Bra Boys Interview

Gibson’s Hamlet

more about “Gibson’s Hamlet“, posted with vodpod

Richard III several approaches

Richard III. and women—peculiar relationshipsAs far as the two major female characters of the play are concerend, Richard’s attitude towards women becomes quite evident. There is Elizabeth Woodville, Edward IV’s wife, and Lady Anne Warwick, Richard’s queen and widow of the Lancastrian Prince of Wales Edward. Both women are inferior to Richard and lose their strength and integrity to him. However, they play a significant role in Richard’s life and take a significant part in the responsibility for his decline.

        Especially the strong-minded and self-determined Elizabeth Woodville, who craves for power and wealth as much as her late husband Edward IV. and Richard himself , regains the might she lost and

knows how to outwit  Richard while he woos her daughter Elizabeth. So Richard’s decline really starts as soon as he falls to be inferior to Elizabeth during that very scene( IV, 4). Although Richard is known to be wicked and skilled while arguing with his adversaries, Elizabeth proves to be the more cunning, though she leaves him with the impression she would woo Elizabeth for him, while in reality she betrays him by having already promised her daughter to Richard’s greatest enemy and later executor Richmond. Her giving Elizabeth to Richmond is actually the most decisive aspect and reason for Richmond’s later succession to the throne, because without young Elizabeth as his queen his kingship would never have been strong. While Richard’s and Elizabeth’s relationship can simply be described as ”violent hate” Anne’s and Richard’s relationship is more peculiar. It is a mixture of love and hate and there are many sadistic traits in it. Anne is truly destroyed by Richard; she loses everything, including the power over herself, to her sadistic husband (1). For her, Richard is the counterpart of her first husband Edward, whom she calls ” angel-husband”(IV, 1, 68). However, she falls for him during his wooing scene, after having given him strong reprimand. For example, her statement
 ”Never hung poison on a fouler toad. Out of my sight!
Thou dost infect mine eyes.”(I,2,151-152),

 

gives the impression that she hates him deadly. However, she fails to execute him when she has the chance given by Richard himself, nor does she command him to commit suicide, as he proposes her to do in order to prove to her how serious his wooing is. ” Arise dissembler; though I wish thy death
                                                                                                                  I will not be thy executioner.”(I,2, 188).

From this moment Richard knows that he has gained the control over her and can enthrall her with his promises and his hypocrisy. In fact he only uses her on his way to power and will get rid of her as soon as he does not need her anymore.Indeed he says after the wooing scene:

  ‘Was ever woman in this humour woo’d?
                                                                      Was ever woman in this humour won?
                                                                      I’ll have her, but I will not keep her long.”(I,2,232-234).

Here Richard first proves that he can manipulate people, even those who belong to his enemies.
        Why Anne agreed upon marrying this dogmatic, aggressive and wicked villain is probably the most incomprehensible aspect of the whole play and might as well be explained as ”tragic force”. However, it is also obvious, that Richard must be a quite charming man, who is, despite of his deformity, able to bewitch women with his words. That makes him attractive to the characters of the play as well as to the audience. Although everything speaks against the possibility of his feeling love for Anne , if we assume that a villain like he is able to feel, he feels deep for her. It is rather a pathological drive to hurt people and destroy their lives. Because he never experienced or felt love or affection himself he wants to destroy the love and trust of others. It is his sadism that forces him to woo the newly widowed Anne and that also makes him dependent on her. Those forces are love in Richard’s conception and he can only express it with violent behavior that follows his ” honey words” Lady Anne” grew captive” to.

Here is also the drama’s connection to our modern times: There are many people who have the same attitude Richard has. Especially husbands. Today many women are abused, mistreat and harassed in marriage or relationships (3). Even rape is not seldom. One theory is, that men, who fail in their job or social life try to prove their power by abusing and mistreatening their wives. Like Anne, most of them are powerless and afraid to act against their tormentor because they fear a public scandal or revenge. Like women today, Anne despairs as a result of the pressure and abuse Richard puts upon her. Even if he had not killed her, she would have committed suicide sooner or later, for she was aware of her soon end. ”Besides he hates me (…), and will no douobt shortly be rid of me.”
                                                              ( IV,1,86).she says to Elizabeth.

        This again shows how close love and violence are related in Richard’s character. He expresses love as well in hate and terror, so that others have the impression he hates them and is not able to show love or affection for anyone or anything except for himself and his power. That of course makes him the evil perpetrator, as such he is characterized in the play. However, the truth is, that Richard, although he is selfish and self-determined, needs the other characters of the play and even depends on them. Because if it was not for the other’s harsh rejection and reprimand Richard would have no reason to prove an evil villain and his existence would be senseless.There is a special correspondence between Richard and the two women Elizabeth and Anne, for their destinies give suspense to the ” tragic force”, intended by Shakespeare and are decisively responsible for Richard’s decline.

Richard – the multi-faced villain

It certainly needs a good actor to play the role of Richard III., because we can call him a genuine hypocrite:
Richard is multi-faced within the drama and shows his different faces considering the situation he finds himself in.
Within the drama the audience is able to recognize more than eight different faces, which Richard exposes:

1.  
   1.  
      1. The devoted brother
      2. The Witty wooer
      3. The Loyal subject
      4. The Pious convert
      5. The Benevolent uncle
      6. The Good protector
      7. The Cornered, sweating rat
      8. The Brave soldier

Richard III. has always a desire for personal power. This means Richard is guided by his goals and does everything to reach them. He does not care if he has to murder for his aims.
That shows that Richard is a very intelligent and clever person and also a good actor, because everybody believes him when he plays one of his roles. That way he finally becomes King of England.

Richard knows that he is a villain because he proves to be one constantly and deliberately, which can be seen from his first monologue:

” And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
 I am determined to prove a villain,
 And hate the idle pleasures of these days.”
 (I.1.28-31)

But Richard is not schizophrenic: he is always aware of his actions and uses them to profit from them.
Maybe this moral deformity is caused by his outward appearance and physical deformity.
As we listed, Richard III. plays the devoted brother in the first scene of the play, when he pretends concern about the Duke of Clarence`s imprisonment and speaks to him:

           “Upon what cause?” (are you imprisoned)
           (I.1.46)

      “Alack my lord, that fault is none of yours:
         He should for that commit your godfather.
         O, belike his Majesty hath some intent
         That you should be new-christened in the Tower.”
After this statement Richard pretends that he wants to help Clarence, so that he will be free:

“Well, your imprisonment shall not be long:
I will deliver you , or else lie for you.”
(I.1.114-115)
The use of dramatic irony certainly gives the reader reasons to think about his different faces, since he does not know whether Richard wants to save him or to execute him. Again he plays the role of the devoted brother when King Edward IV wants the reconciliation within the family.

“Good morrow to my sovereign King and Queen;
And princely peers, a happy time of day.”

