ENGLISH: KING RICHARD III/LOOKING FOR RICHARD

Wherefore art thou Richard?

There is no doubt that William Shakespeare’s King Richard III is relevant to twentieth century society; however, with changing contexts and values, its accessibility has been somewhat hindered. So, how do we solve this? Maise Smith explores this classic play in a contemporary environment.

In his latest film, notable actor and director Al Pacino embarks on a quest in search of Richard, made famous as the Machiavellian of literary genius William Shakespeare’s King Richard III. Don’t know it? Read on. Looking for Richard follows Pacino as he questions the misunderstanding and disinterest surrounding Shakespeare’s collective work, and attempts to find contemporary meaning within King Richard III. It combines the general public’s opinion; experts conversing on Shakespeare’s context, meaning and use of techniques; and a filmic enactment of the original play.

To understand the connections between the two texts, we must first look into Pacino’s purpose for creating a contemporary insight into such a classic play. The voxpops entwined throughout the movie depict the views of the American public, the overwhelming majority of whom possess a negative and ignorant perspective on his accessibility, and therefore relevance. Pacino takes it upon himself to counter this; to make Shakespeare accessible, and therefore relevant, aptly adopting the more prevalent medium of film to reflect his ideas.

So, the question now evolves from “what are the connections between King Richard III and Looking for Richard?” to “what are the connections between King Richard III and the average, contemporary American viewer?” Answering the second aspect of the question invites a discussion of Pacino’s filmic choices.

Two Faces of Evil

King Richard III opens with Richard soliloquising on the end of the War of the Roses and the impact it has had on him and his life. It eventually, inevitably, leads to a conversation about his physical deformities, which Richard believes mars his ability to be a lover, leaving him with a single character to embody: a villain. He spits out an abundance of emotive language – “rudely stamped”, “cheated of feature”, “scarce half made up” – in a very short space of time, simultaneously creating a detailed image of himself and conveying his bitter disdain towards his appearance. This deliberate characterisation on Shakespeare’s behalf (kudos, Bill) acts as an external indication of his internal ugliness, his evil nature.

Pacino has relied on audio visual techniques, as well as Shakespeare’s literary ones, to introduce Richard’s corruption through his appearance. As Pacino reads the opening soliloquy, in character and costume, and reaches the discussion on deformity, a montage ensues. It consists of footage of Pacino as Richard, images of deformed bodies, and the eerie repetition of the word “deformed”. The montage effectively places exclamation marks around Richard’s deformity and invites the viewer’s attention to the following interview, in which Frederic Kimball (writer, actor and friend of Pacino) explains Shakespeare’s purpose in heightening the disability; “Shakespeare has exaggerated his deformity in order to embody forth dramatically, visually, metaphorically, the corruption of his mind.”

As the play continues, Shakespeare explores the ways in which Richard turns his evil nature into evil acts. He murders his wife, Anne, he murders his brother, Clarence, he murders his young nephews, the princes, and, as if that wasn’t enough, he conducts numerous other acts of deception and betrayal. All scenes are accompanied by at least one soliloquy in which Richard describes his plan, before returning to the audience, after its execution, to boast. When Tyrrel reports to Richard after the murder of the princes, for example, he tells the audience of how the executioners “melted with tenderness and mild compassion” as they recounted their actions. Richard, on the other hand, was simply delighted with the news and encouraged Tyrrel to share the exact details of “the process of their death”. That he finds pleasure in the murder of two innocent children epitomises his evil soul.

Pacino creates a visual list of the many people Richard kills in order to take power. He wants to introduce to the audience, very early on, the fact that Richard is evil, as this is central to the entire play. Rather than enact each of the murders – we get the idea after just a few – he emphasises his villainy through his dark costume and shadowed lighting. It’s a very simple use of colour, and the viewer will instantly recognise that black equals dark and sinister. Those deaths that Pacino does depict are done so in a way to increase their horror. Clarence’s murder is the perfect example. He no longer drowns, but is violently stabbed. The reason for this drastic change stems back to context: while an Elizabethan audience would have been satisfied with the drowning of Clarence, a contemporary one has been so desensitised that the murder needs to be as graphic as possible for it to have an impact. It is significant to note that when Clarence is stabbed, there is a quick shot of Edward, reminding the audience why he is being killed. As the plot can be confusing to follow, Pacino has included numerous visual and audio aids. The quick shots link the current action to the overall plot, while voiceovers link the verbal explanation to the relevant footage on screen.

