Hey! Just wondering if I could get some feedback on my Module A essay for my upcoming trial exam? Thanks!
This is the practice question we were given: “Never again will a single story be told as though it is the only one”. (John Berger)
To what extent is this statement true in the light of your exploration of Textual Conversations? In your response, make close reference to the pair of prescribed texts that you have studied in Module A.
Berger’s statement highlights that every text is a manifestation of its precursor; composers adapting existing stories to a new purpose and context. If a text is to speak to new audiences, the values it reflects must be true to its contemporary time and place. As such, by studying the connections between texts, our understanding of the enduring nature of humanity is enhanced. This is evident in Shakespeare’s 1591 tragedy King Richard III and Al Pacino’s 1996 docudrama Looking for Richard which both examine the pursuit for power and the discrepancy between appearance and reality. King Richard III reflects Shakespeare’s Elizabethan religious context: the extreme ambition and challenging of divine retribution which reflects upon the order of the world in relation to God. However, in a individualistic society within the 1990s US political arena, Pacino (through a film medium), echoes the ramifications of power, although from a perspective of an unbridled quest, ultimately leading Richard to rely on manipulation, bringing psychological turmoil with his success. A deeper understanding of how texts share similar themes and how they converse, emerges from pursuing the connections between King Richard III and Looking for Richard.
Shakespeare’s text draws upon earlier literary accounts in his representation of Richard, revealing resonances to More’s “Tudor propagandist” and painting Richard as a “usurper”. Shakespeare reshapes earlier depictions of Richard in line with his own purpose – partly to offer an apology for the Tudor regime. In Richard III, Shakespeare encapsulates the Elizabethan belief that one’s identity is pre-determined by God. Richard rails against the divinely predestined order which denies him what he most wants – the kingship and the way he is ‘determined’ to assert his free will in defiance of divine ordinance. This is established in the bitter tone of Richard’s opening soliloquy where he laments that he has been “Cheated of feature by dissembling nature / deformed, unfinish’d, sent before my time”, characterising him as a Machiavellian figure. The ‘deformed’ and ‘unfinished’ also connote images of Richard such that his physical deformities are an exterior sign of his spiritual evil in the Elizabethan context. The truth of Richard’s wickedness is only revealed in asides, admitting himself to be “subtle, false and treacherous” meanwhile portraying the “kind... Deserved...King”. To hide his lack of conscience he ironically details “how far I am from the desire of this” as he reluctantly “endures the load” of the crown. Richard’s ruthless murders serve to destroy his humanity and is reflected through the demonic imagery of the “dreadful minister of hell” and “foul devil”. In addition, the use of animalistic motif “wretched boar” and “poisonous bunch‐backed toad” symbolise his gross evil and corrupted humanity as he undermines the guiding hand of God, attempting to become the architect of his own life. Ultimately unable to escape the reality of divine retribution and the punishment it affords, he will, as prophesised by the ghosts of his victims, “despair and die”. Richard’s greedy acquisition of a wife, subjects and kingdom are all ultimately met with “emptiness” as a lonely Richard dies with “no soul to pity him” at the hand of “Gods just ordinance”.
However, reflective of the secular understanding of the complexity of the human psyche, Pacino pays homage to Shakespeare’s text through his adaptation to a new context and audience, presenting a more psychologically complex and vulnerable Richard. By examining Richard’s villainy through a psychoanalytical lens, Pacino affords a more sympathetic representation, reflective of the moral ambiguity of his post-modern world. Richard the character and Pacino the actor, become inextricably linked as fluid cuts from rehearsal, social events and the drama, blur lines between performance and the real world. Both texts, alike, allude to The Tempest; with the latter text highlighting the modern notion of life’s temporality as an “insubstantial pageant” that is ultimately “rounded with a sleep”. Although “Shakespeare exaggerated [Richard’s} deformity”(Frederic) to metaphorically represent the “corruption of his mind”, the film weakens this feature until the end with which Richard’s abandonment elicits sympathy from a modern audience. Although Richard’s actions and charming rhetoric are juxtaposed, his evil nature and outward benevolence become indistinct as a result of contemporary moral ambiguity and collides with the moral absolutism that is apparent in Shakespeare’s text. Emphasis is placed on the psychology of his character, with simplistic explanations of Richard’s scheming to help a modern America engage with the film – to “reach an audience that would not normally participate in this kind of language and world.” (Pacino) Pacino’s docudrama presents a rather different message about the consequences of seizing power unlawfully. Pacino diminishes Richmond’s role in the final scene, leaving out his religious speeches and final say as he ends with the “silence” of post-modern oblivion, highlighting the worldly consequence of the relentless pursuit of power through a psychological lens rather than the spiritual consequences of the usurpation of power.