(…)

“A blessed labour, my most sovereign lord.
Among this princely heap-if any here
By false intelligence or wrong surmise
Hold me a foe-”
(II.1.47-56)
Another face Richard shows is the role of The Witty Wooer in Act I, Scene 2, 177-179:

“If thy revengeful heart cannot forgive, 
Lo here I lend thee this sharp-pointed sword,
which if thou please to hide in this true breast, …”

Richard woos Anne and tells her that he has murdered Anne’s husband and her father-in-law only to get her love. He also plays this role when he talks to Elizabeth, trying to convince her that only he is the right husband for her daughter:

“The King that calls your beauteous daughter wife ,
Familiarly shall call thy Dorset brother;
Again shall you be mother to a king,
And all the ruins of distressful times
Repair’d with double riches of content.”

To gain the support of all noblemen, who decide whether to make him king or not, he pretends to be The pious convert:

“Two props of virtue for a Christian Prince,
To stay him from the fall of vanity;
And see, a book of prayer in his hand-
True ornaments to know a holy man.”
(III.7.95-98)
When Richard welcomes the young Prince he switches into the role of Thebenevolent uncle and calls him:

” Welcome, sweet Prince,…
(…)
God keep you from them, and from such false friends!”
(III.1.1-15)
Richard exposes himself as the only concerned uncle and just wants the best for his “little” Prince.
 

Richard shows a very unusual face when he feels like a Cornered, sweating rat at the end of the drama:

“Give me another horse! Bind up my wounds!
 Have mercy, Jesu! Soft , I did but dream.
 O coward conscience, how dost thou afflict me…
 And if I die, no soul will pity me!”
 (V.3.178-202)
This is the first time Richard thinks about the victims of his deeds. He exposes one of his faces he cannot control and which is not shown on purpose, because this part is a soliloquy.
 

By saying this last line of the drama

                                “A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!”
                                 (V.4.7)
he notices the hazardous situation, though he wants to prove a brave soldier. Richard becomes aware of his weakness. He fears the souls of the people he murdered and additionally realizes the enormous force and power of his enemies.

The connection between physical and psychological deformity

From the point of view of modern psychology one can say that Richard’s physical deformity also influences his psyche , but actually Shakespeare wanted to show that Richard was not forced by nature to be evil , but he himself decides to be evil. From his body, deformity spreads all over his character. In the first scene of Richard III , Richard says:

” I am determined to prove a villain “

( I. 1 . 30)

This shows that it is Richard’s own will to be a villain , and that his motive to take revenge on nature is only an excuse.

                        “Then since the heavens have shap’d my body
                        Let hell make crook’d my mind to answer it.”

                        (3 Henry VI, V, 6, 78-79)

Even in the Elizabethan age, which expected the god- given harmony of body and soul, the reason that Richard does not have any other choice than to be evil, was not accepted. In fact, Richard represents evil, the unnatural, and sin. One may come to the conclusion that God chose Richard to revenge on the whole human race, with the exception of the young princes all the other characters in the play are guilty. Marjorie Garber says:

“Richard’s deformed body is a mirror for the self confessed ugliness in his soul.” [2, p.81]

He could also be someone with a sound moral attitude and he shows that he can also be kind and gentle. One can see this from the way the little prince talks about Richard.

 ”Grandam, we can : for my good uncle Gloucester
[...]
And when my uncle told me so he wept,
And pitied me, and kindly kiss’ d my cheek;
Bade me rely on him as on my father,
And he would love me dearly as a child”

         ( II. 2. 20-26)

Actually, it could be Richard’s vocation to get real freedom with the help of his sharp and strong mind. He has this mind power to overthrow nature, because he is able to make the impossible possible, as one can see when he flatters Anne and makes her admire him.Even Hastings is convinced about Richard’s theatrical abilities when he says:

“I think there’s never a man in Christendom
Can lesser hide his love or hate than he,
For by his face straight shall you know his heart”

            ( III.4 .51-53)

Richard plays the devil but he is not forced to be one. He could also play a saint and does so to achieve his devilish aims. Richard is just controlled by his drive to gain power.
However, the question is why he has this enormous drive.

“Deformed Persons, and Eunuches and Old Men,and Bastards, are Envious;
For he that cannot possibly mend his owne case, will doe what he can to
impaire on others.”

        [3, p. 105]

These are important words one has to keep in mind when discussing Richard’s psyche.
Richard was a premature baby and his being handicapped might be seen as a result. According to the Elizabethan world picture society cannot not accept him because of his deformity. Even his mother, the Duchess of York, despises him, which one can see when she says:

                                                    “And I, for comfort, have but one false glass,
                                                       That grieves me when I see my shame in him.”

        ( II.2 53-54)

The Duchess says so about her own son , which clearly shows that she does not love him at all. Another example , which is a symbol of the whole society is:

” Thou elvish – mark’d, abortive, rooting hog
Thou what wust sealid in thy nativity
The slave of Nature , and the son of hell;

 
        ( I.3. 228 -230)

Everybody mocks him and thinks that he is not able to achieve anything, but Richard wants to show that he, though being handicapped, can reach power , the highest power, i.e. to be king .In this context one can refer to Unterstenhöfer [4], who says that Richard does not want power to build up, he wants power to destroy. The psychologist Adler suggests a solution : persons try to compensate psychologically for a physical disability and its attendant feeling of inferiority [1]. He also writes that the overcompensation of inferiority feelings can take the form of an egocentric strive for power and self-aggrandizing behavior at others’ expense [1]. That is exactly what Richard does; he overcompensates his inferiority.
Richard is directly influenced by a society that does not respect him, and so he does not respect himself and, consequently, society.Sigmund Freud took Richard’s deformity as an example to characterize patients who think of themselves as “exceptions” to normal rules. Freud says:

“Such patients, claim that have reounced enough and suffered enough, and have a claim to be spared any further exactions; they will submit no longer to disagreeble necessity for they are exceptions and intend to remain so too.” [1]

Richard seems to be ridiculous; even Anne , his future wife, calls him a “hedgehog” ( I.2.104) and wishes that God damns him for his deeds ( I.2.105).
One can see that he is very intelligent in planning his evil deeds, and his only weakness seems to be his deformity. In this context Marga Unterstenhöfer writes:

“Im psychologischen Sinn wurzelt die Machtgier nicht in der Stärke sondern in der Schwäche.(…). Die Folge ist eine “fiktive Leitlinie” des Lebensplanes verbunden mit Isolation, Selbstentfremdung und innerer Spaltung.”
(Psychologically, the for power is rooted not in strength, but in weakness.) [5, p.111]

This isolation leads to Richard’s inability to love . He has never loved and has never been loved. Even his mother and his wife do not love him, where else should he have learnt it?

To sum up: According to modern psychological theories, Richard III is not capable to act in a different way because of his physical deformity and the Elizabethan society, although it certainly does not mean that a physical deformity necessarily causes a psychological deformity. In Richard’s case, on the other hand, we have to take this into account.

Richard III – a modern dictator ?

Of course Richard III can be seen as a ‘history’ describing events of a  time long forgotten.  But does Richard III not closely resemble some modern dictators?  Are not his ruling techniques revolutionary and modern?

In 1956 Friedrich and Brzezinski suggested in their work” Totalitarian Dictatorship” a list of criteria to evaluate dictatorship, indicating as crucial elements the existence of a single mass party led by a charismatic leader  who uses terror, propaganda, mass-media , armed forces, modern science and technology to suppress and control the country and its people by using an official ideology to legitimize and maintain the regime.

