Topic:
October: Richard III (1 of 58), Read 111 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Ann Davey (davey@tconl.com)
Date:
Tuesday, September 12, 2000 06:01 PM
A lot of folks will be gone at the end of September, so I thought
I'd post the reminder for the October discussion a little early. The
October selection is Shakespeare's Richard III.
I plan on checking out the audio tape from the library and
listening to it while I read the text. I hope many of you will be
able to join us for the discussion
Newcomers are always welcome! Let's begin the official discussion
on October 1.
Ann
Topic:
October: Richard III (2 of 58), Read 104 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Dick Haggart (law@haggart.com)
Date:
Tuesday, September 12, 2000 06:22 PM
I'm looking forward to this one, big time, and would urge anyone
who wants to get down and fully manic about this fine, intriguing,
possibly unhistorical drama, to consider reading the Daughter of
Time by Josephine Tey and viewing both the Ian McKellan and
Laurence Olivier film versions.
Oh, what the hell. Buy a ticket and go to London and catch a
performance. This is important stuff, money no object.
The Chilbained Lawyer
Topic:
October: Richard III (3 of 58), Read 103 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Sherry Keller (shkell@earthlink.net)
Date:
Tuesday, September 12, 2000 06:29 PM
I plan on joining you, but I may be a bit behind. I'm going to Maine
for a week after Boston. I also plan on listening to the tape; I got
a lot more out of Othello that way.
Sherry
Topic:
October: Richard III (4 of 58), Read 103 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Janet Mego (vsjego@cs.com)
Date:
Tuesday, September 12, 2000 06:40 PM
YES!!! YEEEESSS!! OPS* is kicking in big-time! I am enamored of
this play--saw a wonderful version at the Alabama Shakespeare
Festival a year ago!! I'll have to force aside time for this one!
Over enthusiastically,
Janet
*Over-enthusiastic Puppy Syndrome (from which I suffer at times,
but rarely with the lack of bladder control experienced by most
OP's. . . )
Topic:
October: Richard III (5 of 58), Read 106 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Steve Warbasse (wk4@uswest.net)
Date:
Tuesday, September 12, 2000 07:06 PM
In addition to Dick's excellent recommendation, I would like to plug
the film (video) Looking for Richard starring Al Pacino. I have no
idea how to describe this thing, but it is absolutely excellent!
Steve
Topic:
October: Richard III (6 of 58), Read 105 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Dick Haggart (law@haggart.com)
Date:
Tuesday, September 12, 2000 07:10 PM
I forgot about that one. Excellent recommendation.
The Chilbained Lawyer
Topic:
October: Richard III (7 of 58), Read 116 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Pres Lancaster (plancast@slip.net)
Date:
Tuesday, September 12, 2000 08:31 PM
I second all of the above, Daughter of Time and the Al Pacino are
particular favorites.
Vampires pale beside Richard III.
pres, being as timorous as piglet.
Topic:
October: Richard III (8 of 58), Read 103 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Julie Lea (geeklite@email.com)
Date:
Wednesday, September 13, 2000 03:03 PM
Just in case anyone is interested, there is a Richard III Society.
Their website is at http://www.r3.org and they have some
interesting information about the real Richard and how he
compares with Shakespeare's version.
Topic:
October: Richard III (9 of 58), Read 105 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Janet Mego (vsjego@cs.com)
Date:
Wednesday, September 13, 2000 06:09 PM
Great, Julie! I'll be checking this out. Are you a new poster? I've
missed out on a lot lately.
Janet
Topic:
October: Richard III (10 of 58), Read 108 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Ann Davey (davey@tconl.com)
Date:
Wednesday, September 13, 2000 10:17 PM
Thanks, Julie. I've always been curious about the historical
Richard.
Welcome to Classics Corner. Have you read Richard III?
Ann
Topic:
October: Richard III (11 of 58), Read 108 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Julie Lea (geeklite@email.com)
Date:
Thursday, September 14, 2000 08:51 AM
Thanks. I am a new poster. A friend recommended C.R. and I was
so happy to see other people interested in reading classics as well
as contemporary books.
I think I'm going to like it here.
Julie
Topic:
October: Richard III (12 of 58), Read 105 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Dottie Randall (randallj@ix.netcom.com)
Date:
Thursday, September 14, 2000 12:47 PM
Welcome aboard, Julie -- I just did a review of my reading from
the Classics Corner and Constant Reader Reading List Books and
found to my surprise that I have read far more of the Classics
Corner selections than of the others. I truly hadn't realized I was
favoring one conference so heavily! Obviously Classics Corner is
filling a need for me -- so glad you found it and us.
Dottie
ID is an oxymoron!
Topic:
October: Richard III (13 of 58), Read 103 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Barbara Moors (bar647@aol.com)
Date:
Thursday, September 14, 2000 03:34 PM
Welcome Julie! And, thanks for the website!
It's great to have another classics reader on board. I try to read
the books from both book lists here, but usually if I have to
choose, I choose the classic. My background was pretty deficient
in them and I'm trying to make up for the lack.
