Richard III by Elizabeth Woods [STUDENT]

Masculinity in "Richard III"

woods_elizabeth — 2024-11-16 22:09:40 UTC

In the last two of my Padlet research assignments, I have investigated the masculinity of Macbeth and Othello. The topic of masculinity proved to be very interesting as both are notable warriors or generals and should possess both good and bad qualities of masculinity. While I think that Shakespeare made some men more manly than others, or vice versa, I think we see a different kind of masculinity from Richard. We see with both Macbeth and Othello that they are affected by the women that surround them, with Lady Macbeth even taking on more of the masculine role in the Macbeths' relationship at one point. While Richard is surrounded by women, the Duchess, Queen Elizabeth, Anne, and even old Queen Margaret, he doesn't seem to be affected by them or anyone else for that matter. Richard does what Richard wants to do, displaying an extremely aggressive form of masculinity as he "refuses to subordinate himself to traditional patriarchal power structures and lines of succession" (Moulton 255). This anger and aggression is seen throughout but I think especially when he orders the two princes to be killed in The Tower. It is a deed that should make someone pause and consider who they're following, just as it did with Buckingham. Richard doesn't even really think before turning on Buckingham and finding someone more suited for that task. However, even with Tyrrel, he shows remorse and quotes the two men who actually had to kill the sleeping boys who also lament the loss of life. This article does a wonderful job connecting the play Henry VI to Richard III, showing that Richard was once capable of showing emotions and sorrow when it came to death but specifically his father's death. As I have not read Henry VI, I'll rely on the article's judgment that Richard showed devotion and filial piety towards his father at his death. When the older York died, Richard lost all sense of what it meant to be a "subject of the patriarchy and as a member of a masculine community, linked by bonds of loyalty to both his father and his brothers" (Moulton 260). He lost what was important to him and may feel that the only way to renew these bonds of loyalty or become a member of another masculine community is by forcing himself to be a king, like his father. Earlier when I was working on the Perusall reading, I commented on why other characters keep comparing Richard to boar. As this article points out, Richard's "heraldic emblem" was a white boar, so there is some historical accuracy to the name calling, but of course the boar is an extremely aggressive animal that will continue to fight until it can no longer (Moulton 265). I definitely think we see that side of Richard, that he will continue to lie, fight, and kill until he thinks he's won.

Evil in "Richard III"

woods_elizabeth — 2024-11-18 15:20:57 UTC

This article was absolutely wonderful. The author thought about and discussed many of the same questions that I had regarding Richard and his character and how he was able to fool people into believing he wasn't all that bad. As I have discussed with some people in the class, although Richard is a horrible character and we should react to him as such, we just can't look away or won't stop reading about what he's done. This author explains that although his inherent evil and villainy catches some characters off guard, with the characters asserting that there's an "impossibility of succumbing to Richard... yet each in turn submit to him" (Slotkin 8). We most certainly see this with Anne as she starts off rejecting him but by the end of his "wooing" she has agreed to marry him. I think this could also be linked to Buckingham, who needed to take a few moments and consider what Richard was asking him to do by killing the two young princes. That deed will (or should) give anyone pause to sit and reflect on who they're supporting, and quite honestly should have revolted Buckingham. But, he comes back and agrees to what Richard asked, even though he's now scorned in Richard's eyes. Another quality of Richard that marks him as inherently evil, and could be seen as problematic today, would be his natural ugliness and his deformity that are "aesthetic attribute[s] that symbolize his evil" (Slotkin 10). I'm not entirely sure how Shakespeare's audiences or Shakespeare himself would have seen someone with a deformity. Actually, maybe I do. In the first article that I read for this Padlet, it also had a section discussing how people in 1500s-1600s England viewed deformity as a way of telling that either the parents of the child had sinned, or that somehow the child itself was marked to be a sinner. I think it's telling that the actual case of Richard's scoliosis was dramatized by Shakespeare into a greater deformity because it would help accentuate his evilness or his proclivity to sin. One final note about this article is that Richard presents himself to us, the audience, as evil and a villain with his various asides, but to other characters he feigns a state of virtue or goodness. We see this when he betrays Clarence to the king, yet then goes to tell Clarence that he'll figure everything out for him while he's in the Tower. He lies to the princes about their uncles and how bad they truly were, putting on a show of goodness to make the boys trust him. Richard, in my opinion, is the best villain we have seen so far and as the article so nicely puts it, he is "attractive because of his evil" and uses "horrible elements" of his story as "aesthetic objects" to help push his story and character along (Slotkin 7).