Is Shakespeare’s Richard III a totalitarian dictator?

If one watches the movie “Richard III” directed by Richard Longcraine, who definitely sees Richard III as a modern dictator  one might find his view convincing. If one is familiar with the play, however, one will easily notice some differences. The elements of propaganda, mass-media, modern science and technology are not, as suggested in the film,  relevant for Richard’s dictatorship. Printing, of course, had not been invented before the first half of the fifteenth century by Johannes Gutenberg, and Caxton had not started to print English books before 1476. Mass-media, modern science and technology did not exist in those days, therefore it was impossible for Richard to use them for his advantage. But on the other hand he used terror and the armed forces shamelessly. Obsessed by power Richard did not hesitate to kill members of his own family just to gain more power and establish his kingdom. Everybody who disagreed with Richard’s opinion or argued with him, went directly into prison or had to die. In his function as  king  Richard also had the absolute power of the armed forces using them to fight against all his enemies. So one might argue that there are parallels between Richard’s rule as seen by Shakespeare and modern dictatorships. We chose particularly two modern dictators we thought would be very interesting to compare to Richard: Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein.

Let us take Hussein, for instance:
The most obvious parallel between Hussein and Shakespeare’s Richard III is their absolute willingness to kill everybody who stands in their way. They both came to power in a pseudo-legal way. Before they gained power, both made sure that everyone who could possibly be a threat to their future position would get eliminated. The gain of power itself seemed to be legal and therefore hard to dispute by the opposition, though actually it was a fraud . Like Richard, Hussein is a the single leader of a country as well ( in this case he is the leader of the radical Iraqui Baath party) and rules the country in unscrupulously as well, using terror and violence. For example, he once executed somebody for spilling coffee on his newspaper photo. Invisible for the ordinary citizen, several secret police agencies acting on his order observe the people and denounce everybody getting in Saddam’s way. To maximize his power, Hussein even executed his uncle and mentor, at whose house he had lived from his tenth to twentieth year, as did Richard, who did not hesitate to murder his own family. Like Richard, Hussein is the leader of the army, which he uses to erase whole towns, including the population and buildings. However, Richard did not have the advantage of modern technology like chemical weapons to fulfill his goals.
There are actually several hidden chemical laboratories in the country producing poison gas and other mass destruction items. As a matter of fact, Shakespeare’s Richard III had to use more conventional weapons as swords, but did so very effectively.

But one cannot only compare Richard to Hussein but also to Adolf Hitler. Hitler perfectly fits the definition of a modern dictator. He was the head of a mass party  (NSDAP) which soon was the only party in Germany during Hitler’s reign. In contrast to Richard III, he was able to use propaganda and mass-media to achieve his goals. For example, Hitler’s speeches were spread on the radio so that everybody could (and sometimes had to, e.g. in public places) listen to him all the time; other radio-stations were not allowed to be on the air. With Goebbels, he had his own secretary of propaganda managing that most people thought of  him being the greatest leader and therefore they did everything to please him. Due to the fact that Hitler had the power of the armed forces, every man, even boys, had to fight during World War II. Richard did not have the opportunities to use modern science and technology as Hitler did, but his psychology is no less suggestive (as can be seen when Richard lets himself be ‘persuaded’ to accept the crown). Both based their reign on violence and terror. Needless to say that both did not shrink from murder and terror: Their willingness to kill everybody who stands in their way makes them comparable with each other. Although Richard did not have the chance to use the modern devices Hitler used, it is quite probable that Richard would not have hesitated to use them.

After a careful analysis and closer comparison of Richard’s actions to those of other dictators it becomes evident that Richard’s ruling techniques definitely contain elements of  modern dictatorship. In conclusion one can see that even modern dictators copy the political structures  and ruling techniques of kings and sovereigns of former times.

Richard the Machiavellian villain ?

Niccolo Machiavelli , an Italian statesman and famous author issued in 1513 his book il principe where he describes the characteristics of a sovereign of a country. In Shakespeare’s time Machiavelli’s il principe was thoroughly known by just a few English people but Shakespeare probably knew the content rather well.
Regarding the definition of machiavellinism , one will say that Shakespeare’s Richard III. definitely fits that category due to the fact that machiavellinism describes the subordination of ethics to political power.
The character of Richard III. pretty much shows that. Having killed almost all of the members of his family and nobles , the subjection of moral to the desire of power becomes clear.Granted, so far everything fits just fine the definition of machiavellinism, however, regarding the book Il Principe by Machiavelli, one will say that Richard III is not really a machiavellian king.
Machiavelli argues in the 8^th chapter that a prince should commit all acts of violence that need to be done at once, because otherwise he will have to be prepared for violence throughout his reign leading to mistrust and anxiety towards the prince and thus he might become the victim of conspiracy. According to Shakespeare’s play  Richard III, that is exactly what happens. Richard does not kill all his enemies at once, but rather one after another, even during his reign. Finally there is no one who can help him in the final battle of Bosworth, because everybody who could do so is dead. To some extent Richard resembles a machiavellian villain. Machiavelli claims in his book that a sovereign should rather be feared than be loved by the people. No doubt this proves the resemblance to a machiavellian sovereign, however, in the same chapter Machiavelli argues that a prince should not be hated by the people. Talking of that one has to admit that Richard is hated by almost everybody in the play.
Moreover Machiavelli claims that a prince has to be deceitful if it is necessary and suits his purpose. However, there are basically five virtues he has to represent to the people while being deceitful: honesty, uprightness, religiousness, mercy and humanity.
By representing those a prince’s reign will be free of trouble.
Actually Richard is a deceitful person, however he does not represent these five virtues.
Having in mind that Shakespeare most likely knew about the content of Machiavelli’s book, one actually gets the impression that to some extent Richard represents a machiavellian prince, but to a greater extent his opponent ,the earl of Richmond, has the characteristics of a machiavellian prince, due to the fact that Machiavelli claims in the 6^th chapter that if a righteous man, who gains power of a country, defeating the sovereign of that country, will not lose any power later on and will be happy and beloved by the people.
Having written the play ” Richard III” for a Tudor Queen, Shakespeare most aptly characterizes the earl of Richmond as England’ s savior and thus he legitimates Elisabeth as the Queen of England
Machiavelli’s theory is not an evil theory, but rather an advice of how to become a capable sovereign of a country. No doubt that Richard is a villain, but he is not a real machiavellian villain.

Shakespeare: odd-job man for the Tudors?_

The Elizabethan era named by the Tudor Queen Elisabeth (1558-1603) is known as one of the most attractive epochs in English history. This time combined the exotic way of figures, costumes, habits and a refreshing sensuality connected with both the individual and the collective view of community. That epoch did not only exist as historical reality but moreover as a myth- containing first of all the imagination of the Tudor dynasty. “Merry Old England”- Harmony and peace below a Queen, a land full of life-spirit, , celebrating and playing: England as such.

