Bill Kerwin's Reviews > Richard III
Richard III
by
I remembered this play as being nothing more than a superb melodrama organized around a charismatic, one-dimensional villain, but I now realize it is more complex than that.
Richard's deformity is not merely a physical sign of spiritual evil, but also a metaphor for the twisted era of internecine and intra-generational violence of which he himself is the inevitable conclusion. Richard claims that his disability disqualifies him for a peaceful age's love-making, but his effective wooing of Lady Anne--literally over her husband's dead body--belies this claim. No, Richard, who from infancy has known nothing but civil war and betrayal, can only be effective when he is either murdering his Plantagenet relatives or plotting to do so. (Thus, when he finally becomes king, he can neither enjoy the honor nor rise to the challenge, and therefore is soon plagued with nightmares and consigned to destruction.)
Richard fancies himself as the medieval Vice, commenting sardonically to the audience on the action he has devised, heedless of the fact that he is also part of a universal moral design. Richard, who embodies in concentrated form the worst deeds of his time, must be purged so that a new age can be established.
It is here that the women of the play become important, transforming it into Senecan if not Sophoclean tragedy. In periodic choruses, the queens Margaret, Elizabeth and Anne (plus the Duchess of York) mourn their children and others who have been snatched from them by civil war, and call down vengeance on Richard and other murderers. The interesting thing about this chorus, however, is that it is not composed of unified expressions of grief and vengeance, for the woman continually curse and blame each other, each proclaiming her own sorrow as somehow superior to that of the others. Ironically, the age's long history of crimes against mothers deprives even maternal grief of its unity.
I believe this is Shakespeare's first self-conscious attempt to create tragedy--in the classical sense--out of popular drama. The conception of the women's chorus--both a traditional tragic chorus and at the same time something more personal, more ironic--is particularly impressive in this regard. Unfortunately, however, Shakespeare overreached himself. In execution, the chorus of queens is often whiny and wearying, and slows down the action without illuminating it. Nevertheless, it is a great step toward the tragic resonances of the major plays.
by

I remembered this play as being nothing more than a superb melodrama organized around a charismatic, one-dimensional villain, but I now realize it is more complex than that.
Richard's deformity is not merely a physical sign of spiritual evil, but also a metaphor for the twisted era of internecine and intra-generational violence of which he himself is the inevitable conclusion. Richard claims that his disability disqualifies him for a peaceful age's love-making, but his effective wooing of Lady Anne--literally over her husband's dead body--belies this claim. No, Richard, who from infancy has known nothing but civil war and betrayal, can only be effective when he is either murdering his Plantagenet relatives or plotting to do so. (Thus, when he finally becomes king, he can neither enjoy the honor nor rise to the challenge, and therefore is soon plagued with nightmares and consigned to destruction.)
Richard fancies himself as the medieval Vice, commenting sardonically to the audience on the action he has devised, heedless of the fact that he is also part of a universal moral design. Richard, who embodies in concentrated form the worst deeds of his time, must be purged so that a new age can be established.
It is here that the women of the play become important, transforming it into Senecan if not Sophoclean tragedy. In periodic choruses, the queens Margaret, Elizabeth and Anne (plus the Duchess of York) mourn their children and others who have been snatched from them by civil war, and call down vengeance on Richard and other murderers. The interesting thing about this chorus, however, is that it is not composed of unified expressions of grief and vengeance, for the woman continually curse and blame each other, each proclaiming her own sorrow as somehow superior to that of the others. Ironically, the age's long history of crimes against mothers deprives even maternal grief of its unity.
I believe this is Shakespeare's first self-conscious attempt to create tragedy--in the classical sense--out of popular drama. The conception of the women's chorus--both a traditional tragic chorus and at the same time something more personal, more ironic--is particularly impressive in this regard. Unfortunately, however, Shakespeare overreached himself. In execution, the chorus of queens is often whiny and wearying, and slows down the action without illuminating it. Nevertheless, it is a great step toward the tragic resonances of the major plays.
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
Richard III.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
May 12, 2007
– Shelved
Started Reading
August 1, 2009
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-18 of 18 (18 new)
date
newest »

message 1:
by
Henry
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Apr 11, 2015 05:28PM

reply
|
flag

But the last time a computer program said something was Shakespeare, it turned out it be wrong.



Maybe . . . then again, Richard I as an historical figure is a lot like Edward III.
But that reminds me of a good Richard story I came across in Hume's history of England:
While on her way to the Holy Land, Berengaria, Richard's queen, was shipwrecked near Cyprus, where the prince--and self-styled "emperor"--held her for ransom. Richard then conquered the island and clapped the "emperor" in irons. When this noble prisoner expressed outrage at being treated like a common criminal, Richard responded by removing his iron restraints and substituting for them a specially ordered, custom-made set of silver fetters.


Not surprising for a boy who grew up in southern France. Besides, when he traveled, he got to fight and kill a lot more people . . .


The thing I think people overlook about Richard III (the play) is how funny it is (or can be, at least).

Yes! His asides are darkly amusing ("My dagger, little cousin? With all my heart!)' and some of the situations too. I particularly like the one where the reluctant Gloster appears on a balcony flanked by monks and reading a prayer book, and has to be persuaded to assume the crown. (I think about this scene every time there's an American presidential election)



I love this movie, and I'm usually one of those conservative types who frowns on Shakespeare in anything approaching modern dress. But the Fascist British atmosphere is so believable, the parallels so resonant, and McKellan's performance so delightfully over the top that the movie completely won me over.