Would you tell us some of your favorites?
Barb
Topic:
October: Richard III (14 of 58), Read 107 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Julie Lea (geeklite@email.com)
Date:
Thursday, September 14, 2000 05:03 PM
My favorites all seem to be recent (1940 on) American authors.
I'm a big Truman Capote fan, I just love the way he can make me
see a moment in a characters life with just a few words. I'm also
very fond of Steinbeck, although I am occasionally put off by all
the pages in some of his books. There are others, but these are
the big two.
I do like a lot of other authors, but I've been reading way too
much junk lately and would like to get more involved with classics.
Which is why I'm here.
Julie
Topic:
October: Richard III (15 of 58), Read 93 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Barbara Moors (bar647@aol.com)
Date:
Friday, September 15, 2000 06:26 AM
I love both Steinbeck and Capote too, Julie. When my son started
reading Steinbeck in high school, I wondered why he seems to
have dropped in overall literary respect lately. I listened to
Cannery Row on tape and was hooked again. He gets so much
attention from high school English teachers and then nothing.
Barb
Topic:
October: Richard III (16 of 58), Read 75 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Julie Lea (geeklite@email.com)
Date:
Thursday, September 21, 2000 06:33 PM
Is anyone else having trouble with this play? It seems like there
are so many characters to keep track of - so many relationships
to keep straight.
I watched "Looking for Richard" which is a documentary about a
production of Richard III and it's helped a little. I have the
Laurence Olivier film on video to watch, but I think I'm going to
break down and buy some Cliffs Notes (a little embarrassing to
admit). I have a grasp of what's happening but I know I'm missing
all kinds of things.
Does anyone else feel the same way? Just curious.
Julie
Topic:
October: Richard III (17 of 58), Read 77 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Dick Haggart (law@haggart.com)
Date:
Thursday, September 21, 2000 06:43 PM
Julie: I've read a lot of Shakespeare over the years, and this play
in particular, many, many times. And every time it takes me a
while to get into "Shakespeare mode" -- which is that mental
frame where the language flows into my ear as regular modern
English, and the characters are not only not confusing, but leap
off the page at me. So you are definitely not alone.
I'd recommend watching the Olivier while you read along in the
play itself. Guaranteed to get you over that pesky Shakespeare
hump in short order. Pretty soon, you'll be shouting out the lines
with the rest of the cast.
The Chilbained Lawyer
Topic:
October: Richard III (18 of 58), Read 74 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Barbara Moors (bar647@aol.com)
Date:
Thursday, September 21, 2000 10:13 PM
Julie, I'm having a lot of trouble keeping the characters straight.
Because of this factor, I'm having much more trouble than I had
reading MacBeth or King Lear. My husband, who has read much
more Shakespeare than I have, says that this is not uncommon
with this particular play. He also likes Richard III but doesn't think
it's in the same league with the other two I mentioned. This might
be an interesting thing to consider in our discussion.
My Folger's edition has a sort of family tree that tries to show
how all of these people are related. It helps, but I need more.
Does anyone know of a website that addresses this issue
concisely?
Barb
Topic:
October: Richard III (19 of 58), Read 76 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Dick Haggart (law@haggart.com)
Date:
Thursday, September 21, 2000 10:55 PM
The Wars of the Roses were so complex and so central to modern
English history it's hard to distill them down to a thumbnail. Here's
the about.com site which has a number of useful links.
The Chilbained Lawyer
Topic:
October: Richard III (20 of 58), Read 83 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Beej Connor (connorva@mindspring.com)
Date:
Friday, September 22, 2000 01:55 PM
Barb, I have the Pelican edition that also provides a sort of family
tree, but its still a bit of a chore to keep everyone straight, isn't
it? I just started it this morning and I'm hoping as I get more into
it, the going gets easier. Its been awhile since I've read
Shakespeare and I was relieved it wasn't just me...
Beej
Topic:
October: Richard III (21 of 58), Read 83 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Dale Short (dshort5005@aol.com)
Date:
Sunday, September 24, 2000 12:52 PM
I found this brief commentary of interest on Richard III, from the
Globe Annotated Shakespeare my son got me for Christmas:
Richard III, a Yorkist, has been unfairly treated by history, and
this is mainly due to Shakespeare’s portrayal. In the play, Richard
speaks of himself as having a hunchback and a withered arm, and
he too is a usurper. But there is no historical evidence for any of
this. What we have, then, in his physical condition, is a symbol
for his awareness that he did not hold the throne by legal
succession.
Richard is paranoid, and with good reason. His reign, which lasted
only two years, was one of tremendous turmoil and insecurity.
He could trust nobody, and the battle scene at the end of the
play (perhaps the most brillaint battle scene in all dramatic
literature) reaches its apex with Richard’s famous cry, “A horse!
A horse! My kingdom for a horse!”
This, a moment before his death, is his final statement on the
precariousness of his rule: surely no English king who held the
throne legally could ever trade his kingdom to save his life.
