Mod a hsc - richard III +looking for richard PDF

Preview

Summary

richard III +looking for richard...

Description

The timeless notion of the pursuit for authority is offered in both texts, however presents a marked difference in form and purpose as influenced by their respective contexts and audience.

"the world is grown so bad that wrens make prey where eagles dare not perch" RIII explores this with a focus on divine order, which influences its morality play form and Richard’s characterisation as the vice. This influence along with Shakespeare’s fiercely Christian societal context shaped the portrayal of Richard’s claim for power as devilish and a disruption of divine order. He explores this through the dramatic irony of Richard openly talking about his obstruction of justice, "the world is grown so bad that wrens make prey where eagles dare not perch" where predatory imagery emphasises Richard's authoritative power and duplicity, causing destruction of divine order.

"let Richmond and Elizabeth… true succeeders of each royal house, by god's fair ordinance conjoin together god say amen". This idea of predeterminism is reflected through the lexical chain of religious imagery and the tragedy play form during Richmond’s final words of the play, "let Richmond and Elizabeth… true succeeders of each royal house, by god's fair ordinance conjoin together god say amen". Due to the ruling of the Tudors in his time, Shakespeare was influenced to portray the final speech as Tudor propaganda. This fulfilled the expectations of the Elizabethan society – where the chain of being is restored with Richard’s death.

isolation in the screen + requiem music Within Pacino’s contemporary adaptation, Richard’s pursuit for power is not depicted as one of religiously and orderly destruction. But rather, Pacino modifies this idea to offer new insights into the motivations of his deeds and the psychological intricacies of his persona. In reaffirming his Post-Freudian and selfdetermined context, he presents Richards autonomy by rejecting Shakespeare’s idea of providentialism and “crimes against God”. Thus, he discards this notion by having Richard say the final words in the play to suggest that his devilish acts were born out of his psychological imbalance and upbringing as opposed to being sanctioned by God. The final scenes of the film thematically diverge from Shakespeare’s play in which the use of “silence” (as described by Pacino) encourages his audience to sympathise with Richard’s death and vulnerability as a result of his personal deceitful motives – he creates a sense of pathos. Hence, Pacino’s characterisation of Richard as self-made and determined asserts his contextual influences as fore mentioned to show that the pursuit for authority is one that is concerned with moral relativism rather than divine power.

Although both texts parallel in the interest on the pursuit for authoritative power, it is evident that their respective contexts ultimately influence their marked differences in form and purpose.

Morality is a universal theme explored in both texts, however, each text presents their contextual influence through their marked difference in purpose.

“coward conscience” > “with a thousand tongues… condemns me a villain” In RIII, Richard’s immorality and its consequences are explored through his guilt after his visitation by ghosts, as evident in the personification of conscience, “coward conscience” to portray the consequence of inescapable remorse as a result of corruption and an immoral conscience. He later muses on his conscience in his final moments, “with a thousand tongues… condemns me a villain” where the anthropomorphism of Richard’s conscience as a terrifying beast elicits his guilt from his morally dubious actions. Shakespeare’s didacticism is ultimately seeking to reinforce the religious virtues of Christianity and divine providence, which significantly contrasts Pacino’s secular purpose in contemporary America.

dramatisation of flashbacks Pacino’s didacticism is in galvanising the appreciation of the contemporary audience for Shakespeare’s works. This makes evident the incongruities in their didactic purposes, highlighting the distinguishing characteristics of their contexts. Pacino reinterprets Shakespeare’s presentation of conscience by showing his post-freudian and post-modernist context, offering a psychological portrayal of Richard's immorality. Pacino challenges Shakespeare’s ideas by arguing that his villainy is out of personal interest to engage his secular audience. He does this through replacing supernatural elements of the play into a dramatisation with flashbacks, presenting Richard’s mortal and psychological struggles and the fragmentation of self.

“insubstantial pageant” It is evident that both composers have a marked difference in their purpose. Unlike Shakespeare who concludes that immorality is a result of God’s predetermination, LFR reflects its post-modern context as Pacino attempts to make Shakespeare accessible to all. To justify its context and ambiguity, the film has a cyclical form where it begins and ends with intertextual extracts from ‘The Tempest’. The mention of the “insubstantial pageant” reinforces Pacino’s context where the means behind Richard’s immorality cannot be answered, unlike Shakespeare’s play where the Elizabethan era’s ‘truths’ is characterised by their providential context.

Dissimilar to Shakespeare's providential approach, Pacino explores the psyche behind corruption presenting their incongruity in their approaches, however, also both paralleling in their fascination on morality.