Power at any Price

It is Richard’s obsession with power that leads him to seek the throne at whatever cost and through all methods possible, regardless of how ruthless or how complex. It is through his evil nature that he rises to power; “insulting tyranny begins to jut upon… the throne.”

Once in power, Richard is a tyrant. He becomes comfortable with this position, blatantly killing off enemy after enemy, believing he is above the judiciary. To express this comfort, Shakespeare has drastically reduced the number of soliloquys that Richard presents. As his skill with words was a significant factor in his ascent (think: the wooing of Anne), the fact that he doesn’t rely on the power of persuasive and manipulative language demonstrates that he feels, perhaps naively, little need to do so. The battle scene is the perfect example. At a time when he should be preparing his soldiers, he barely even constructs a speech, beginning with “What shall I say more than I have inferred?”

The play ends with a new beginning and a new England, with Richmond the head of state. While he, too, gained power through a questionable manner (read: a bloody revolt), Shakespeare’s manipulation of Richard’s evil tendencies makes the audience perceive this as a just form of retribution. The comparison between the two character’s orations to their armies emphasises the differences in character. While Richmond is honourable and polite, referring to his soldiers as “loving countrymen” and “gentlemen”, Richard simply insults the enemy, calling them “A sort of vagabonds, rascals, runaways, / A scum of Bretons and base lackey peasants…”

Pacino, too, uses contrast to emphasise the discrepancies between the leadership styles of Richard and Richmond. This contrast is shown through camera angles, rather than words. Before the battle, Richmond is seen surrounded by adoring subjects; while, Richard leans over the camera, spitting and shouting, depicting his contempt for his subjects and suggesting why they fear him. The battle scene clearly demonstrates the change in power. Richmond looms over Richard, demonstrating control and strength, in comparison to the stumbling Richard’s helplessness and hopelessness. The sword thrusting down, resulting in Richard’s death, is filmed through a low shot. Richmond clearly wears the breeches.

Shakespeare has also used the recurring symbol of a boar to represent Richard’s leadership style. An Elizabethan audience would instantly understand this animal imagery. They would relate characteristics of aggression, violence and cruelty to Richard, and know that the way in which Richard destroys the environment around him mirrors the boar that is intent on ruining its habitat.

But, how to express all of this to an audience who probably isn’t as familiar with the boar? While occasionally pictured, it is not until a conversation with Barbara Everett that the symbol is addressed. She uses the simile that Richard is “like a kind of boar”, explaining that the constant animal imagery has made Richard subhuman, an animal, to be hunted and killed. Thanks, Barbara!

The Human Condition

The human condition lies beneath the surface of Shakespeare’s oeuvre. His exploration of humanity is the reason his work extends through time and context, even when the subject matter has lost some degree of relevance. Pacino recognised this and wanted to communicate that aspect of King Richard III to his audience.

The human condition permeates all themes and is explored through the main action of the play: Richard’s jealousy of his brother, his greedy desire to become king, his single-mindedness in doing so, the seduction, betrayal, ambition, vengeance, his heavy conscience when he reflects on all his misdeeds. In fact, the exploration of the human condition explains why Pacino has chosen to include, or not to include, certain scenes – just as he has also removed the irrelevant themes. The example that best illustrates this point is the removal of the theme chain of being, which explores the idea that the king is representative of God and, thus, is held in highest of regards. This power hierarchy was firmly embedded into Elizabethan England, but is a foreign concept to contemporary America. The scenes that are given screen time focus heavily on emotion; passionate, raw emotion; something that all people, regardless of status, can relate to.

Amongst the voxpops, there is one that remains entrenched in the viewer’s memory. An African American man, framed in a close up, speaks passionately into the camera, declaring that Shakespeare is vital to the education system “because then kids would have feelings… We don’t feel for each other. If we were taught to feel, we wouldn’t be so violent.” While he is the only one who has championed Shakespeare, which possibly gives his stance more weight, he provides insight into the relevance of Shakespeare. Pacino reiterates this, declaring that the purpose of his documentary is to “communicate a Shakespeare that is about how we feel and how we think today.”

The question remains: Did Al Pacino achieve his purpose or is he still… looking for Richard?