The real Tudor age started with Henry Tudor, a Lancastrian , who defeated King Richard III in the battle of Bosworth. As a consequence the Wars of the Roses came to an end..

Historically the mystery about the Tudor myth firstly was “founded” by chronicle writers. This aspect expresses the sight of many different critics, e.g.: Thomas More, Holinshed or Vergil. They all described King Richard as a brutally, cruel person full of villainy. The very famous playwright William Shakespeare was also fascinated by this person’s wicked character, so that he wrote a brilliant play about him and his social surrounding. However, such considerations only modify a dramatic traditions from which emerges Shakespeare’s paradoxical villain-his Richard III is at ones evil and comical, hypocritical and candid, demonic and human . In brief , Shakespeare’s Richard is a complex literary character, not intended to represent the actual King Richard III. He himself, as king of England and the myth surrounding him had already become separated in the minds of Shakespeare’s contemporaries. His drama releases the spectators after Richmond’s final speech into the mystery of this new beginning era. The author put a special emphasis on this theme he even endowed the audience with a vitality which seemed to be quiet astonishing. One will never be able to solve the “problem” whether Shakespeare really wanted to justify the Tudor dynasty. As a fact in the medieval age aristocrats usually hired playwrights for their private amusement therefore a critic of Shakespeare’s drama could have claimed that he in a way was forced to try to justify this predominant myth. His intention and his decision was at least a result of social and financial acceptance in England. Consequently, the Queen’s favor or the support of the Tudors might have been reasons for Shakespeare’s choice. There is no doubt that Elizabethan history plays, including Shakespeare Richard III , were never intended as strictly historical documents. Most importantly, it was made clear that Shakespeare’s so-called history-plays undoubtedly represent a genre of dramatic literature. A drama leaves a more intensive effect for the posterity than facts which base on historical reality. Shakespeare was a creative dramatist but never an historian but the question of historical accuracy in Richard III persists. Some even had the Ricardian love-hate attitude towards the play “as very good Shakespeare, but very bad history.”

 

http://library.thinkquest.org/26314/psychenf.htm

Some opinion on Richard III and Looking for Richard

Richard III and the Film Looking for Richard

May 18, 2006 by

Amy Madore  

Amy Madore

• ·Published Content: 55
• ·Total Views: 158,220
• ·Favorited By: 2 CPs

Full Profile | Subscribe | Add to Favorites

Recommend (52)

Single page

Font Size

Post a comment

The movie Looking For Richard is not a complete film based on Richard III by William Shakespeare, but rather a documentary organized by Al Pacino documenting his passion and struggle to make Shakespeare more available to the general public. Pacino feels that our current society is not well enough exposed to Shakespeare, and that what they are exposed to does not particularly interest them. 

I found however, that this reason that Pacino gave in the beginning of the film was only one of many factors that motivated him to create this film. What eventually became apparent during the film was what Shakespeare meant to the actors, how their personal struggle to perform the play was evident. It is said in the film that there is an idea that American actors are intimidated by performing Shakespeare and that the general consensus was that only the English could perform it successfully. 

Pacino and his crew interviewed actor, scholars, visited the birthplace of Shakespeare, and even visited the globe theatre in order to get a complete understanding of how to truly perform the play. Pacino seemed to be getting frustrated with all of the complications within Richard III that could not be answered by scholars. Pacino truly wants to show how important Shakespeare is to him, and you can feel his passion when he is performing some of the scenes from the play. 

The documentary portrayed 4 of the major scenes in Richard III, along with a few shorter minor connecting scenes to help the flow of his thought and also the flow of the story. One of the most powerful scenes for me was when the entire family, minus King Edward, is together and Richard is accusing Elizabeth of being the cause for the downfall his brother Clarence. The room seems tense and Richard’s tone is getting heated with Elizabeth, and meanwhile Margaret appears to be a
prophetic/apocalyptic voice in the room. 

I felt that this was one of the most powerful scenes in the film because it was a direct enactment of what I envisioned in my mind as I read the play. Pacino is true to the story and also true to Richard, by clearly and accurately displaying his evilness and hatred towards the world as well as everyone around him. He shows Richard manipulating his entire family, when it is truly he who has caused Clarence to die. 

The play and the documentary both convey the same idea, that one of the most interesting pieces of literature, Richard III, is something that everyone can relate to and should be able to enjoy and understand. Richard, in both the play and the film, is a cynical dark man who is power hungry, making him easily relatable to the majority of at least the American culture. Richard is interesting and complex, and this is apparent in the play, and is also one of the key factors to why I believe that Pacino’s adaptation was a successful one. Pacino showed Richard truly and honestly, and he had the passion and confidence to play the part wholeheartedly which is apparent in the film as well.

A word on Birthday Letters

When thinking about “Conflicting Perspectives” it is worth remembering a few things:

• Hughes is in a position of power as he has the final say and can say what he likes without any chance of a rebuff or response.
• He has chosen to give the work the title “Birthday Letters”. ‘ Birthday’ has positive connotations and “letters” implies intimacy and an element of truth or objectivity.
•  Think about the times when people write letters, think about purpose, audience and tone. Under what circumstances would letters be written and in what form/s ?
• Now consider why Hughes has written “Letters” in a chronological poetic form? What does the poetic verse bring to the subject matter in terms of  ‘conflicting perspectives’ ?
• Does (and if so, then HOW) form influence representation of the situation, events and personalities?

The Women of Richard III

http://www.cyberpat.com/shirlsite/essays/rich3.html

The Women of Richard III

The character of King Richard III of England is perhaps Shakespeare’s most evil creation. A machiavellian who delights in governing through fear and force, his evil is only offset by his ready and cutting wit. Yet Shakespeare does provide a contrast to Richard’s villainy. The women of this play function as voices of protest and morality. They often see through his intrigues and predict dire consequences from his acts. Shakespeare uses the women to point out moral truths and emphasize general principles of the Elizabethan world view of moral and political order. Anne, Elizabeth, the Duchess and Margaret each contribute in furthering Shakespeare’s moral themes in three ways: through their roles as victims which is expressed in their intense lamentations, in their cries for revenge through divine retribution, and in alluding to a higher moral order that transcends men’s actions. In all these ways, the women of Richard III help illustrate how destruction comes about when order is violated, either through the weakness of a king or through the machinations of those who cause civil war by wanting to take the king’s place. Such chaos devastates the individual, the family, and the nation, resulting in moral decay, treachery, anarchy, and profound suffering.

