Who Is The Abuse Of Power In King Richard 2

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.

Richard II was one of Shakespeare's political works depicting the rise and fall of King Richard II. Richard became king of England as a boy at 10 years of age, although his advisors made most of the political decisions of the kingdom until he matured. During this maturation period, Richard was more interested in learning about aesthetic things in life rather than things more responsible to the monarch. He had very little experience and talent in the areas of military tactics and his decisions relating to the monarch seemed arbitrary.

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.

A successful monarchy relies upon a stable leader who is concerned with the satisfaction of those he rules over. Henry Bolingbroke the IV in Shakespeare's Henry the IV Part I follows a trend set by his predecessor in Richard II of self-indulgence and neglect of his kingdom. These leaders worry about the possibility of losing their kingdom or their soldiers to other nobles who were also concerned more with obtaining a higher position rather than governing. The king must also be wary of his own life, something that was once revered and guarded closely by other nobles. Wars once fought for gaining or protecting land are overshadowed by personal battles fighting for the position of king.

Shakespeare’s plays were grouped into three categories: comedies, tragedies and histories. The histories were those plays based on the lives of English kings. Shakespeare was one of the first writers to write about English history. According to Garber, “before Shakespeare’s time there were few history plays such written in England--- England history was told in verse and prose chronicles (239)”. It’s considered that Richard II is one of the early “historical plays”. The play became so iconic that even Queen Elizabeth said that she was “Richard the second, know ye not that”. Richard II tells the story about a king’s downfall.

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.

    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 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.

To establish the sinister intentions of Richard the actor, Shakespeare makes reference to his moral and physical impediments that leave him cursing “I that am not shaped for sportive tricks…I that am curtailed…”. Through the subtle use of anaphora and repetition of ‘I that am’, which is fleshed out by a definitive tone, the audience is made aware of how Richard is led ostensibly “to prove a villain” and thus, adopt a disguise. Moreover, Richard’s theatricality is stressed as he embarks as a ‘master’ of his own fate, for he perceives himself as “subtle, false, and treacherous”. His sinister intentions are exemplified by the use of tricolon, evocative word choice and short sentence patterning that create a sharp staccato effect. These intentions allow Shakespeare to subtly resonate Richard with the Vice from the medieval morality plays as well as the Renaissance Machiavelli who actively sought power, caused mischief, practised deceit and cynically gloats over his success. Moreover, Richard’s acting allows him to confide in his audience as he is paradoxically honest about his dishonesty, whilst also encouraging his audience not to detest him, but rather, take delight in his cleverness as the ‘director’ of the play. Thus, the opening soliloquy of Richard III offers an insight into how Richard manipulates the

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 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.

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

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

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.

And yet, Hamlet's attitude toward the throne seems to contradict what history, experience, and even Shakespeare have taught us. Only once does Hamlet ever speak of the loss of his kingdom, and even then only in passing. Other than that, he never refers to the loss of this prize of ultimate power and prestige, a loss which has just taken place, and a prize for which so many people have been willing to commit any act, including, in the case of Hamlet's uncle, the murder of a brother. This would seem to fly in the face of what we know about human nature. And, to make the case stronger, the character who never talks about his feelings regarding this vital