Through an exploration of differing social paradigms and contexts, the reader is granted a deeper understanding of intertextual connections between texts, and an insight into a composer’s choice in purpose, form and values. William Shakespeare's 16th century historical tragedy Richard III (RIII) examines the Machiavellian pursuit for power and morality within a fiercely moral universe tied to Providentialism and divine retribution. Al Pacino parallels these ideas to an extent, however creatively reshapes them through his multi-modal docudrama Looking for Richard (LFR), where he explores the psychological fundamentals of power and the concept of free will, as influenced by his context of humanism in the 20th century secularist America. Despite the disparity between each composer's approach on the text, the intertextual connections between both are evident in their paralleled interest on the pursuit for power, and morality.

The timeless notion of the pursuit for authority is offered in both texts, however presents a marked difference in form and purpose as influenced by their respective contexts and audience. Shakespeare’s fiercely religious context influenced his morality play form and in turn his characterisation of Richard as the vice, in a devilish scheme to claim power, hence disrupting divine order. He explores this through the dramatic irony of Richard openly talking about his obstruction of justice, "the world is grown so bad that wrens make prey where eagles dare not perch" where predatory imagery emphasises Richard's authoritative power and duplicity, causing destruction of divine order. This idea of predeterminism is reflected through the lexical chain of religious imagery and the tragedy play form during Richmond’s final words of the play, "let Richmond and Elizabeth… true succeeders of each royal house, by god's fair ordinance conjoin together god say amen". Due to the ruling of the Tudors in his time, Shakespeare was influenced to portray the final speech as Tudor propaganda. This fulfilled the expectations of the Elizabethan society – where the chain of being is restored with Richard’s death. Pacino however modifies this religion centralised idea in his contemporary adaptation by offering new insights into the motivations and psyche intricacies of his persona. In reaffirming his Post-Freudian and self-determined context, he presents Richards autonomy by rejecting Shakespeare’s idea of providentialism and “crimes against God”. He discards this by having Richard say the final words in the play, suggesting that his devilish acts were born out of his psychological imbalance and upbringing as opposed to God’s sanction. The final scenes of the film thematically diverge from Shakespeare’s play in which the use of “silence” (as described by Pacino) encourages his audience to sympathise with Richard’s death and vulnerability as a result of his personal deceitful motives – he creates a sense of pathos. Hence, Pacino’s characterisation of Richard as self-made asserts his contextual influences as aforementioned to show that the pursuit for authority is one that is concerned with moral relativism rather than divine power. Although both texts parallel in the interest on the pursuit for authoritative power, it is evident that their respective contexts ultimately influence their marked differences in form and purpose.

Morality is a universal theme explored in both texts, however, each text presents their contextual influence through their marked difference in purpose. In RIII, Richard’s immorality and its consequences are explored through his guilt after his visitation by ghosts, as evident in the personification of conscience, “coward conscience” to portray the consequence of inescapable remorse as a result of corruption and an immoral conscience. He later muses on his conscience in his final moments, “with a thousand tongues… brings a tale… condemns me a villain” where the anthropomorphism of Richard’s conscience as a terrifying beast elicits his guilt from his morally dubious actions. Shakespeare’s didacticism is ultimately seeking to reinforce the religious virtues of Christianity and divine providence, which significantly contrasts Pacino’s secular purpose in contemporary America. Pacino’s didacticism is in galvanising the appreciation of the contemporary audience for Shakespeare’s works. This makes evident the incongruities in their didactic purposes, highlighting the distinguishing characteristics of their contexts. Pacino reinterprets Shakespeare’s presentation of conscience by showing his post-freudian and post-modernist context, offering a psychological portrayal of Richard's immorality. Pacino challenges Shakespeare’s ideas by arguing that his villainy is out of personal interest to engage his secular audience. He does this through replacing supernatural elements of the play into a dramatisation with flashbacks, presenting Richard’s mortal and psychological struggles and the fragmentation of self. It is evident that both composers have a marked difference in their purpose. Unlike Shakespeare who concludes that immorality is a result of God’s predetermination, LFR reflects its post-modern context as Pacino attempts to make Shakespeare accessible to all. To justify its context and ambiguity, the film has a cyclical form where it begins and ends with intertextual extracts from ‘The Tempest’. The mention of the “insubstantial pageant” reinforces Pacino’s context where the means behind Richard’s immorality cannot be answered, unlike Shakespeare’s play where the Elizabethan era’s ‘truths’ is characterised by their providential context. Dissimilar to Shakespeare's providential approach, Pacino explores the psyche behind corruption presenting their incongruity in their approaches, however, also both paralleling in their fascination on morality....