The world that Shakespeare shows us in Richard III is a man’s world. The women are presented as being on the sidelines to grieve, complain, or bury the dead. Richard views women as tools, as shown by his various asides to the audience when he announces his plots, where the marrying of Anne or Elizabeth are only moves in his elaborate games of intrigue and power. Overwhelmingly, the women are victims of such political machinations, and though their vulnerability allows their manipulation, the eloquent expressions of their grief shows not only that Richard’s schemes are played out on people whose agony of body and spirit can be intensely real, but also shows that the state of civil turmoil, disorder, and treachery that has prevailed since the War of the Roses began leaves no one untouched by suffering. Anne, the first woman we are introduced to is grief stricken by her husband’s death in combat. Shakespeare expands this theme in scenes such as Act II, sc.ii when both Elizabeth and the Duchess also lament and enumerate similar losses of loved ones. Act IV, sc. i contains some of the play’s most touching lines when Elizabeth looks back on the Tower, suspecting she may never see her imprisoned sons again. In this scene, the Duchess sums up the state of despair all the women find themselves in when she says, “I to my grave, where peace and rest lie with me. Eighty odd years of sorrow have I seen, and each hour’s joy wrack’d with a week of ten,” (Act IV, sc. i). Though one can call the Duchess and the former Queen Margaret monotones of complaint, the point is made that this individual devastation is the result of the disaster that has befallen the nation as a whole. Everyone is tainted, even the women are not entirely guiltless in the struggle between the warring houses. Through their passive acceptance, as in Anne’s acceptance of Richard’s proposal, to Margaret’s very active part as a soldier in the battlefield, the blood and barbarities of civil strife have reduced everyone, but especially the women, to helpless creatures who can only recite psalms of grief, guilt, and sorrow. Finally, in Act IV, sc iv, ‘the wailing queens,’ Margaret, the Duchess, and Elizabeth unite in their mournings. Again, Shakespeare uses the women to emphasize the woeful state of the nation when Elizabeth asks Margaret to teach her how to curse, cursing being the only outlet for these women, powerful in title but impotent in reality, incapable of stemming the tide of sorrow and suffering the disorder of the times has wrought.

Perhaps because of their helpless suffering, the women of Richard III also come to function as the national voice for retributive justice. In Act I, sc. ii, Anne prays for vengeance. Revenge is cried upon Richard by the wailing queens. But it is Margaret who dominates with her litany of revenge. Serving a dual role as a spokeswoman of historical facts, she graphically outlines the violence and treachery that has been the ruling characteristic of the country since the accession of Henry VI. Here we learn that everyone is guilty: the moral abdication of Henry VI led to the dominance of Margaret, the Yorkists provoked civil war, Edward IV, as well as Clarence, broke their oaths…they are a generation nurtured in violence and individual repentances cannot heal the cancer of usurpation, civil disorder, and self-seeking individualism. Richard is the culmination of this strife, a monstrous incarnation of evil that springs from a context of decayed public morality. Anne and Margaret call him the scourge, and he is variously referred to as the devil himself.

When the women are not grieving, they are often venting their hate. The expressions of Margaret’s thirst for revenge are her curses and she levels them generously at all who contributed to her personal losses: Clarence, Richard, Hastings, King Edward, and Dorcet while she also evokes the mechanical aspect of justice when she prophesies their destruction. All of the women join Margaret in cursing Richard, the most concentrated representation of the evil and illness that pervades the country, but it is interesting to note how often the curse reverses on the curser. Anne acknowledges this (Act IV, sc.i), thus admitting to her own duplicity in the mess everyone finds themselves in. All the scenes of female lamentation are riddled with curses, calling for justice when all are guilty. Shakespeare uses the women to illustrate how England itself is under a curse of civil dissension and moral ill. The ring of curses and the cries for justice directly reflect how deep the morass of blood, treachery, and disorder has become, and how urgently rightful order needs to be restored.

But does vengeance belong to man or God? Shakespeare uses the tension created with Margaret’s curses and cries for personal revenge to answer this question in the person of Richmond. Throughout the play a sense of moral order that transcends men’s actions is alluded to but never given full expression until the last Act. It is to this moral order, this immutable form of divine justice, that all the women are appealing when they cry to the heavens for their wrongs to be righted, especially poignant in the ‘wailing queens’ scene. In this scene, Margaret points out to Elizabeth how temporal life is: “For happy wife, a most distressed widow; For joyful mother, one that wails the name; … Thus hath the course of justice whirl’d about And left thee but a very prey to time” (Act IV, sc. iv). However, though Margaret uses this allusion to temporality to emphasize the maxim ‘what goes around comes around’, she confuses the fulfillment of her wishes with divine justice. Her curses come true because they should have, not because she wants them to. She, like the other women, tend to be morally myopic in their cries for justice, unable, or unwilling, to recognize their own guilt. Shakespeare makes Margaret the incarnation of the wrong sort of justice, derived from the Old Testament style of retributive justice, but he contrasts her with Richmond who submits himself to a higher order and incorporates forgiveness into his idea of justice. The fact that Shakespeare portrays Richmond as the nation’s savior, not bringing him into the play until the last scene and making plain that Richmond alone is untainted by the treachery that has gone before, endorses the fact that Shakespeare himself felt that vengeance belonged to God, made plain when Richmond submits himself to this higher order.

In the last scene when Richard and Richmond present their soliloquies, the contrast between submission to order and extreme individualism is very clearly the contrast between good and evil. Here Shakespeare makes it clear that there is an existence beyond the realm of men that nevertheless has a profound effect on human life and experience. Margaret and the other women of the play serve to bring about this realization, through their lamentations and cries for revenge, that something over and above the world of men is needed to right the state of the country. They cry to this higher order and bring the need for its intervention to our attention, and this is their greatest contribution. Only their own participation in furthering the state of disorder prevents them from benefiting significantly from order’s restoration in the form of Richmond’s victory.

Cicero said, “Justice is the essential virtue and moral right is the basis of action.” In Richard III, Shakespeare shows how the existing order of England has been violated and presents the conflict and turmoil that results on both the individual and national levels. Order is restored only by the eradication of the forces that originally violated it and Shakespeare shows that these forces were essentially immoral in nature. The female characters are the major vehicles of this view, by voicing the sorrow that results from the disruption of moral order, through their cries for retributive justice, and through their appeals for this justice from a divine realm. They are the essential contrast to Richard’s evil, and through their struggles against his dominance they serve not only to illustrate the necessity of the restoration of order, but to bring about that restoration. In moral terms, the women of the play thus serve to mitigate the natural destructiveness inherent in a male dominated world.

© 1992 Shirley Galloway

Points to Ponder when studying Module A~ Exploring Connections

 

REMEMBER:  All texts reflect the Values and Context of the time of production. 

THEREFORE: 1.Why does Shakespeare present his work the way he does? How do we know?

                            2. Why does Pacino present his work the way he does?   How do we know?

                            3. How does this reflect each context AND how is this expressed/shown/explored in each text?

  

 

Commentary on Looking for Richard by Bernadette Moore

Pacino begins his documentary with a voiceover reciting an extract from The Tempest, whilst the audience sees Pacino in a basketball park, where a boy is shooting balls, an all American pastime-

 

Our revels now are ended .Pacino substitutes our revel is now at an end

  These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits, and
Are melted into air, into thin air;
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, 
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve;
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep. (IV.i.148–158

 

 

PACINO:” It’s always been a dream of mine to communicate how I feel about Shakespeare to other people. So I asked my friend, Frederick Kimble, who is an actor and writer and colleagues, Michael Hadge and James Bullett to join me, and taking this one play, Richard 111,and by analysing it from different angles, putting on costumes, playing out scenes, we could communicate our passion for it, our understanding that we have come to, and by doing that communicate a Shakespeare that is how we feel and how we think today. Now that’s the effort we’re going to get here. At least the head start is that I’ve done it. The problem is, this is a difficult play.”

