Mod a: Richard Iii and Looking for Richard
The comparative analysis of Shakespeare’s “Richard III” circa 1591 and Al Pacino’s 1996 docudrama “Looking for Richard” (LFR) reveals the capacity of these texts to transcend their timeframes due to their exploration of ideas perennially relevant to human nature. As humans, there is an innate desire of us to exert our ideals and beliefs on others as well as an underlying ambition for power, hence these texts explore the way in which art can be used to shape and reshape historical perceptions as well as the universal relevance of power to human beings.
Shakespeare’s “Richard III” exists as a providential narrative in support of the Tudor Myth; that it was only through the divinely sanctioned rule of Henry VII that brought about peace after an era of turmoil under the reign of Richard III. As such, Shakespeare’s pro-Tudor bias highlights the politically and morally absolutist agenda of his time.
Intrinsic to both texts, there is the notion that art is used to directly influence and impact existing historical perceptions. Shakespeare’s “Richard III” explores this idea, using the most influential artistic medium of the time, theatre, to further publicise the ‘Tudor Myth’ perception. On stage, the visual motif of Richard’s appearance as “deformed, unfinished” reflects his moral deficiencies, reinforced by his soliloquys and asides that expose his underlying treachery. He forges a duplicitous role as both director and actor within the play, stating in the opening soliloquy “plots that I have laid, inductions dangerous…” Richard seemingly ‘stage manages’ the entirety of his world, creating a sense of dramatic irony from the juxtaposing of the different “masks” he feigns in contrast to his true intentions; he plays the role of the “grieving” brother, “Christian prince,” etc. As such, Richard’s meta-theatricality engages us on a psychological level that reinforces the perception of the Tudor Myth given not just the heinous nature of his crimes but the “villainous”
Shakespeare’s “Richard III” exists as a providential narrative in support of the Tudor Myth; that it was only through the divinely sanctioned rule of Henry VII that brought about peace after an era of turmoil under the reign of Richard III. As such, Shakespeare’s pro-Tudor bias highlights the politically and morally absolutist agenda of his time.
Intrinsic to both texts, there is the notion that art is used to directly influence and impact existing historical perceptions. Shakespeare’s “Richard III” explores this idea, using the most influential artistic medium of the time, theatre, to further publicise the ‘Tudor Myth’ perception. On stage, the visual motif of Richard’s appearance as “deformed, unfinished” reflects his moral deficiencies, reinforced by his soliloquys and asides that expose his underlying treachery. He forges a duplicitous role as both director and actor within the play, stating in the opening soliloquy “plots that I have laid, inductions dangerous…” Richard seemingly ‘stage manages’ the entirety of his world, creating a sense of dramatic irony from the juxtaposing of the different “masks” he feigns in contrast to his true intentions; he plays the role of the “grieving” brother, “Christian prince,” etc. As such, Richard’s meta-theatricality engages us on a psychological level that reinforces the perception of the Tudor Myth given not just the heinous nature of his crimes but the “villainous”