Shakespeare explores what it means to be a human in an Elizabethan world governed by moral absolutes through Richard’s external appearance and internal reality. Richard’s soliloquies reveal his position as the “concerned brother” to “reluctant ruler”. His “subtle, false and treacherous” nature is also revealed in asides, reflective of human potential for both good and evil. Consciously assuming the role of the “villain”, Richard “moralise
two meanings in one word” by employing “devil[ish]… plots” in order to turn “one against the other” to subvert the divine order. Richard recalls a prophesy foreshadowing his death “I should not live long after I see Richmond” wherein Richmond acts as the metaphoric hand of God, a more deserving and rightful king. Thus, death of the Machiavellian usurper satisfies the theocratic society, as divine punishment proves a more powerful reality than his wicked schemes, further illustrated in the closing “amen” which brings the finality and restoration of order. Ultimately, despite his pathetic attempts to metaphorically “clothe [his] naked villainy”, Richard’s moral demise serves to affirm Elizabethan ideals of moral absolutism.
No longer bound by theocentric ideals, the collapse of the king in Looking For Richard is created by Pacino who revels in the notion of humans as actors through a postmodern ambiguous lens. Seamlessly integrating re-enactments, rehearsal scenes and hand-held camera shots of the docudrama form, structurally reflects Pacino’s view of the “insubstantial pageant” of life. The moral ambiguity prevailing in the 20th century is embodied through the intertextual extract from The Tempest, blurring the boundaries between performance and reality. Richard’s immoral machinations as he is determined to “prove a villain”, further reflected as he “seem a saint” but “play the devil”, orchestrating the murder of his brother Clarence in order to clear a path to the “golden crown”. Pacino is often portrayed in the centre of all interactions as “the role and actor” begin to “merge” as he uses his celebrity status to exert influence over others as a director, actor and public figure, all of which parallels Richard’s desire for total control. Although post‐modernism portrays grey areas of “opinion... there’s no right or wrong”, the film is mindful to portray Richard’s obvious duplicity, reflected in Richard’s symbolic attire, reminding a forgiving audience of his evils even as he proceeds to play the loving brother, uncle and husband. Richard’s dualistic nature as a consequence of his lust for power “is visually suggested by the chiaroscuro lighting and dark clothing”, establishing a sharp contrast between light and darkness where the actor’s face is often shown half in shadow. Contemporary audience does not make the connection between physical disability and moral corruption – they empathise with his deformity which Pacino exaggerates as the film progresses. Pacino further exploits the contemporary perception of a multi-faceted human through the inclusion of commentary - “Shakespeare exaggerated (Richard’s) deformity in order to body forth…metaphorically the corruption in his mind”. As an unremorseful Richard succumbs to sleep, a fragmented film montage illustrates the “alienat[ion] from his own body and self” where post‐modern moral ambiguity does not demand any reminder of his murderous immorality and so, focuses instead on the “tragedy” of a man who “earnt his death” rather than the pure and “holy” victory of Richmond. Acknowledging the diminished role of religion within contemporary society, Pacino substitutes Richmond’s “amen” with the “silence” of “life rounded with sleep”, reinforcing the importance of constructing our own realities in order to vary what might otherwise be the “baseless fabric” of human existence. Pacino’s appropriation of the play parallels the same central ideas, however adopting a post‐modern, secular approach to encourage sympathy from his audience.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Topic: English Advanced - Mod A essay (Textual Conversations) (Read 6843 times)