The Makellan/Locraine?s Richard III Essay, Research Paper

In order to compose an exploratory ?semi-reproduction? of a text from a different era, one needs not only to analyse the depth in language, construction of characters and other logistics behind the text itself, but also aspects of the society which gave birth to it. It is an impossibility to effectively or accurately transform a text to meet the requirements placed on it by contemporary values while concurrently retaining representations of the ?parent? society, without fully understanding the driving mechanics behind the social order (or disorder) from which the context is derived.

Although at first glance the Makellan/Locraine?s Richard III seems to be a feeble attempt at streamlining Shakespeare for the popular audience we can see after a more analytical viewing that it actually meets the qualities ascribed above quite successfully. The selection of settings, placement of dialogue (ie dialogue being given to different characters), the inclusion of certain characters and the exclusion of others all become reflections of the director?s extensive ability to respond to the necessary prerequisite of understanding the alluded text and circumstances of it?s creation.

To represent the values of the Elizabethan society, while avoiding the loss of credibility by thrusting those aspects into a modern setting, we have to select an era in which such values were present by default. At the same time this new time frame must be familiar to us in the historical sense so that we easily make our connections to the events which occurred during that time. The director chose Britain in the 1930s. The similarities are almost eerie. The underlying social unrest of the depression times between the two Great Wars must have been identical to what the people of post-War of the Roses era were going through. The heated tensions between the Great Powers in Europe and the rise of Hitler and NAZI Germany and also the fresh memories of suffering caused by the Great Depression all added to the general atmosphere of suspicion and fear. The resurgence of nationalistic attitudes in 30s was quite similar to national unity achieved under the rule of Elizabeth.

Added to all this was the issue of equality in gender. It would have been quite ridiculous to have all the female characters as humble subordinates of men if the film were to be set in the 90s. It was essential to make women dependent on men if the Lady Anne/Richard wooing scene were to be credible. This particular setting also provides the opportunity to resonate certain aspects of our history to emphasise certain ideas presented. The strongest evidence of this is the coronation scene where the assembly of Yorks and the red Yorkist banners hung like swastika tapestries resembled a Nazi rally.

But our beloved villain is not a Hitler. The Hitlerisation of the coronation scene was just reinforcement (a powerful reinforcement) of Richard?s monumental status. This particular anti-hero is more than just evil. Where as our horrified fascination for Hitler comes only from the magnitude of his crimes, Richard to us is infinitely more interesting with his charm, humorous wit and ability to stay two steps ahead of his opponents at all times.

When we first meet him, his face is hidden behind a gas mask, the silenced gun in his left (good) hand aimed directly at the camera, symbolising his lethal hypocrisy. Richard?s character in the film is made up of three separate identities. We the viewers can see all three while the poor characters that Richard manipulates can only see the ?one false mirror? he put up for them.

The first of these identities is a mask penetrable only by the audience. This identity changes slightly from time to time as occasion demands. Richard the witty wooer, the tragic lover, the loyal brother, loving uncle, the good and saintly king are all part of this charade, a drama within a drama, performed for the benefit of the subordinate characters.

His second identity (much closer to the truth, but invisible to his victims) is revealed by applying a device rarely used in the industry. It is quite unsettling when Richard turns directly into the camera and jokingly reveals us his monstrous plots and inductions. It is this bold use of soliloquies that lead to the branding of the film as a ?shallow and meretricious shadow of the stage production? by some of its critics. The rarity of this technique and the considerable amount of open mindedness it takes to overcome our initial surprise can easily induce the loss of faith in the construction of Richard?s character. But once we become in-tuned to having him talk to us directly we are able to ?break through the surface armour of his icy characterisation? that was presented in the theatrical versions of the play. Through the intimate proximity of the camera we can see every detail of his facial contours as he is gleeful with malicious delight at his own coveted villainy. We laugh with him as he mocks his victims. We share his hatred towards the society that created him. We are his sidekicks, his trusted sole mates. We admire his independence, his refusal to submit to the dominant paradigm. But we can never like him. He is too inhumane and cruel for that. Thus when his third and most disturbing identity is revealed we cannot help but look on objectively and say he is getting what he deserved.

His third identity appears in the form of a suppressed sub-conscience arising when he is half-asleep and his will is not in total control. It?s all the goodness in him that is caged by his overpowering evilness breaks loose in his nightmares and a gigantic battle of good versus evil ensues inside Richard?s head. All the status and dominance comes collapsing down in this single scene, leaving him trembling and being comforted. But the next day in battle this attack of conscience is put away as a weakness only resurfacing at the end, just before he plunges into the depth of a fiery hell, smiling, content at wherever he is heading.

