During his reign, King Richard III was considered to be a rather tyrannical ruler; he was accused of multifarious murders. He killed off those that were close to him and were considered blocking figures for his ambition. Although Richard committed various evil deeds, how different is he from the evil rulers later on in time? Richard ruled for a very short time compared to other sadistic dictators, kings, and princes. How is Richard III similar and different compared to other rulers in a more modern time and villains from Stories, novels, movies and television shows? There is no difference between the villainy in people; all villains are born from the birth of ambition. Richard killed off his own brother, took his nephew’s into custody and …show more content…
Hitler didn’t always give off a very evil vibe in his earlier days. In vice versa, it seemed that Richard was showing some signs of immoral in his earlier days. It is believed by some that this is caused by his deformity. Hitler originally served in the German army where he fought in World War I. During the intense war, the German army surrendered and became weak. He then blamed the Jews for their surrender and claimed that they were evil and not human beings. It was then that Hitler sought out a new ambition. His new goal was to get rid of all Jews and achieve world domination, and during the process he intended to kill anyone else that got in his way. This is practically explicating that he is going to accomplish his objective by any means necessary. This is quite similar to how Richard kills everyone who stands in his way of becoming king or poses as a threat. For instance when Richard sends Rivers and Gray to Pomfret to be killed. The messenger states in act two, scene four, “Lord Rivers and Lord Grey are sent to Pomfret, And with them Sir Thomas Vaughan, prisoners.” This is an indication that something unusual is occurring within the higher ups. Although Richard iii committed these murders, Adolf Hitler was notorious for his mass murders and capturing of Jews and locking them into concentration camps. Richard was far sneakier, and he took people out one by one with a few followers that backed him up and he used them as pawns in his game. While Hitler ruled with an entire army, showing no mercy. The approach that Hitler took allowed him to rule with an iron fist. “These experiments killed over 300,000 people. Every Jew in Germany was sent to concentration camps. Jews in other countries were also sent to concentration camps. All were expected to work until they died or they were killed. Millions of Jews had to watch friends
To explore connections between texts is to heighten understanding of humanity’s progressing values and the underlying relevant themes that continue to engage societies regardless of context. William Shakespeare’s King Richard III (1592) (RIII) and Al Pacino’s docudrama Looking for Richard (1996) (LFR) demonstrate how opinion is created through comparative study, both explore the struggle for power within differing contexts to determine the duplicity of humanity. Ultimately, despite the divergent eras of composition and textual form, these connections expose the relevant social commentaries of their composers, highlighting innately human values, which remain constant.
Anne is quite like a modern woman in the way that if a man tells her
“I am determined to prove a villain / and hate the idle pleasures of these days. / Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous, / by drunken prophecies, libels and dreams.” Richard III, the evil Duke of Gloucester, is fighting a bloody road to the crown in Shakespeare's dramatic play. Stopped by nothing and with brilliant intelligence, Richard fights his way to the king’s position, clothing his villany with “old odd ends stolen out of holy writ.” With no one to fully trust, Richard breaks many hearts by killing all people in his way, and becomes the unstoppable villain. He hides behind a shield of kindness and care, but when he is alone, his real soul comes alive. Sending murderers, or killing people himself, he has no mercy. Manipulating Lady Anne to marry him and promising Buckingham rewards for his deeds, he knows what he is doing, and won’t stop until the crown lies at his feet.
The déjà vu of Nazi dystopia becomes interesting when comparing the general background of the movie to the original play. Richard III (1995) came out during the last decade of twentieth century, which, for many individuals, was ten years of compounded fear; the collapse of Soviet Union in 1991 ruins the socialism faith in millions, whereas global economy tsunami in 1998 foils capitalism as troublesome too. For the worst part, rumors about the doomsday of 2000 remain haunted. This typical collective fear also deeply roots in England when Shakespeare creates Richard III: Elisabeth I was rapidly aging without any heir. In both cases, fear of social stability comes with no promised solution. Therefore, under similar circumstance, it is necessary to recall the living demons like Richard and Hitler to remind people the horror of war.
