Analysis Of Richard III And Al Pacino's King 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.

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

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.

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.

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,

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

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

Through exploring connections between Shakespeare’s Richard III and Al Pacino’s Looking for Richard the values of the era are often a product of the context of the text. However, through studying the theatricality of man and the pursuit of power, it is clear these notions transcend time and context. Shakespeare valued the way an actor could act within a play and theatre was valued in this context. Shakespeare also demonstrated how Richard pursued political power, whilst Shakespeare himself

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

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.

land in the north of England after both the Earl and Anne died. He was

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.