Richard?s most incredible victory is a battle fought against the sorrow, anger and hatred of the beautiful widow Lady Anne. A victory, after which he celebrates by dancing through the morgue, singing ?Was there ever a woman in this humour won. Was there ever a woman in this humour wooed.? He shouts in defiance, ?All the world to nothing!? Nothing can stand in his way any more he has achieved the unattainable. Richard goes to her while she is grieving in the morgue, cursing him for the death of her husband. With the dead body of Prince Edward beside them they have a battle of wits. Every time Richard says something to win her over, she replies by cursing or spiting at him. But little by little she begins to soften and finally when he offered to kill himself she agrees to take his ring.

Here we get the impression that Anne doesn?t really fall in love initially. She might have just taken him up for the security it offers. Also the metallic and cold colours of the morgue do not seem to compliment what the actors were trying to portray and there is no music to drive the emotions, thus leaving everything soulless and ?businesslike?. This adds the much-wanted credibility to a scene that is quite drastic. We get the feeling that what just happened was not a real love scene, instead a play put on by both of them to get what they wanted, except Lady Anne lost out.

The one of only two characters who seems to have some influence over Richard is his right hand man James Tyrell. He takes on a much bigger role here than in the play. When he is with Richard we know someone is about to meet with her or his fate. His ruthless efficiency attracts Richard?s fondness. But then in battle Richard himself kills him as his final act of cruelty. James?s death was the signal to Richard?s own downfall. He was the last of Richard?s cronies and now with no Buckingham or Tyrell he had lost much of his power.

The Duchess of York, Richard?s mother has a stronger influence over her son. He seems to always halt when conversing with her. He does not fight back; instead we see his face twist with hurt whenever the Duchess curses him. Our sympathy for him created when we see him being abused by his own mother, makes us oversee her role as a strong, practical, god hearted woman. Instead we are tempted to blame her for how her son turned out (there has to be a reason for his wickedness). Seeds of suspicion are planted into our minds about the treatment of Richard in his childhood.

The other self-assertive female character is Queen Elizabeth. She is an American, a foreigner, and an outsider to the family. Her alienation from the Yorks allows Richard to manipulate those differences into suspicions and shift the light away form himself. He incriminates Elizabeth as the cause of Clarence?s ghastly end. Add this to the fact that Richard murders her brother and sons and her husband also dies of illness, she is probably the most unfortunate person in the film. But she surprises us by being strong for the sake of her surviving daughter and facing up to Richard with more than just blind hatred alone. She mocks him as he asks for the hand of her daughter and leaves him out manoeuvred and fooled. All of this though leaves us wondering if her attachment to her husband and children were genuine.

Earl Rivers, Elizabeth?s brother, is a brash, handsome young American, portrayed with a great vigour for life. His friendliness and his naivety in the area of politics makes us feel attached to him. We cannot expect him to die because he is full of life and when he is killed we can sense the destruction of something innocent, overcome by the ugliness of death. Rivers is not the only one so innocent and harmless to be killed. Simple plain Clarence, the young princes and Lady Anne are all murdered or used for the advancement of evil.

But of all these characters it is Shakespeare?s ?white knight?, Richmond who comes across as being less than the sum of parts. His early appearance and his almost cowardly abandoning of his relatives when he flees to France add shadows of grey to his one-dimensional character presented in the original play. His obvious attempt to be a hero and that sinister smile at the end of the play all point to an ulterior motive.

It was the final battle for the throne, symbolic of the conflict between good and evil, which caused certain critics to argue that this film was nothing more than a parody of Hollywood films. If they had passed the judgement by viewing the war scene alone their comments would have been justified. First it was the villain trying to blast his way out of some trap and then the hero pursuing the villain up some flight of stairs to reach some great height before killing him.

The battle scene does however reflect on Shakespeare?s use of entertainment in combination with elegance and sophistication so that it would appeal to a diverse audience, made up of different classes with different traditions. It also highlights the aim of the film producers to bring Shakespeare into the ?popular? culture.

But of all these the most obvious link back to Shakespeare is the use of Elizabethan language. It utilised as a device to keep us reminded that the values of Elizabethans must be taken into account when we make judgment on the actions of characters. We must identify the differences in our present social values to ones of our predecessors to accurately perceive the significance of the changes made to the original script.

The film?s context is stretched across a time frame of four centuries, incorporating the values of western societies through that time. The consistencies become apparent as we make connections to the issues discussed in Shakespeare?s Richard III, written four hundred years ago. I think we can confidently say that the film was quite successful in achieving it?s purpose of trying to relate the themes of Shakespeare into modern society.