The undeniable pursuit for power is Richard’s flaw as a Vice character. This aspect is demonstrated in Shakespeare’s play King Richard III through the actions Richard portrays in an attempt to take the throne, allowing the audience to perceive this as an abhorrent transgression against the divine order. The deformity of Richards arm and back also symbolically imply a sense of villainy through Shakespeare’s context. In one of Richard’s soliloquies, he states how ‘thus like the formal Vice Iniquity/ I moralize two meanings in one word’. Through the use of immoral jargons, Shakespeare emphasises Richard’s tenacity to attain a sense of power. However, Richard’s personal struggle with power causes him to become paranoid and demanding, as demonstrated through the use of modality ‘I wish’ in ‘I wish the bastards dead’. This act thus becomes heavily discordant to the accepted great chain of being and conveys Richard’s consumption by power.
This contributes to a very villainous role. Richard begins his journey to the throne. He manipulates Lady Anne. into marrying him, even though she knows that he murdered her first. husband.
Shakespeare Richard III was a traitor, a murderer, a tyrant, and a hypocrite. The leading characteristics of his mind are scorn, sarcasm, and an overwhelming contempt. It appears that the contempt for his victims rather than active hatred or cruelty was the motive for murdering them. Upon meeting him he sounds the keynote to his whole character. " I, that am curtailed of this proportion, cheated of feature by dissembling nature, Deform'd, unfinish'd sent before my time Into this word scarce half made up"( 1.1.20-23)
Shakespeare constructs King Richard III to perform his contextual agenda, or to perpetrate political propaganda in the light of a historical power struggle, mirroring the political concerns of his era through his adaptation and selection of source material. Shakespeare’s influences include Thomas More’s The History of King Richard the Third, both constructing a certain historical perspective of the play. The negative perspective of Richard III’s character is a perpetuation of established Tudor history, where Vergil constructed a history intermixed with Tudor history, and More’s connection to John Morton affected the villainous image of the tyrannous king. This negative image is accentuated through the antithesis of Richards treachery in juxtaposition of Richmond’s devotion, exemplified in the parallelism of ‘God and Saint George! Richmond and victory.’ The need to legitimize Elizabeth’s reign influenced Shakespeare’s portra...
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.
In the Shakespeare play Richard III was depicted as a malformed mean, ill looking, tyrant. But this was not the case. Richard
Richard had weakened since he had become king and was no longer ruthless as he had no reason to be ruthless. He had got what he wanted and was pleased with himself. He thought he was invincible, and he was too confident, which cost him his life. If he had been more careful, he would have been aware of the danger that lied before him. But, he did use some similar techniques in both the scenes.
From the beginning of the play, Richard II is apathetic at best in his royal role. By exiling Bolingbroke and...
King Richard II is Shakespeare's example of a king who removes himself from the reality of the common people. Richard views his position as a source of amusement. His "cares" as King, other than an opportunity for an agreeable audience, are merely a burden. Instead of investigating the accusations of treachery from Henry and Mawbrick, he exiles both men as an easy way out. Richard was born a King, and knows no life other than that of royalty. Unfortunately the lesson that must know men to rule them costs him the thrown. Richard's lesson influences his usurper and his usurper's heir to the thrown, demonstrating to them both the value of humility.
In actuality, his mind overpowers his self. Because he firmly holds on to the belief that he “cannot prove a lover” without offering any proof that he really is incapable of wooing “a wanton ambling nymph,” Richard chooses “to prove a villain” (Shakespeare 6). His mind constantly rejects optimism and instead thrusts him back into the darkness where he can protect himself from disappointment. By doing so, Richard’s body becomes a canvas upon which his mind can paint any identity. Richard plays the concerned, supportive brother to an imprisoned Clarence, a good-hearted, loyal citizen in front of Brackenbury, and a drooling lover in front of Lady Anne. In reality, however, neither of these personas come even remotely close to the truth of his identity. By hiding behind these facades as well as expressing evil intentions and a strong connection to the dark side, Richard finds himself capable of being someone amazing. But that someone is not him. He revels in being able to “seem a saint…when mostly…play[ing] the devil,” and thus gains an identity through his villainous and monstrous ideas (36) Every physical action he takes can be traced back to its origin in the mind as a carefully crafted piece of his overall plan to ascend the
"What tongue speaks my right drawn sword may prove" is the sentence which concludes a short speech delivered by Henry Bolingbroke to King Richard II (1.1.6). These words are but the first demonstration of the marked difference between the above-mentioned characters in The Tragedy of Richard II. The line presents a man intent on action, a foil to the title character, a man of words.