Comparing King Richard III And Looking For Richard

-Anne mostly in the dark enhancing her incomprehension, camera turns away from her or shows only as body parts to frame Richard’s body

Shakespeare’s King Richard III and Al Pacino’s 1996 documentary ‘Looking for Richard’ enhance a deeper understanding of ambition and identity through depicting explicit connections between each text and their audience. Enhancement of each text is gained through differing contexts and text types which are presented through literary and cinematic techniques. Both composers use anachronisms to parallel beliefs and values such as ambition and identity which transcend both contexts.

To play one of Shakespeare’s most complex roles successfully on stage or on screen has been the aspiration of many actors. William Shakespeare’s Hamlet has been the focus on various accounts throughout the 20th Century, each actor attempting to bring something unique and unmarked to the focal character. Franco Zeffirelli and Kenneth Branagh, both film directors, introduce varying levels of success on the screen through downright differences in ways of translation and original ideas. Zeffirelli’s much shorter interpretation of the film is able to convey the importance of Hamlet as a masterwork by using modern approaches to film but still capturing the traditional work behind Shakespeare’s well-known play.

My report is on Richard I, byname Richard the Lion-Hearted. He was born September 8, 1157 in Oxford, England. He died on April 6, 1199 in Chalus, England. His knightly manner and his prowess in the Third Crusade(1189-92) made him a popular king in his own time, as well as the hero of countless romantic legends. He has been viewed less kindly by more recent historians and scholars.

Over the course of the past fifty years there have been many cinematic productions of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, some of which remain true to the text while others take greater liberties with the original format. Director Kenneth Branagh’s 1996 production of Hamlet was true to Shakespeare’s work in that the film’s dialogue was delivered word or word as it is presented in the text. In contrast, Franco Zeffirelli conducted his 1990 production of Hamlet in a much more liberal direction in which lines, scenes and characters were omitted from the film. I argue that from the perspective of an individual with moderate knowledge in Shakespearian literature, that the best film versions of Hamlet are those that take the most liberties from the text. I

After reading “Richard the Third” by Shakespeare and then watching the adaptation of the play by McKellen. There are many similarities that are consistent throughout both, but what the film does in some scenes really shows the viewer how different both are. McKellen’s adaptation may have seemed very dramatic including the way he killed of Rivers. However, his film helped us understand how Shakespeare may have performed this play as a film in today's society. Hodgdon talks about the interpretation of McKellen’s film and points out some very interesting views about the film.

Connections of commonality and dissimilarity may be drawn between a multiplicity of texts through an appreciation of the values and attitudes with which they were composed. Accordingly, the values and attitudes of the individual being may be defined as an acute blend of externally induced, or contextual and internally triggered, or inherent factors. Cultural, historical, political, religious and social influences, dictated by the nature of one’s surroundings, imprint a variable pattern of values and attitudes upon the individual. Thus any deviation in any such factor may instigate an alteration of the contextual component of one’s perspective. By contrast, the

William Shakespeare’s, Richard III explores the idea of power. It’s shown how power corrupts and controls characters throughout the play. There are many comparisons that could be drawn between Richard III as Machiavellian leader as alluded to in the transformative piece. The main reason for this is the extremes that Richard would go to, to assert himself in power. The transformative piece aimed to explore how this influenced Richard’s reception when elected into power. One of the main motivations behind the characterisations of Richard in this transformative piece, is drawn from when Richard announces in the original play, “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.” (1.1.??) From this quote the character of Richard had to be created to be cruel with no regard for the things that make us human, this was done through how widely known his behaviour is in the article. The Machiavellian idea is also drawn from Richard as he “cannot prove a lover”, which leads him to draw on fear as a method of control. This speech is sinister yet incredibly determined, it acted as the driving hand behind many of Richard’s brutal actions, because whilst his actions are morally wrong, he is working towards a goal. This idea laid the grounds for the investigation Richards’s determination.

Richard I or often called the “Lionheart” was the Duke of Aquitaine, Poitiers, and Normandy. The count of Anjou and his later in his years The king of England. He was the son of King Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine. King Richard was born In Oxford, England on September 8, 1157, according to Geoffrey Wallis Steuart Barrow (2017). Hickman has stated in “Crusades: King Richard I the Lionheart of England” that He was the third son of King Henry II and was believed to be the favorite son of Eleanor of Aquitaine. He was smart, had a very dashing appearance, had skillful in military matters and worked to enforce his father’s rule in France.

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.

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.

Richard II was a king of England, but his failures attracted more interests from different parties. Most of the other rulers renowned in the world have fame for being successful in their rule. However, Richard II was known for his failures and inadequacies during his rule. Richard was king when he was nine years but since there was no regency, his uncle, John of Gaunt, dominated his control when he was young. However, during Richard II's rule, there was erupt of the French war. The war was spreading at a high rate, and the effects were seen all over the nation. There were poor royal finances, and they could not satisfy the needs of the armies during the war (Lebow, 2017). In 1381, Peasant's Revolt also happened as the king imposed a third poll

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

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.