Texts provide insight into the lifestyles of individuals from past and allow the modern audience to understand shifts in contexts and values through time. William Shakespeare’s play The Tragedy of King Richard III presents its audience with the values of the sixteenth century, whilst Al Pacino’s film Looking for Richard highlights the shift in context and creatively reshapes these values in order to make them more accessible to a twentieth century audience. Both Pacino and Shakespeare employ different mediums in order to attract the audience of their time. Both texts explore the idea of ambition overriding the values of integrity and honesty. They both utilised the ideology of an abolished hierarchy in order to gain the adoration of the common …show more content…
The Elizabethan era consisted of a strict class structure and people rarely moved up into a higher class. Nonetheless, Shakespeare elevated the status of the common people and characterised them as perceptive citizens who had the most accurate judgement of Richard’s character in his play Richard III. Shakespeare employs metonymy in “Oh full of danger is the Duke of Gloucester” in order to illustrate the lack of personal connection between Richard and the lower class population. Despite this detachment, the citizens still possessed more insight into Richard’s true character than those closest to him. Pacino utilises this concept of an equal society in his film Looking for Richard, however the shift in social structure forced him to adjust his methods. The twentieth century brought a less severe social hierarchy. Pacino counteracts this modification by equating the average person with the “elite”. Pacino creates a montage of interviews with street people, scholars and actors. His valuing of opinions from all levels of society creates a levelling. The “impromptu” interview with a seemingly homeless African-American man possesses diegetic sounds and intimate close-ups that allow the audience to connect to the film. This vibrant scene directly juxtaposes with the sterile interview with scholar Barbara Everett. The scene lacks the lively …show more content…
Despite the change in contexts, the values presented in Shakespeare’s play are wholly relevant to a twentieth century audience. The idea of ambition overriding the values of integrity and honesty, the struggle of the composer to attract a mainstream audience and the religious beliefs of the audience are all made evident in both texts. By comparing the two texts, the shift in context can be distinguished and the different representations of values are illustrated and an insight into the lifestyle of people past is
It seems that modern Hollywood filmmakers are as much in love with Shakespeare's plays as were the 16th century audiences who first enjoyed them. Recent updates of Hamlet (1996) and Romeo and Juliet (1996), both highly successful movies, bear this out, as well as the two best film versions of Richard III; Sir Laurence Olivier's 1954 "period piece", and Ian McKellan's more modern interpretation (1995).
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...
The works of William Shakespeare have been one of the diligent hotspots for adaptation and appropriation. We see dramatic adaptation of Shakespearean playtexts began as early as Restoration period. Different fields like poetry, novels, advertisements, and movies have connected themselves with Shakespeare as well. The adaptation of Shakespeare makes him fit for new social settings and distinctive political philosophies.
Instead of a powerful physical image, like Queen Elizabeth I, Richard implements elegant soliloquies, engages in witty banter, and attunes the audience to his motives with frequent asides. This flexibility demonstrates Richard's thespian superiority and power over the rest of the play's cast, making him a unique character in the play, but why does he do it? This constant battle between characters to claim mastery over a scene leaves the audience with a seemingly overlooked source of power for an actor [clarify/expand].
Shakespeare, William, and Robert S. Miola. Hamlet: text of the play, the actors' gallery, contexts, criticism, afterlives, resources. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2011. Print.
Watson, Curtis Brown. “Shakespeare’s Ambivalence in Regard to Christian and Pagan-Humanist Values.” Chapter Nine. Shakespeare and the Renaissance Concept of Honor. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1960.
Gifted with the darkest attributes intertwined in his imperfect characteristics, Shakespeare’s Richard III displays his anti-hero traits afflicted with thorns of villains: “Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous / By drunken prophecies, libels, and dreams” (I.i.32-33). Richard possesses the idealism and ambition of a heroic figure that is destined to great achievements and power; however, as one who believes that “the end justifies the means”, Richard rejects moral value and tradition as he is willing to do anything to accomplish his goal to the crown. The society, even his family and closest friends, repudiate him as a deformed outcast. Nevertheless, he cheers for himself as the champion and irredeemable villain by turning entirely to revenge of taking self-served power. By distinguishing virtue ethics to take revenge on the human society that alienates him and centering his life on self-advancement towards kingship, Richard is the literary archetype of an anti-hero.
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.
The content and construction of texts are inexorably influenced by the plethora of social, cultural, and historical factors relative to a composer’s context. Context thus becomes the principle medium for deciphering the complex and often didactic meanings within texts. Through the comparative study of Shakespeare’s historical tragedy King Richard III and Al Pacino’s postmodern docudrama Looking For Richard, both texts explore the various connections explored through the protagonist Richard with respective societal influence affecting their portrayal. Shakespeare’s text strongly conveys a sense of providentialism which was influential by the Tudor monarchy whilst Al Pacino thorough the implement of modern day media portrays these influences to a secular, postmodern audience.
Essential to the success of Othello is the fact that the issues and themes explored in this tragedy, written by Shakespeare in about 1604, are still relevant to the modern audience. The interest of an audience is held by themes that are fundamental to the human condition, as these reflect our world and examine human nature. Othello explores the issues of racism, gender, domestic violence, the supernatural and the pathology of the entirely evil person, which are all remarkably relevant to our time. Thus the interest of the audience is held, as issues that affect the viewers and readers of the play spark individual opinions, reflection and thought.
Shakespeare’s Much Ado about Nothing is, on the surface, a typical romantic comedy with a love-plot that ends in reconciliation and marriage. This surface level conformity to the conventions of the genre, however, conceals a deeper difference that sets Much Ado apart. Unlike Shakespeare’s other romantic comedies, Much Ado about Nothing does not mask class divisions by incorporating them into an idealized community. Instead of concealing or obscuring the problem of social status, the play brings it up explicitly through a minor but important character, Margaret, Hero’s “waiting gentlewoman.” Shakespeare suggests that Margaret is an embodiment of the realistic nature of social class. Despite her ambition, she is unable to move up in hierarchy due to her identity as a maid. Her status, foiling Hero’s rich, protected upbringing, reveals that characters in the play, as well as global citizens, are ultimately oppressed by social relations and social norms despite any ambition to get out.
Through comedy and tragedy Shakespeare reveals the vast expanses and profound depths of the character of life. For him they are not separate worlds of drama and romance, but poles of a continuum. The distinction between tragedy and comedy is called in question when we turn to Shakespeare. Though the characters differ in stature and power, and the events vary in weight and significance, the movements of life in all Shakespeare's plays are governed by the same universal principles which move events in our own lives. Through myriad images Shakespeare portrays not only the character of man and society but the character of life itself.
The theme of unity transcends any ambiguity found in Henry's character or motives. This theme is evident in many areas of Henry V, but for the sake of this article, the importance of this theme is discussed between play and audience, and within Henry himself. This production of Henry V proposes that these two aspects be emphasized to show how Shakespeare's play has a message for modern theatergoers. The setting and age are left the same, as this adds to the validity of the play.
Throughout history there have been various values that remain relevant in all societies. It is these values that shape the critical fame of social structure and constitutes the very foundation on which individuals stand. In William Shakespeare’s Othello and Tim Nelson’s O (2001); there is a clear evolution of the depiction of certain themes and values which is influenced by context, which is ultimately, directed by social customs, values and meanings. The choice of what values should be represented and in what particular way they should be represented was conducted by the composer of each text, Shakespeare and Nelson, respectively.
William Shakespeare’s tragic drama Othello presents to the audience a picture of many different shades of morality and immorality. It is the purpose of this essay to elaborate in detail on this thesis.