 

PAC” who should say action? Do you want to say action? I don’t want to.

VOICEOVER “action!”

PAC ( fumbling to find the opening in the curtain in an old style theatre) are they out there? This is my entrance? (enters stage as if in an audition,  sees actor costumed as Shakespeare.)

PAC.  f—!

STREET PERSON VOX POP “ I’m actually reading sk , been reading it for 6months. I can’t get the hang of it

STREET PERSON 2 BLACK MAN “Intelligence is hooked with language . when we speak with no language we get nothing out of our society. We should speak like Shakespeare. We should introduce sk into the academics. You know why? Because then the kids would have feelings.

PAC” that’s right!”

ST. PERSON 2 “So we have no feelings. That’s why it’s easy for us to get a gun and shoot each other. We don’t feel for each other, but if we were taught to feel, we wouldn’t be so violent.

PAC “ Sk helps us ?

ST PERSON 2 “ He did more than help us. He instructed us.”

BRANAGH “I was brought up in a school where sk was taught very kind of straight forwardly and dully, to be honest. We read it aloud and it made no sense because there was no connection made.

J. EARL JONES “ my own experience was in the field of Michigan. An uncle.. came out of the field one day and started narrating antony’s speech, the final oration.

 PAC  “sk. Julius Caesar ?”

JONES “yeah we’d heard stuff from the Bible, but my first time, as a kid, I was hearing great words, have great meaning.”

PACINO asks people on the streets re their knowledge of Shakespeare, in particular R111. He limps with a disabled leg and arm (similar to sk’s R111)

PAC’ “we’re peddling Shakespeare”

PAC I’ve done it, you’ve done it . the problem is the audience hasn’t done it. I mean nobody knows who Richard 111  is ! nobody!

After picking up a large, antiquated book of Shakespeare’s works

PAC “let’s work out of a smaller book. This is hard to carry. Oh it’s my entrance ..falls into a chair due to the weight of the book. Symbolises the enormity of the task ahead. “I see!”  (statement on the accessibility of traditional sk, changes to a more modern, portable copy of sk, more akin to contemporary opinion.

Begins 1st .soliloquy

PAC (around table, rehearsals in progress) “ see what we’ve gotta do what we should do, is get actors in here, not audition them, just get them in and let them just sit around, just see and read. We’ll have different people read different roles. Hopefully, somehow the roles and the actors will merge. The actors will find the role. An actor will read one part, another actor reads another. Dorset and Grey are the same people! We used 2 actors in the same part. It’s going to take 4 weeks of rehearsals to figure out what parts we’re playing.

PAC “In modern plays, you understand it, it’s there for you but in sk you have an entire company on the stage good actors, not knowing where they’re going, where they are?”

PAC “ What is it about being American that makes our actors just stop when it comes to sk.?

         “ the problem with being an American in Sk, is you approach it reverentially, we have a feeling, I think, of inferiority, of the way it has been done by the British.”

AMERICAN SCHOLAR “ I think americans have been made to feel inhibited because they’ve been told so long by their critics, by their scholars and commentators that they can’t do Shakespeare. There fore, they think they can’t and they become totally self- conscious. American actors are not self-conscious. But they are when it comes to Shakespeare because they’ve been told they can’t do it and they foolishly believed that.

FEMININE SCHOLAR: “It’s the greatest period in British arts ,you know,. This extraordinary development and maturing and death of drama. In 20 years sk’s over. You’ve got our greatest british drama and sk learns incredibly fast and already, in this early play, he’s thinking about human beings as actors and about the stage and the imagination as a bit of life.”

 

CONWAY (hastings) experienced classics have a few things they can use at a moment’s notice, the understanding of iambic pentameter, for one thing.

Comparison of iambic pentameter –Kimble-“ anteater”!! (even pacino is bemused!)  Redgrave (English actress)” rhythm found through ‘soul’, the essence of what is being conveyed through Sk.”

 

LANGUAGE:

 Pacino compares Sk’s language with rap music.

KIMBLE: “Shakespeare used a lot of fancy words. You know. It’s hard to understand, grasp them”

PAC “They’re not fancy words. That’s where we get confused. But they’re poetry. It’s hard to grab hold of some rap slang too. It’s hard to get hold of it until your ear gets tuned. You have to tune up.”

 

REDGRAVE ON LANGUAGE AND ACTING voice over Whilst camera scans 20C view of actors who are playing the parts of those cursed by marg.)

“The music, literally, I mean the music and the thoughts and the concepts and the feelings have not been divorced from the words, and in England you’ve had centuries in which word has been totally divorced from truth and that’s a problem for us actors.”

BLACK MAN –VOX POP: If we think words a re things and we have no feelings in our words and then we say things to each other that don’t mean anything. But if we felt what we said, we’d say less and mean more.—–(moves on) -Spare some change”

MICHAEL HADGE: “How much more are we gonna shoot?  It’s a movie about a play. We’re making a documentary about making sk accessible to people. Those people, those people in the street they’re not gonna get R111. I can’t even get it. It’s too complicated.”

KIMBLE:’’ Then why is it sk’s most popular play? Why is it performed more than any other sk play? “

PAC: ”wait what did you say? “

HADGE: ”Who says it’s popular?”

KIMBLE’’ It is! It’s performed more than Hamlet’

HADGE “so what!”

Action jumps back on stage, to scene where R111 organises clarence’s death.

ALLURE OF EVIL/ LUST FOR POWER

After the scene where Edward dies, his face shown through the camera lens with coins on his eyes

HADGE “he’s dead! Okay!

PAC (appearing agitated) “Well what are we gonna do?” Okay? ( questioning the effectiveness of the scene/ or his next move?..)

KIMBLE “ I Like it.

HADGE “what’s next?”

PAC (ignoring  hadge, addressing kimble aggressively) “what do you mean “I like it!?” Pacino appears as equally as agitated/ exuberant as sk’s r111 would be at this point in his process to be king .he has overcome his major obstacles.  To exaggerate this, the scene switches to show Pac and crew trudging through a forest.

MAN 1.“what time is it? 3.30? What are they doing, do you know?”

MAN2. “Freddie said something about burying the king.’

MAN1.” Is that in the play?”

 

Taking the crown – highlighted on screen

After this they stage a mock ‘wake’ ,in 20C fashion. A deep wail can be head from Allen (Elizabeth) whilst Pacino(Richard!!!) puts an arm around her to comfort her on the loss of her husband.. In true method acting, both characters  are still consumed/become the characters they play on stage.

 PAC: “here it goes, this is it!”

KIM  “This is the crunch”

PAC “Now we can say Richard is the most powerful man at this point” All this is said through a voice over whilst PAC (rich) is comforting ALLEN(eliz) at the ‘wake’.  It then switches to the stage where ALLEN/Eliz is reciting, upon the news of Edward’s death “Alive! ..all of us have cause to wail…star” 2,2,101.

KIM “The crisis is, are they going to live by the words that they spoke to the king? Or are they not? Is the peace going to hold?

