard is consequential of the reign of determinism. The directly antithetic correctio ‘I am a villain. Yet I lie, I am not’ yields an implicit self-doubt and acknowledgment of an inability to fulfil his humanist purpose. Providentialism thus displays precedence over self-determination. This is in direct contrast to Pacino’s docudrama, composed for a secular modern American audience disengaged with traditional notions of determinism. A greatly diminished and altered portrayal of Margaret, the primary instrument of determinism in the play, is expressive of this. Pacino devalues her curses by reducing her to a ‘sort of ghost of the past’. A frenzied montage of informative discourse and the activity of the play complete with

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

* 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.

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.

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.

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 opens his play Richard III, with a prelude from Richard III himself. His internal monologue is essentially an overture for upcoming events in the play, and serves to [address] his feelings and develop his character. Born “before [his] time”, Richard is “deformed”, “unfinished”, and feels “cheated of feature by” “nature”, and is thus incapable of being a “lover”, while his brother - King Edward - “capers nimbly in a lady’s chamber.” On the matter of family, Richard regards his brother in the highest esteem, claiming that Edward has “made” “winter” into “glorious summer”, and buried the “clouds” that previously hung above the family. After contrasting the harshness of war with the family’s current, peaceful circumstances, Richard concludes that he finds no joy in such pleasantries, and blames his hideous appearance for his loss of pleasure.

The Duke of Gloucester makes it clear, frequently, that his intent is purely evil, “I am determined to prove a villain,” thus reaffirming his pleasure of being wicked and not needing any motives to be so (1.1.30). In the book, Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, critique Waldo F. McNeir asserts that Richard’s persona of naïveté is not well disguised, in his article, “The Masks of Richard the Third.” Similarly, McNeir believes that the people who are skeptical of him buy into his hypocrisy because they share common enemies. In any case, Richard “dupes people who, for the most part, willingly play the parts he assigns them, and who therefore deserve the consequences… We are caught off guard as we are drawn into Richard’s plots.

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.

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

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.