Richard III - Ian McKellen Makes Shakespeare Accessible to All
Shakespeare at the time and even now still seems like a foreign language to many minds. From its deep and complicated plot development, and the archaic English that was its makeup, to the strange and old-fashioned medieval settings and costumes, a Shakespeare film of that time was not something very appealing to the public. McKellen’s approach to making the film Richard III eliminated many of these prejudices people had of Shakespeare movies.
The historical “authenticity” of costume and setting was something that was removed from McKellen’s Richard III. To many, the authenticity of costume and setting made it confusing, old fashioned, and distant. It made the story seem like a history lesson, rather than the drama Shakespeare intended. By placing the story of Richard III in a modern setting of the 1930s, it eliminates many of these problems and allows the public to relate the film to their era. (i.e. Hitler, Hussein) It also made the story much more clear as you could recognize who was royalty, aristocrat, etc.
The choice of the 1930s setting helped set up the background information needed to understand the political turmoil. The general populace would not have much knowledge of the period preceding the play, which is vital to understand the actions and decisions of various characters. McKellen used the period preceding WWII where a tyrant like Richard III could have overtaken Britain and gave Richard parallel motives to Hitler, Mussolini, etc.
Another problem McKellen had to fix was the length of the actual script and the number of characters. To make it appeal to the public, you couldn’t make the film the several hours that was needed to perform the whole script. The fast paced life of today doesn’t allow enough time for that Besides this problem, the original script of Richard III is very slow moving and not very action packed, which is one of the reasons why so many complain that Shakespeare is “boring.” . McKellen therefore cut irrelevant scenes out, cut out many pages of speeches and was left with an accelerated, quality, and much more compacted Richard III.
Shakespeare’s portrayal of power reflects the conflicting influences of Medieval Morality plays and Renaissance literature during the Tudor period, demonstrating that the text is a reflection of contextual beliefs. The Third Citizen’s submission to a monotheistic deity in the pathetic fallacy of “The water swell before a boisterous storm – but leave it all to God” qualifies the theological determinism of power due to the rise of Calvinism. Pacino embodies Richard’s desire for royalty in LFR through the emphasis on celebrity culture, as he is determined to film himself in close-up, which although emphasizes the importance of Pacino, leaves out the broader scene. Soliloquies are substituted with breaches in the fourth wall, and his metatheatrical aside to the audience “I love the silence… whatever I’m saying, I know Shakespeare said it”, subverts the cultural boundaries which, deter contemporary American actors in performing Shakespeare. Shakespeare’s breach of the iambic pentameter in “Chop off his head…And when I’m king” strengthens the Renaissance influence, as Richa...
Shakespeare, William. Richard II. Shakespeare: The Complete Works. Ed. G. B. Harrison. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1948. 430-67.
The Effectiveness of William Shakespeare's Use of Supernatural in the Final Act of Richard III
...e was also writing in Tudor England and seemed to have openly dislike Richard III. In other portions of his writing he describes Richard as an unattractive deformed man who was born with a full set of teeth. He writes that he had a “sour countenance , which seemed to savour of mischief, and utter evidently craft and deceit.”
Kenneth Branagh creates his own individualistic adaptation of this classic through the use of visual imagery, characterization, and setting. Branagh cut many lines and speeches from the text to better support his interpretation of a more open and informal society of warm-hearted, affectionate characters. Though Shakespeare's mood is more formal, Branagh remains true to the essence of the play as all of the same characters and most of the dialogue are justly included in the film. Although distinct differences can be made between Branagh’s film and Shakespeare’s written work, they both share a common denominator of good old-fashioned entertainment; and in the world of theater, nothing else really matters.
...in themes similar to those found in the two Henry IV plays, such as usurpation, rebellion, and the issue of lineage of royal right. But Richard II and King Henry V are decidedly more serious in tone, and in comparing them to I Henry IV and II Henry IV, the argument can be made that it is these two latter plays which resound with greater realism with the broader spectrum of life which they present. Shakespeare carefully balances comedy and drama in I Henry IV and II Henry IV, and in doing so the bard gives us what are perhaps the most memorable characters in all of English literature.
Kino overall symbolizes clearly good and innocent. Kino is thought of as 'a wise, primitive man' who is hungry for fortune because of the great pearl, which he discovers and later in the story he becomes 'an angry, frightened, but resolute man, determined to keep what he has earned'. He is a young diver who lives in a small village on the coastline of Mexico. In the beginning of the story he has come to o...
... bloody pathway to kingship. Filled with scorn against a society that rejects him and nature that curses him with a weakened body, Richard decides to take revenge and ultimately declares a war between himself and the world. By achieving goals for the mere sake of self-advancement, a self-made hero, an ambitious king, and an atrocious villain were created. Richard assumes that love forms a bond which men can break, but fear is supported by the dread of ever-present pain (Machiavelli ch. XXIV); thus, for true success the hero must be a villain too. Richard III becomes one of literature’s most recognized anti-heroes under the hands of Shakespeare as he has no objective or thought to take up any other profession than the art of hatred; however, ironically being a representative of a heroic ruler sent by God, he is made to commit murder to redeem society of their sins.
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.
...ears or express emotions over her death or her madness. Therefore the Kenneth Branagh version of Hamlet was able to show a closer interpretation of the play Hamlet and the significance of the characters.
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...
In the Shakespeare play Richard III was depicted as a malformed mean, ill looking, tyrant. But this was not the case. Richard
...t’s great value became the primary motivation factor for greed, prompting evil and injustice wherever it went. Nearly every character in Kino’s story outside his family acts upon their greed to try and take advantage of Kino’s situation. The doctor in chapter one, at first uninterested in helping a patient that cannot pay, is now more than willing to help when he hears about Kino’s pearl. The pearl merchants try to take advantage of Kino’s lack of pearl selling knowledge to try and buy his pearl for a low price. Kino himself allows his greed to take control of himself and only regrets it when he realizes his son is worth more than the money he should receive. By the end of the story, the pearl no longer symbolizes hope, but now symbolizes evil and anguish. It’s great value became the primary motivation factor for greed, prompting evil and injustice wherever it went.
The pearl symbolizes many different things. To Kino, at first it symbolized happiness and hope. On page 39 in chapter 3, it has stated, "So lovely it was, so soft, and its own music came from it- its music of promise and delight, its guarantee of the future, of comfort and security. Its warm lucence promised a poultice against illness and a wall against insult. It closed a door on hunger." Kino sought happiness and riches, and as he was desperate he was blind to the greed that was enveloping him. All he saw was impossible hopes and dreams in the pearl. In other words, to him, the pearl guaranteed money and the comfort of a tranquil life.
The pearl in The Pearl by John Steinbeck shows traits of the characters in their worst moments, but the pearl mostly showed the trait “greed” in Kino because of how his life was before he almost got wealthy. The greed and coveting overtook his mind and personality and changed him who he was as a person. The author showed this throughout the book in many different ways. Steinbeck uses the symbol of the pearl to show the power of greed through Kino’s constant list of desires, his hunger for money, and his constant violence.