Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
richard iii moral literacy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: richard iii moral literacy
Morality in Richard III by William Shakespeare In Richard III, Shakespeare invites us on moral holiday. The early part of the play draws its readers to identify with Richard and thereby to participate in a fantasy of total control of self and domination of others. We begin to be pulled into the fantasy in the play's opening speech, where Richard presents himself as an enterprising, self made villain and offers an elaborate justification for this self he renovation. In the first scene of the play, Richard announces in a narration, his plan to become king. Richard is truly a Machiavel. A Machiavel is "one who views politics as amoral and that any means, however unscrupulous, can justifiably be used to achieve power". Richard plainly states that he is "Deformed, Unfinished, and sent before his time" and "since he cannot prove to be a lover; he is determined to prove a villain". As a villain Richard must be heartless; he cannot let his emotions interfere with his actions. He must also be intelligent and organized; a...
Anne is quite like a modern woman in the way that if a man tells her
...rall effectiveness of the play by allowing the audience to make personal connections with the characters as well as strengthening the theme threads.
...f control of scenes and verbal encounters, which finally ends with his magnificent downfall. [implement more Margaret control/curses/competition in the beginning]. Despite Richard's best attempts to write his own ending, the audience is now forced with the truth that it was Margaret's prophecy that ripened to fruition. With Richard's final soliloquy taking blame for his actions and "the outward movement away from any semblance of Richard's control, completes the separation of Richard and audience" (Schellenberg 66). Through the course of Act V, Richard takes part in only two of the six scenes. Of these two scenes, he shares the stage with Richmond, the rising actor to take the lead role.
Shakespeare's villains seem to fall into one of two categories: those who are villainous of heart (inherently and genuinely evil or Machiavellian) and those who are circumstantially turned antagonists. Richard III's carefully plotted plans to usurp the throne contrast heavily against Aaron's (of Titus Andronicus) rambling which contrasts with Aaron's lack of action. The motivations of these two characters are different however. Richard seizes the opportunity to take over the throne by Machiavellian means when presented with the opportunity. Aaron represents the evil presumed of a "godless moor," his character being a symbol as much as his skin colour particularly to an audience familiar with the conquests.
In his article, "Shakespeare 's King Richard III and the Problematics of Tudor Bastardy", Maurice Hunt gives a convincing (dare I say legitimate!) argument for why he believes Shakespeare took a large risk writing and performing his play King Richard III during the life of Queen Elizabeth I. Knowing the challenges Elizabeth faced during her childhood and into her reign because of her father, King Henry VIII 's ever-changing mind whether or not she was a legitimate heir or a bastard, I agree with Hunt in the fact Shakespeare took a huge risk with his performances of Richard III, if in fact she did see the performance which is something I will be touching on later on, but for the sake of the review of his article I will be focusing on his argument based on Elizabeth being present. Hunt also spends a great deal explaining the history of bastardry in the Tudor family so that we can understand why that
meanings along with what is going on in the plot of the play, it is
The first scene of the play begins with a soliloquy, which emphasizes Richard's physical isolation as he appears alone as he speaks to is audience. The idea of physical isolation is heightened by his references to his deformity such as "rudely stamped ....Cheated of feature by dissembling Nature, deformed unfinished". "( 1.1.21-22). This deformity would be an outward indication to his audience of the disharmony from Nature and viciousness of his spirit. As he hated "the idle pleasure of these days" and speaks of his plots to sent one brother against another, Richard seems socially apart from the figures around him, and perhaps regarded as an outsider or ostracized because of his deformity. His separation his family is emphasized when he says "Dive, thoughts down to my soul"(1.1.41) when he sees his brother approaching. He is unable to share his thought with his own family as he is plotting against them. Thus, we are given hints of his physical, social and spiritual isolation which is developed throughout the play. But despite these hints, he still refers to himself as part of the House of York, shown in the repeated use of "Our"
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.
The director's interpretation of this film focuses more on the use of metaphors in a comic state of humor amongst the villainy in a Hitleresque setting with Richard at the helm of this tyranny. Loncraine uses Shakespeare's play on words to make scenes more memorable, (i.e., trains, spiders, food,). He shows the abuse of power, greed and corruption of Richard with flare. The actual dialogue heard is true to the original text, as nothing was added, it is only severely out of order. Loncraine took an ordinary, simple play and made it into something enjoyable to watch. Although the scenes tend to be out of order and cut, this is still a successful adaptation of Richard III as the overriding theme is developed and enjoyable to watch. Richard is humorous in life as he lies, cheats and steals the throne from anyone in his way.
During the Middle Ages and Renaissance period marriage and love were idealized, divine and celebrated. Weddings were large events that included the entire families of both the groom and the bride. Reality was different; women were viewed as being fickle, inferior to men and a possession of men. Women had very little, if any, choice in who they would marry. Marriages were arranged so that both families would benefit in gaining wealth or power. Even though the ruler of England for over 4 decades was female, women were still not respected. Women were kept at home and not allowed to take place in public events. In Shakespeare’s Richard III, male and female relationships are displayed as deeply cynical and are based on lies, lust and political gain.