On stage  ? PAC (R111).“I hope the king made peace with all of us…And the compact is firm and true in me” 2,2,132.

 

Pacino and Spacey (Buckingham) discuss the deceit/politics behind Richard’s and Buckingham’s moves.

Pacino and Spacey act out following scene in 20C garb.

SPACEY(BUCK) “now my lord….will not yield to our complots” .

PAC (rich)“Chop….when I am king claim…the king my brother was possest.” 3,1, 193-197

Spacey displays he coverts (as Buck)Pacino’s (rich’s)promise of fortune/power by the close of his eyes/facial expression, whilst pacino places his arm around him.

They discuss the logistics/politics of their partnership whilst sitting on the coach together

SPACEY” this is like the surreity. Like the guys who did the Iran contra stuff, the dirty work. Propped up to the king”

PACINO “Without Buckingham there’s no Richard as king”

SPACEY “ Couldn’t do it alone. But they never can!”

SCHOLAR “Sk saw Rich and Buck as high class, upper class thugs”

Shot of Pac and Spac with hats on backwards, indicative of belonging in the same gang.Spacey says jokingly

SPACEY “there’s been no influence here has there?? No influence??

PACINO “ you’re a pretty smart guy” (referring to Buck)

Crosses on stage to Allen (Elizabeth), after she has been told by a messenger that the “the mighty dukes, Gloucester and Buckingham” have ordered the deaths of her brother, son and friend  2,4,46

ALLEN (Eliz)on stage ‘I see the ruin of my house ….the end of all’ 2,4,51-56

Back to 20C commentary between Pac and Spac re their partnership

PAC” Now what’s happened is Rich and Buck have betrayed everybody

SPACEY laughs

PAC “they did. They went to Ludlow to pick up this prince. It was supposed to be peaceful but what they did they forced him out from under his uncle’s arms and they’ve stolen this kid

KIMBLE” They’re bringing him back. What they’ve really got there is the throne of England, in their arms”

PACINO “the future”

Much of this has been said in voice over whilst the scenes play the meeting of the young princes on horse back. We now see Richard limping up to meet the prince’s entourage singing

PAC “he’s got the whole world in his hands”

Switches to voice over of part of rich’s opening sol. Globe theatre where Pacino explores the acoustics of sk’s theatre and tries to get a feel for the essence of the lines he has to deliver, the character of Richard.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LANGUAGE

Scene in 20c garb reciting the lines re assessing Hastings’approval to place Rich on the

CONWAY (hastings)“the crown”3,2,41-44.

However all the following speech is delivered in contemporary language.

BRIGGYMAN (Catesby) “think about it “

CONWAY (hastings) “let me tell you something. I will have this crown (indicates his own head) this crown ripped off and shoved into a cow’s belly before I would allow that scum to defile the crown by putting it on his head “

SCHOLAR “The text is only a means of expressing what’s behind the text. If you get obsessed with the text . This is a great barrier to American actors, who get obsessed with the british way of regarding a text. That isn’t what matters. What matters is that you have to penetrate into what, at every moment, it’s about.”

PACINO “our intent here was to display that actors shouldn’t let the unfamiliar language diffuse their ability to portray the deeper meaning and crux of the text.” Some of the other actors look shocked/confused.

 

ALLURE OF EVIL/ PURSUIT OF POWER

Conway on discussing the impact of the scene where the noblemen are gathered to decide the date for the coronation of King Edward. 3,4-

CONWAY “Remember we talked the other day about a gathering of the dons, in a way.? There’s a lot of suspicion in this room. I think there’s a danger to be in this room. All of us in one spot and it’s like somebody says “just wait here, I’ll be back “ and it’s been like “what’s going on?” (Conway is using the contemporary analogy of the meeting of the mafia, eg the movie “the godfather part two ” for which Pacino won an academy award, and in which Pacino played a don who, through similar treacherous methods as Richard ,secured the most powerful position in the mafia.

PAC ‘They have to cut out Hastings and only Richard has the power to do it. He’s a royal and he’s a york, only he’s got to move fast. It’s his last chance to stop Hastings from making the prince king.”

KIMBLE” they’re going to suck in hastings. Provoke him to say the wrong thing .”

PAC “then everyone in the room is going to have to make a choice. It’s either him or Gloucester.

He was the only fly in the ointment. They’ve got the inner circle. They’ve intimidated all the dukes and earls. They managed to intimidate all of them so now all that is left is winning the people.”

 

Spacey comments, using contemporary examples, how persuading the people/ mob has essentially been the same procedure. Large numbers of people together, are apt to lose their individuality and become gullible to one consensus. Suggests this has been/is universal..

SPACEY voice over “everytime there’s an election in this country, whether for mayor, whether it’s for president or city council, it’s always the fact people are tired of the way it’s been and just want a change “ scene shows spacey standing on a podium, 20c, trying to rouse the people to accept his agenda  

SPAC “I expected their reaction to be boisterous and that they would come and rally.”

Scene is on stage.

PAC (rich) “and did they so?”

SPAC (buck) No, so God help me, they spake not a word…looked deadly pale” 3,7,23-26

PAC (repeats) “and did they so?

SPAC (Buck) “ No! what are you deaf!!  Pacino and Spacey are bantering with each other in humour during this exchange.seems to further extol their union both on and off stage.

Further 20C commentary between Pacino and Spacey re the manipulation of the people, the evil both are planning to make Richard king.

SPAC “ I’m saying, whatever their reaction it doesn’t matter, we still had this plan.”

PAC” we still had this plan”

Some voice over occurs as we see pacino/ Richard standing righteously between two priests, bible in hand!

SPAC” so they’re being told that here, right before your very eyes, is the man who will make it better.”

SCHOLAR “Irony is only hypocrisy with style. Here again we love richard’s irony, in a way. We know he’s as hard as nails, that he’s only pretending to be religious.”  

PAC “ they canvas like politicians, complete with lies and innuendo. They manage to malign this young prince, who is the rightful heir to the throne and they know it! And they say he was a bastard that his father was a bastard. It’s an act and these people are buying it, it’s a complete lie!”

REDGRAVE “ in the midst of these noble concepts, these treaties and diplomatic pacts, he was saying, the truth beneath all this is absolutely the opposite. The truth is that, those in power have total contempt for everything they promise, everything they pledge. And that’s what sk’s great play is about.”

Crosses to party where American amateur directors are discussing their personal interpretations of how they produced/ adapted Shakespeare’s plays for a contemporary audience.  Pacino in method acting style, slumps against Kimble seemingly overcome by his desire to become king.

PACINO ‘’take me away, this has gone too far. I want, I want, I want to be king! That’s what I want!

KIMBLE” as soon as he gets what he wants, as soon as he gets Lady Anne, the crown . As soon as he gets the whole thing.”

PAC “ the emptiness of it.”

Scene where Pacino  and Spacey are discussing the reasons for Richard’s need to kill the young princes. The dialogue reveals that both share a similar opinion as would the characters they are playing on stage.

4,2.

SPACEY ‘ why is it necessary now to kill them? What difference? It’s? “

PACINO” but as long as they live???”