Richard's Looks and Deformity

woods_elizabeth — 2024-11-18 16:31:20 UTC

In many sources that I found for discussing Richard III, almost all of them mention his deformity. I think this was made into a big deal because of his opening speech in the play where Shakespeare really plays up his deformity by making him seem truly monstrous in some ways, specifically "That dogs bark at me as I halt by them" (1.1.23). This author argues that while many critics say his deformity speaks to his true evil character, recent critics say that his deformity has more "subtle theoretical implications" (Torrey 124). These new critics are saying that his deformity is apart of the ongoing ugliness that was the War of the Roses, that his deformity reflected the ugliness of the historical events surrounding him and England at the time. I had also never heard of physiognomy before so I think it's important to define it here, at least for myself whenever I need to look back to this. Physiognomy in this case is the concept "that the visible features of the body are important signs to be interpreted" (Torrey 125). But in spite of his deformity classifying him as evil to many characters but also the audience, Richard is able to act as a successful liar, deceiving all who surround him, which makes me think that his deformity might not have been used in the ways I initially thought. However, this article brings in many examples of early texts on physiognomy that basically all state the same thing: "a misaligned body denotes a misaligned soul" (Torrey 129). This is similar to what I've seen with other sources detailing 1500-1600 century views held towards disabilities, that they typically believed a disabled person was someone who had sinned or been affected by sin (paying for their parents' sins). I find this whole concept of deformity being a gateway into the soul, morality, and sin utterly fascinating because we know that is not at all true today. I would assume, however, that this comes about from being in a very Christian environment where there were not many excuses or explanations for things other than they'd been marked by Christ or the devil. This article also makes a wonderful point that Shakespeare is writing this in the Tudor dynasty, while Richard was very much a York. He killed people from the Lancastrian bloodline who were already established on the throne before the War of the Roses. So, it would make so much sense as to why his deformity was said to be much worse than it was. I do think it could have been an attempt by the Tudor house to paint Richard as the ultimate villain. Then the stories about him from the top slowly sprinkled down into the general public. It could have been a step to further alienate or condemn the York house by the great Tudor house who rightfully reclaimed their throne.

Pacino and His Quest for Shakespeare

woods_elizabeth — 2024-11-18 16:49:35 UTC

When I was searching for sources for this assignment, I was genuinely excited to have found this one. In this source, the author discusses Pacino's mission, "communicat[ing] a Shakespeare that is about how we feel and how we think today," and explains how he does it well despite any challenges or setbacks (Sircy 63). By giving us a more lighthearted documentary but also an inside look at how to adapt a difficult play such as "Richard III," Pacino takes away expectations or preconceived notions that the audience already held regarding Shakespeare. One way that Pacino shifts our attention away from these expectations is by trying to understand Shakespeare as the playwright himself with the search for Richard being "subsidiary to the search for Shakespeare" (Sircy 64). This author argues that one way Pacino has found Shakespeare is in language itself, with Shakespeare having "possessed his language in a radical way" (Sircy 70). I do think that Shakespeare is all around us and I do not agree with those who say Shakespeare is only meant to be performed. I think by learning it and reading it in a classroom, that is a step towards fully understanding not just the language, but what Shakespeare has done for English as a whole. I think for people to really get Shakespeare or rather enjoy it, they need to be slowly and thoughtfully introduced to it. I think going to see a production of a Shakespeare play is great as an aid to help in one's understanding of the play. I really enjoyed Pacino's take on Richard III and his quest for knowledge about the play. He proves himself to have more range or depth than one might expect to undertake such a difficult play. He comes at it from a lighthearted and funny way, as well as a darker, more pensive way when we see Richard committing all of his treasonous deeds. I think the documentary has helped me think about my own relationship with Shakespeare and his plays.

Discovering the real Richard III

woods_elizabeth — 2024-11-18 16:53:20 UTC

Even before I knew we were going to be reading "Richard III," I somehow stumbled across this website that has so much information on how they discovered Richard's skeleton and what they did with it afterwards. I will also say that I spent way too long looking at everything on this site while I was supposed to be doing something else. There is just something absolutely fascinating about learning about historical figures that have been presented or portrayed in a certain way, only to have new accounts of them unearthed, or their literal skeleton unearthed like Richard to reveal he only had scoliosis. The most interesting section of this website was the "Identifying the remains" part. It's incredible that with modern technology we're able to uncover all the secrets of a skeleton. Osteology specifically provides great insight into how Richard died, determining which wounds were the cause of Richard's death. The researchers explain that they found at least 11 total injuries and that they probably occurred one after another, like in a battle being confronted with all different types of weapons, as we know Richard was at battle at the time of his death. Reading about all of his different injuries and how he must have died according to them is quite eye opening. For me, at least, it's quite horrible to imagine someone being surrounded and continuously attacked from all sides with swords and knives. I think that could highlight just how bad the War of the Roses was, leading to great conflicts and violence, as well as lawlessness.