HSC 2012 Our interest in the parallels between King Richard III and Looking for Richard is further enhanced by consideration of their marked differences in textual form. Evaluate this statement in light of your comparative study of King Richard III and Looking for Richard. A comparative study of the historical play “King Richard III” (circa. 1592) by William Shakespeare and the documentary “Looking for Richard” (1996) by Al Pacino illuminates the intertextual connections of fatalism and power. The differences in form between play and documentary, coupled with their associated dramatic and filmic techniques, allows one to enhance their understanding of how these connections between texts are influenced by the contexts and values of their composers. It becomes apparent how the exploration of fatalism and power is able to transcend time and contextual differences. Shakespeare’s “King Richard III” focuses on the conflict between fatalism and self-determinism in Richard’s struggle to seize power. In his Elizabethan context, Shakespeare subscribed to the dominant and singular view that any disruption to the Great Chain of Being would have dire ramifications; and so a necessary consequence of Richard’s “determin*ation+ to prove a villain” is his “doom of destiny”. This is highlighted through foreshadowing in Margaret’s curse “hurl down their indignation/ On thee, the troubler of the poor world’s peace!”.Furthermore the physiognomy and animalistic imagery of Richard as “that poisonous bunchback’d toad” emphasizes his evil nature and the pre-ordained need for punishment. In addition, Shakespeare’s demonizing of Richard in order to legitimize the Tudor reign, also demonstrates the need for his pre-determined downfall so that Richmond could enjoy “success and happy victory”. This can be seen in the rhetorical question “shall we wear these honours for a day?” where even Richard predicts his own defeat, which is complemented by the five Act structure of the play in that after the climax of Richard becoming king, all the “falling” action occurs very rapidly. Therefore, through the skillful use of the play form in depicting his Elizabethan values, Shakespeare is able to highlight the tension between Richard’s fatalistic downfall and his self-deterministic quest for power. As a result of the increasing secularism and post-modernism in 1990s New York, Pacino becomes concerned with a psychological analysis of Richard’s Machiavellian identity rather than a fatalistic approach. This shift towards postmodern pluralistic values facilitates Pacino’s purpose “to communicate how *he+ feels about Shakespeare to others”, and highlights his collaboration with fellow actors and academics, which contrasts with the singular view presented by Shakespeare. A deeper insight into Richard’s motivations and reasons for his defeat as opposed to religious fatalism is shown throughthe cross-cutting between actor discussions, rehearsals and full-costume scenes coupled with the voiceover explanations of character and plot.In a more subtle sense Pacino himself, like the character he plays, battles cultural imperialism and “the great barrier to American actors” arising from the seemingly fatalistic way in which Shakespeare must be performed.This is demonstrated by Pacino’s selective editing in likening the analysis by British actor Vanessa Redgrave to that of an anonymous American panhandler, which emphasizes Pacino’s aim to destabilize the culturally imperialistic ownership of Shakespeare by Britain. Therefore it can be seen how although Pacino forges a parallel to Shakespeare
through his depiction of Richard, it is ultimately his use of the documentary form that allows him to reflect his more secularized and postmodern values. Shakespeare illustratesthe power of language in “King Richard III” and the dichotomy between its use to manipulate or inspire. Most significantly, Richard is portrayed as exploiting the power of language in order to manipulate and deceive. His duplicitous nature is highlighted by the stichomythic exchanges “And thou unfit for any place but hell/ Yes, one place else, if you will hear me name it/ Some dungeon/ Your bedchamber”, whereby he uses his impressive oratory skills to woo the mourning Lady Anne. Richard is therefore characterized as a “plain devil *with+ dissembling looks”, since Shakespeare’s Elizabethan values dictated that “lies well steel’d with weighty arguments” were attributed to the devil. In contrast, Richmond is shown to be “virtuous and holy” in his use of language to inspire and motivate his army to overthrow Richard. Shakespeare further justifies the Tudor reign through the heavenly imagery in Richmond’s speech such as “God will in justice ward you as his soldiers”, which aligns Richmond with God, and therefore also attributes to him the Divine Right of Kings. Hence, Shakespeare demonstrates the power of language in relation to its ability to both manipulate and inspire. Similar to Shakespeare, Pacinoemphasizes the power of language in “Looking for Richard”, but adapts it to his 1990s American society where Shakespeare’s language has largely lost its meaning among everyday people. Pacino appreciates the power of language but filters his vision so that “Shakespeare [becomes] a little more accessible to people”, and in doing so truncates much of the original dialogue and relies on filmic techniques to bridge the gap. His belief that “you shouldn’t have to understand every single word” and that “as long as you get the gist of it” is indicative of his post-modern interpretation, which is evidenced by the wooing of Lady Anne, where Pacino condenses Richard’s soliloquy to just its first three lines and instead uses close-ups, tracking shots, and an increase in the volume of the non-diegetic music to emphasize his satisfaction and duplicitous nature.Furthermore, Pacino’s use of a non-linear structure that is primarily driven by character and plot draws focus away from the confusing “fancy words” in each of Shakespeare’s original scenes, and instead encourages a more generalized “understanding of Shakespeare” that is more germane in the highly secularized 1990s American society. Thus it can be seen how Pacino adapts the power of language in Shakespeare’s original text through documentary in order to promote an appreciation of Shakespeare in his postmodern context. Hence we are able to better acknowledge the parallels of fatalism and power in Shakespeare’s history play “King Richard III” and Pacino’s documentary “Looking for Richard” through careful comparison of textual forms and contexts. Although Shakespeare’s belief in the Great Chain of Being and desire to justify the Tudor reign greatly influenced his use of the play form to depict the struggle between fatalism and self-determinism as well as the power of language and the role of the actor, we see this same theme re-emerging with Pacino who held more secularized and postmodern values. This transcending of context therefore demonstrates how both Shakespeare and Pacino skillfully use their respective textual forms to enhance our understanding.