Written during a time of peace immediately following the conclusion of the War of the Roses between the Yorks and the Lancasters, William Shakespeare’s play Richard III showcases a multi-faceted master of linguistic eloquence, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, a character who simultaneously manages to be droll, revolting, deadly, yet fascinating. Richard's villainy works in a keen, detestable manner, manifesting itself in his specific use or, rather, abuse of rhetoric. He spends a substantial amount of time directly interacting and therefore breaking the fourth wall and orating to the audience in order to forge a relationship with them, to make members not only his confidants of murderous intentions, but also his accomplices and powerless, unwilling cohorts to his wrongdoings. Through the reader’s exploration of stylistic and rhetorical stratagem in the opening and final soliloquies delivered by Richard, readers are able to identify numerous devices which provide for a dramatic effect that make evident the psychological deterioration and progression of Richard as a character and villain.
From the outset of the play, it is obvious that Richard subscribes to the majority of the Machiavellian principles. Certainly, he is not ashamed or afraid to plot heinous murder, and he does so with an ever-present false front. "I do mistake my person all this while,"1 he muses, plotting Anne's death minutes after having won her hand. He will not even entertain the ideas in public, demanding they "Dive...down to [his] soul."2 He knows that he must be cunning and soulless to succeed in his tasks. Richard also knows it is essential to guard against the hatred of the populace, as Machiavelli warned.
In general terms, corruption is the act of corrupting or of impairing integrity, virtue, or moral principle. In politics, corruption is the misuse of public power and image.Whether it is realized or not, no country is wholly free of the disease of corruption, and if it is allowed to develop and become significantly strong, it can obstruct the good processes of governing and deteriorate the fabric of society. It can become a barrier to continual development and make it so that essentially no room remains for justice to succeed. In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the destructive force of corruption is clearly exemplified through the abundance of imagery concerning decay, death, disease, sickness, and infection as the play progresses. The first and foremost example of this corruptionis the murder of King Hamlet and the resulting incestuous marriage of Gertrude and Claudius, which forms the foundation for corruption becoming a regular happening in the state of Denmark.The disease of corruption in the play stems from Claudius and slowly spreads through Elsinore and eventually results in the collapse of Denmark, which is signified by the takeover of the castle and land by Fortinbras, the nemesis of Hamlet and the Norwegian Crown Prince.Through the characters of Polonius, Claudius, Ophelia, and Hamlet, the evolution and disease-like spreading of this corruption can be observed.
When one looks closely at the story of Romeo and Juliet, one will see that it is a story with many ethical aspects. The first ethical concern was the two feuding families. How moral is it to hate someone only because they have a certain family name? This all come from a time period when people were fairly focused on religion, which teaches us not to hate. I also question this because I think it is ironic that both Romeo and Juliet seem to be fairly religious, since the first person Romeo went to for help was Friar Lawrence, and a few scenes in the play took place in or around the church. I think that this hatred is especially bad in the case of the Capulets and the Montagues, because I was always under the impression that the families had been feuding for so long that no one really knew why they hated each other anymore. This was the beginning of the problems for Romeo and Juliet. They had a moral decision to make. Should they stay true to their families, and deny their love, or should they stay true to their feelings and disgrace their families? In order to resolve this dilemma, Romeo turns to Friar Lawrence, who perhaps could be seen as the most moral character, to begin with. Because he was a holy man, he was the most logical confidant of anyone in the play. People see men of the cloth as reliable and a good source of advice. Of course, Friar Lawrence has every intention of helping the two lovers, also hoping that he could reunite the feuding families. However, unbeknownst to him, everything he will do throughout the play will have an unnerving consequence. No matter what he did to correct what he had done wrong, it only drug him deeper into trouble. Who ever would have thought that by marrying the two young lovers, he would have caused all of this heartache for the families, and really for all of Verona? No one ever considered the fact that two young people wanting to get married would have affected the entire city. Friar Lawrence was only trying to be a good friend and ally, but everything he did just ended up backfiring for him.
Both Lady Macbeth and Iago, have versions of a temptation scene in which they manipulate the minds of their prey to achieve a goal. After strengthening her mind and fortifying her emotions, Lady Macbeth feels prepared to take on the responsibility for what’s to come. Sensing her husband’s tentativeness, she eases his nerves by saying “you shall put this night’s great business into my dispatch, which shall to all our nights and days to come give solely sovereign sway and masterdom” (I. vii. 67-70). She manages to keep her cool and maintains a level head for the beginning stages of their villainy when Macbeth is still on the edge. In order to push him into compliance she distorts her idea of masculinity and “comes to assume all the obnoxious aspects of patriarchal thinking. She patronizes Macbeth, seeks to bring him back into the logical system of masculine dialect [and] male dominance in the name of order” (Fawkner 92). Knowing full well that Macbeth would be swayed by this line of taunting, she questions him, “Art thou afeard to be the same in thine own act and valor as thou art in desire? Wouldst thou have that which thou esteem’st the ornament of life, and live a coward in thine own esteem, letting ‘I dare not’ wait upon ‘I would’, like the poor cat i’ th’ adage?” (I. vii. 39-44). She goes on to assure him of the impossibility of their failure and promises him that he’ll “be so much more than man” upon completion of their evil deed (I. vii. 51). “This was the nature of Lady Macbeth’s influence on Macbeth. She could sway him because she understood him and loved him, and because he loved her and depended on her love and good thoughts of him” (Shanley 308). It was this trust in each other and the fact that she knows just which stri...