FEMALE SCHOLAR” everybody may have a price but for a lot of people there is a fundamental decency. It takes quite a long time for them to reach that point. The action of the play, the sense of exciting movement is Richard’s finding out the point beyond which people won’t go”

Scene 4,2,11-33,on stage.  Richard requests that Buckingham organises the murder of the two princes. Buckingham is unsure whether he wants to give consent to this part of the plan. Spacey also comments on his view of his character’s, Buckingham’s position, summation at this point in the proceedings.

SPACEY” it’s an interesting question where Buckingham is. How far he’s willing to go, where he’s willing to draw the line. It’s almost as if everything Buckingham does in the play, somehow he manages to keep the blood off his hands. On stage 4,2, 26-29.

FEMALE SCHOLAR “ He is bound to be left alone because nobody can love the King beyond the degree of their egotism or their own goodness. There’s going to be a point. He has reached Buckingham’s point.”

On stage pacino /Richard recites 4,2, 45-48.

SPACEY” when he went away, did he agree to do it, or was he gonna condemn and say I can’t but give me what you promised.”

KIMBLE” I have a feeling that he’ll come back and say. Okay. We have to do it, let’s bite the bullet. Let’s do it! But it’s too late”

Kimble and Pacino discussing Richard’s position after the fallout between Richard and Buckingham.

KIMBLE “you stand on brittle ground. Will it last, or will someone next week say, “ Hey they got a bum rap. Let’s push the case for the kids. The kids have got to go!”

Scene on stage shows messengers delivering updates re the present conditions of the ensuing war.4,4,519-537.  Off stage Pacino shows signs of agitation with Kimble

KIMBLE” he suspects everyone around him. He has no friends.

PAC “ I,m listening , I’m listening!!”

Upcoming Battle 

METHOD ACTING/ ALLURE OF EVIL/POWER

Pacino appears to emulate the psychological state that R111 is feeling at this stage of the play by replicating it with a physical demise of his own. Pacino coughs after drinking coffee, appears flu like.

PAC “ am I dying, am I dying? That’s what I want to know.

KIM (largely ignoring pacino)” when are we gonna kill Richard. I have a worse question.

PAC” (as if there couldn’t be a worse question) ‘excuse me!!” (looks away)

KIMBLE “ I have a feeling that YOUR Richard will have earned his death and we should think about a way to do it.

PAC ( flu like coughing) “close the door”  ( repeat bout of coughing

KIM (taking pacino’s temperature, who seems to be obsessed with his health) 98.6 put it under your tongue!

PAC ( a little obsessive) “if I’m 98.6 then you’re a shakespearean actor!

SCHOLAR” I think what is fascinating, is that when you come to the last act, to the battle of Bosworth, the battle itself goes for very little, apart from “ my horse, my horse. My kingdom for a horse.” It seems to me that the battle is really the ghost scene. The ghost scene is the battle. “

PAC “ Richard is visited in his sleep by the ghosts of all the people he murdered”

PAC (voice over whilst showing the theatre) “So Frederick and I decided to go to the actual theatre  where this play, where Richard 111 was performed some 300 years ago, and this ghost scene was acted on the stage her, in London. We’d thought we’d rehearse and see if we could get a sense of those old spirits. You know, method acting type stuff. “

PAC (talking, rehearsing with kimble) “I’ve always had trouble with this speech. It’s good when an actor has trouble with a speech and goes in there and tries to do it”

KIMBLE” I’ve heard you talking about Richard as a man who cannot find love. A person, who finally in the last scenes, knows that he does not have his own humanity, that he’s lost it. That he has lost the pursuit of power. Totally corrupt he is alienated from his own body and his own self.”

(pacino practices the ghost scene on stage ( in 20C garb) with Kimble. Scenes cut back and forth to show pacino(R111) in costume acting the ghost scenes 5,3 184-

PAC ( as R111)“ who is there?

KIM (as ratcliffe) it is I

PAC ( jokingly)” well get out of here, I’m working.”

KIM “you got it!”

PAC Let’s try it one more time. (pacino’s  eagerness for complete absorption of the character/ role of R111)

This scene is set outside on the plains, the scene for the battle. The various actors are at the top of the hill watching the ensuing battle offering commentary as if they were part of an audience/on lookers commenting on the battle’s process.

ALLEN (as Elizabeth) “They withdraw”

KIMBLE (in costume) “the ranks are breaking !”

ALLEN “see! they’re deserting him!!”

The scene switches down onto the battle field in costume 5,4,7-13

FEMALE SCHOLAR “ although  he’s frightfully clever, he is, at the same time, like a kind of boar who has subsumed into himself  all these frightful animal images and all that the rest have to do is hunt the boar. And that‘s what they do and they get him!”

STREET PERSON (VOX POP) “he’s a hearty dude, and in the end he’s surrounded, and he just goes , you know, he’ll give up anything for a horse. He’s rich, a king and he needs a horse. You know.”

After the scene where R111 is killed, pacino acts out a death scene,with kimble,in 20Cgarb, on the stairs outside a 20C building, with background bells chiming. Pac is lying on kimble’s lap.

KIM “ I didn’t mean it . I didn’t mean it”

PAC” I love you Frederic “

KIM” “ I didn’t mean it.”

PAC (looking at the camera) “he didn’t mean it??” and you kill me after all I did for you.”

Back to the original shot of the actor playing sk. Who looks away in disdain.

KIM” Richard’s dead. At last we can rest!”

Pacino acts dead again on the lap of Kimble. Scene switches to the  battle scene where R111 ‘s death is acted in costume. 5, 4. Pacino portrays his character’s death with a certain heroism. He fights Richmond, on his knees with two arrows in him and with only one strong arm!! ( no need for political bias here!). Rather, Pacino  is determined to portray the character he has become, through the process of method acting, with a certain stoic honour right to the end. 5,5,1.

 ( Hadge and Bullet after watching the end scenes

HADGE” is this it? Is this it?

BUL “ I hope so!”

HAD” are we done? This is it”

HAD “ you know, if I told him about the other 10 rolls of film, he’d want to use them!”

PAC “ I love the silence, I love the silence (said after further shot of dead R111). After silence, what else is there? What’s the line?”

GIELGUD (iconic sk’n actor) “the rest is silence “

PAC” “silence. Whatever I’m saying , I know Shakespeare said it!”

Pacino ends the documentary as he begins it, with a quote from Shakespeare’s The Tempest 4,1, 148-158.

Returning to the opening scene, the basketball court with the boy throwing baskets.

 

Our revels now are ended .Pacino substitutes our revel is now at an end

  These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits, and
Are melted into air, into thin air;
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples,  
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve;
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep. (IV.i.148–158)

Shakespeare-Richard III (1983 TV)-Lady Anne mourns, pt 1/2

Anne mourns

more about "Shakespeare-Richard III (1983 TV)-Lad…", posted with vodpod

TED Talks | Elizabeth Gilbert: “Being a genius and having…

A worthwhile talk. Enjoy.

more about “TED Talks | Elizabeth Gilbert: “Being…“, posted with vodpod