Coronation ceremon Essays

Coronation ceremon Essays Coronation ceremon Essay Coronation ceremon Essay Cousin [Buckingham], thou wast not wont to be so dull. Shall I be plain? I wish the bastards [two princes] dead, Richard even implies that Buckingham is being dull and boring: he does not seem to realise that Richard want him to kill the Princes. Richard has to be blunt and say what he wants straight out yet Buckingham still refuses to do it. Richard knows where he is going and what he is doing, as shown by his soliloquies, Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous By drunken prophecies, libels and dreams To set my brother Clarence and the King In deadly hate (1, 1, 32-35) Like many modern day politicians, Richard has no problems with blatantly lying to peoples faces, including his own family. When Clarence is being sent to the tower he tells him that he loves him and will help him, it is only when Clarence leaves that Richard reveals his true intentions, That I will shortly send thy soul to Heaven (1, 1, 119) Richard has many short term aims to help him achieve his long-term goals. Some of these aims include getting rid of Clarence, removing the Princes, marrying Anne, and killing those who stand in the way of him. Richard can wind people up, influence them and so uses this to his advantage. The so-called window scenes in Richard III-the conversation of the common people, Buckinghams speech to the masses and Richards acceptance of the crown-provide a glimpse of how the drama in the royal palace affects the lives of the common people outside its walls. It is significant that the common people come to fear and distrust Richard long before most of the nobles in the palace, and that the opposition of the common people to Richard is one of the main forces that enables Richmond to overthrow him. In these ways, Richard III explores the idea that the moral righteousness of a political ruler has a direct bearing on the health of the state (Realpolitik) and the divine right of kings, the kings are appointed by God, and if the wrong king is on the throne then the country will be in chaos. Shakespeares audience would have recognised these ideas, and related them to the current monarchical and political unease in the 1590s, the fact that the current monarch, Elizabeth, had no heir and so it was not known who would follow her. The audience would learn something from the play and would apply it to themselves, the play is like a medieval morality play. Like the Vice character of medieval morality pageants, who simply represented the evil in man, Richard does not justify his villainy. Richard, with self-conscious theatricality, compares himself to this standard character when he says, Thus like the formal Vice, Iniquity, / I moralize two meanings in one word. Watching Richards character, Shakespeares audiences also would have thought of the Machiavelli, the archetype of the scandalously unethical, power-hungry ruler that had been made famous by the Renaissance Italian writer Niccoli Machiavelli. Richard was physically deformed and this would make him a victim of prejudice, in Shakespeares time an outer deformity was a sign of inner corruption, and although true in Richards case would have been automatically assumed by the audience. In the film by Richard Loncraine Richards costume gets changed during the film, the more power Richard gets the darker his uniform gets. Richard began the film in military uniform but just after he came to power, he was dressed as Hitler, wearing completely black. During Richards coronation ceremony, there were red flags, similar to the Nazis and you see Richard smile a devious, twisted smile similar to that with which Hitler has been pictured. throughout the whole of the 1997 film, there are direct links to Hitler and the Nazi regime. It shows the rapid rise and fall of the dictator and the reality of totalitarian rule, relevant to both Hitlers and Shakespeares Richards reign. Richard is depicted as largely self-obsessed and at one point in the film, you see him staring at a large portrait of himself: Richard could be described as megalomanic. He will do anything to achieve his aims and does. Richard has over nine people killed and it does not bother him until the final act where upon he gains a conscience. Animal imagery is apparent in this play. Richard is often compared to a boar, in the 1996 film Richard morphs into a boar in his brothers dream. Thomas Mann said the belief in politics Makes men arrogant, doctrine, obstinate and inhumane. This suggests that politicians have no morals, animals are not thought to have morals and are often stubborn and obstinate, Richard does possess qualities that could be animal-like; he uses violence and killing without thinking of peaceful methods, and could be described as pig headed. The boar is Richards heraldic symbol, the idea of the boar is also played on in describing Richards deformity, and Richard is cursed by the duchess as an abortive, rooting hog. The boar was one of the most dangerous animals that people hunted in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, and Shakespeares audience would have associated it with untamed aggression and uncontrollable violence. Richard uses props to enhance his arguments and ideas. In act 3 scene 7 Richard uses the Bible as a prop to add to his image as a good religious man. In the 1996 film, however, another novel is employed without a cover, similar to how Richard is covering his corrupt interior with a holy exterior. Richard also manipulates and uses the Bishop of Ely and the Church to make himself appear superior. Richard creates a group of allies but removes them if they disobey him. Buckingham was originally a loyal friend yet when he refused to murder the Princes Richard found some one else in the form of Tyrrel, after this Tyrrel appears to take Buckinghams place as Richards closest acquaintance. Richard kills to protect himself, by removing those in his way he has a clear path to the throne. This can be related to Stalin as well as Hitler. Stalin ordered purges of his opponents, removing his foes creating an unchallengeable leadership. The rivalry between Richard and Richmond towards the end of the play is similar to a modern election, with Richard and Richmond playing the parts of the politicians. The play ends with Richard and Richmond fighting one on one, comparable with a debate between two politicians. Richard and Richmond have no exterior help and have to use each others weaknesses to their own advantage. This can be compared to the recent Bush v Kerry debate. Bush and Kerry are running for president, Richard and Richmond are competing for the throne. All need to prove themselves and attempt to defeat their rival. It can be said that Richmond is Richards nemesis, the opponent that cannot be beaten or overcome. Richard can be described as political but was he successful? Richard did, eventually achieve his goal, gaining the crown yet lost it after only two years. It could be said, therefore, that Richard was not a success as he was killed although he failed militarily rather than politically and had succeeded up to that point. As Richard failed as a soldier, he could still be called a successful politician. Political could also mean artful, ingenious, unscrupulous and cunning all of which can be applied to Richard at some point during the play. Richard is sly and gets away with treason, a crime punishable with death, he manages to put the blame on other people and avoid punishment himself. This could be considered successful, as he was never caught. Going back to the criteria for a politician it can be said that Richard is definitely a politician one who seeks personal or partisan gain, often by scheming and by manoeuvring but it is difficult to say whether he was successful or not.