Essay on Richard Iii and Looking for Richard

The story at the center of Richard II concerns the ineffectual King Richard II and the fiery, determined Henry Bolingbroke. The latter of these characters begins the story in conflict with another nobleman, whom he accuses of corruption and misappropriation. We immediately find Bolingbroke to be a man committed to civil order and the rightful authority of the kingdom. This will prove an interesting disposition when Bolingbroke finds himself in vehement disagreement with the king. Prepared to duel this counterpart in the above-mentioned dispute, Bolinbroke is interrupted by a capricious king. Unwilling to side with

Richard’s physical inconsistencies, render him incapable of love, and thus envious of his brother’s success (both in reputation and sex). His ever-growing jealousy has left him spiteful towards his brother, and filled him with ambition, simply put, if he cannot find meaning in love, he will find it in villainy. In his revenge against nature, Richard has devised “dangerous” “plots” and instilled “drunken prophecies, libels and dreams” to set his brothers against each other, knowing that if they and their heirs are dad, he will be crowned. The “hate” he plans to instill, mimics his own “false and treacherous disposition”, as he describes it as “deadly.” His ambiguous statement, that Edward’s heirs shall be murdered by a “G”, gives insight on his plot, as his brother George (Clarence) will be the murderer, and he, Richard of Gloucester, the indirect

William Shakespeare’s characterization of Britain’s historical monarch Richard III, formerly Duke of Gloucester, is one of the most controversial in literature. To this day there are arguments upholding Richard III’s villainy and ascertaining his murder of the Princes in the tower, just as there are those who believe that he has been falsely represented by Shakespeare’s play and fight avidly to clear his name of any and all crimes. Because of the uncertainty surrounding his true character, Richard III is an intriguing personality to put into modern culture, which is exactly what Ian McKellen does in his rendition of the infamous ruler. However, McKellen’s portrayal of Richard III preserves the basic

A standout amongst the most noticeable and disgusting indecencies, to be sure, in Richard's character, his pietism, joined, as it generally may be, in his individual, with the most significant ability and dissimulation, has, inferable from the different parts which it impels him to expect, most physically added to the notoriety of this play, both on the stage and in the storage room. He is one who can "outline his face to all events," and in like manner shows up, over the span of his profession, under the differentiated types of a subject and a ruler, a government official and a mind, a fighter and a suitor, a heathen and a holy person; and in all without breaking a sweat and constancy to nature, that while to the traveler of the human personality

Pacino: I was symbolically reflecting the character King Richard in a postmodern way to connect a modern audience’s context where freedom of choice and actions are

Shakespeare's Richard II tells the story of Richard's fall from power. Being dethroned by Bolingbroke forces Richard to confront the limitations and nature of his power as king. As audience members, we follow Richard on his journey of self-discovery, which enlightens him even as his life is shattered by Bolingbroke's revolt. Paradoxically, it is in utter defeat that Richard comes closest to understanding what it is to be human. Unfortunately he is unable to accept life as an ordinary subject after having tasted what it means to rule.

The excavation of a monster, a murderer, a man, with a spine as maliciously twisted as his conscience, occurred in the shallow depths of a car park in Leicester, England, August, 2012. Another excavation, quite like the first, set the stage of La Boite theatre ablaze. Dan Evans’ chaotic disruption of Shakespeare’s “Richard the III” was a deviation from tradition, presenting an impetuous yet brilliant challenge to history’s “Bard Avon”. He and his cowriter Marcel Dorney wrote a piece that illustrated “Five bodies in a space, wrestling with an idea” (Evans, 2016). They explore; how does a story influence our perspective of history, and the stories we tell ourselves? The 2016, “The tragedy of King Richard lll” effectively uses the elements of drama, in particular, symbolism and contemporary theatre to illustrate its theme of the nature of evil and questioning of the reliability of history in literature. The skills of performance, in particular directing is exploited to add to the tension and create dramatic meaning.

Sir Laurence Olivier’s version of Richard III was an outstanding film that William Shakespeare would be extremely impressed with. As Olivier played the lead role, Richard was plotting to steal the throne from his brother, King Edward IV. Throughout the betrayal process, many were killed while Richard’s bad behavior was slowly leading him down a path to his own downfall. Richard III was a phenomenal film that inspired the viewers to appreciate the time and effort that was put into this marvelous rendition of Shakespeare’s play and to sit back and enjoy the entirety of the film.

In William Shakespeare’s play, Richard II, England is ruled by the profligate king, King Richard. He has spent all his father’s money and has fallen out of favor with his subjects. Henry Bolingbroke overthrows Richard and takes his crown. As this occurs Richard undergoes a change. Before his usurpation Richard would not listen to anyone, was selfish, and did not care about the well being of anyone else. When Richard realizes that he has lost everything and is now at the mercy of Bolingbroke, he reflects on his life and becomes a more aware and caring person.

William Shakespeare’s The Life and Death of Richard the Second, exhibits many notable monologues from predominantly male characters with the Bishop of Carlisle’s prophetic denouncing of Kind Richard’s legitimacy to the crown in Act IV Scene 1 being one of the most noteworthy; however, the incarcerated Richard’s penultimate speech, and the play’s last soliloquy, is arguably the most important speech of the play’s namesake character. In it, Richard the Second describes his current state of affairs and laments the failures of his office and person. This speech operates as one of, if not the most, emotionally revealing as to Richard’s character. This soliloquy works as a precursor to the scene

            Calderwood’s reading of the Henriad as an allegory of Shakespeare’s own development as a self-conscious artificer is intriguing, but of more interest to me here is his point that these plays dramatize a world in which signifiers and their signifieds are separated from one another. At the center of this world stands Richard II, perhaps the most flamboyantly theatrical, the most self-consciously lyrical, of all of Shakespeare’s characters prior to Hamlet. Richard personifies the disjunction between signs and meanings about which Calderwood writes; he is a man who, in losing his kingly name (signifier), subsequently loses the most basic vestiges of his identity

This proves how sly Richard really is and his desire for the crown. He leaves by saying “But the plain devil and dissembling looks, And yet to win her, all the world to nothing! Ha!”(1.2.236-38) which is to be seen as a mockery because of the feat he just accomplished.

“With Richard II, then, Shakespeare turns to the events that had launched England’s century of crisis” (Bevington, 2014). “These events were still fresh and relevant to Elizabethan minds” (Bevington, 2014). “To begin with, we should not underestimate Richard’s attractive qualities, as a man and even as a king” (Bevington, 2014). “Richard is consistently more impressive and majestic than his rival, Bolingbroke” (Bevington, 2014). “Richard fascinates us with his verbal sensitivity, his poetic insight, and his dramatic self-consciousness” (Bevington, 2014). “These qualities notwithstanding, Richard is an incompetent ruler, compared to the man who

Shakespeare’s Richard II gets a bad rap among the other plays in the second tetralogy. Lacking big, bloody battles, comedic characters such as Falstaff, and a polarizing protagonist that populate both Henry IV’s and Henry V, this play is a notoriously harder sell. However, King Richard II’s relationship to his identity as king and the concept of kingship in English society is crucial to the progression of the tetralogy, and indeed, the entire history of the monarchy of England. The dramatic tension Shakespeare realizes through Richard II’s character shows a pivotal shift in the way the people, and the king himself, view the role of the

This passage characterizes how Machiavellian Richard’s character is and his awareness of the nature of his character. Hastings’ head is