Although Richard was killed by his enemies, he was just as much
hounded to death by his own conscience. Shakespeare
concentrates on the psychological burden of the usurper in these
plays, and the line of dissolution traced between Henry IV and
Richard III is one of the great triumphs of his art.
--Solomon J. Schepps
***
Quick question, for someone who knows more history than me,
whom are legion: the ambiguity of the way this first paragraph is
phrased makes it seem that the usurping, and not just the
physical infirmities, might be invented. But from the rest of the
text, I take it that the usurping and dissolution stuff are pretty
much factual, right?
And pray tell, in 2,500 words or less, what is a Yorkist and how
does that figure in? (For some reason, “straight” history has
always been very, very hard reading for me. It’s almost as if my
brain has an impervious barrier to taking it in.)
>>Dale in Ala.
Topic:
October: Richard III (22 of 58), Read 86 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Beej Connor (connorva@mindspring.com)
Date:
Sunday, September 24, 2000 01:35 PM
Dale and all, I found this website that provides not only individual
Act summaries but much, much more.
http://www.classicnote.com/ClassicNotes/Titles/richardiii.html
Beej
Topic:
October: Richard III (23 of 58), Read 78 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Dick Haggart (law@haggart.com)
Date:
Sunday, September 24, 2000 01:39 PM
Hoo-boy. Richard III takes place at the end of what are generally
called the Wars of the Roses -- dynastic conflicts between the
royal houses of Lancaster (red rose) and York (white rose). These
extended over a good portion of the 15th century, and essentially
came to an end when Richard was killed at Bosworth and Henry
Tudor (Lancastrian) assumed the throne as Henry VII (marrying
Edward IV' daughter to unite the two families).
The underlying causes of all this, originally, was the weakness and
insanity of Henry VI (Lancastrian), greed and power madness of
the Duke of Warwick (Yorkist; the 'Kingmaker') and never-ending,
losing wars in France as the old English provinces were slowly,
bloodily and unprofitably yielded back to the French. In this time
of turmoil and political upset (at least 30 years preceding
Bosworth), the Yorkists kept pressing for control of government --
protectorships of Henry, seats on the royal council, etc. These
conflicts frequently spelled over from political intrigue to warfare.
Ultimately, a York got the throne (Edward IV) and threw Henry VI
into the tower; then the Lancastrians rallied and released Henry
who got the throne back, then they lost it again. Or maybe it was
the reverse.
Anyway, eventually Edward IV dies, and leaves 12 year old son
Edward the V. Richard, Duke of York, is appointed protector of
this kid, and eventually gets himself crowned king, and finally
hacked to death by Lancastrians at Bosworth.
Dunno if that helps, but it's a thumbnail and probably partially
accurate.
The Chilbained Lawyer
Topic:
October: Richard III (24 of 58), Read 81 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Dale Short (dshort5005@aol.com)
Date:
Sunday, September 24, 2000 01:48 PM
Great thumbnail, Dick! Thanks. Very helpful. (So is the Website
with the act summaries, Beej.)
That chain of historical events reminds me of the supposed
ancient curse, "May you live in interesting times." I'm sure glad I
wasn't around in that period. Unless I could have been a
playwright on the winning side, of course.{G}
>>Dale in Ala.
Topic:
October: Richard III (25 of 58), Read 79 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Pres Lancaster (plancast@slip.net)
Date:
Sunday, September 24, 2000 02:01 PM
OK, DALE, now we are all in the soup. We were bound to be,
anyway, because the Richard III story (whichever one you are
talking about and please make that clear when you comment {G})
is a complicated mess, like entrails, and we should look forward to
many happy hours of inditing "Yes, but . . "
From the quote you posted, I would agree that:
"Richard III, a Yorkist, has been unfairly treated by history, and
this is mainly due to Shakespeare’s portrayal."
But to that part of the quote saying:
"What we have, then, in his physical condition, is a symbol for his
awareness that he did not hold the throne by legal succession."
I say, Says Who ? Shakespeare is writing symbols about R3's
mental state ?
About Yorkist: Those supporters of the House of York in their
power maneuverings and claims of the throne.
Begin Edward III, grandfather of Richard II
Richard II, murdered by Henry Bolingbroke, who is then Henry IV,
an usurper.
whose son Henry V and grand-son Henry IV continue the rule as
the usurping line (all Lancastrians, by the way)
Henry IV, husband of Margaret, is incompetent; his son and heir
(another Edward) is killed in a battle with the Yorkists and Edward
IV, son of Richard, Duke of York, who was also seeking the
throne, is crowned king.
Edward IV has as brothers: George, Duke of Clarence, AND
Richard, Duke of Glouster, later RICHARD III.
And away we go !
pres,
How do I know what I think until I see what I say ?
Topic:
October: Richard III (26 of 58), Read 76 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Dick Haggart (law@haggart.com)
Date:
Sunday, September 24, 2000 03:55 PM
Was Richard II murdered or killed at the Battle of Wakefield? Or
am I getting my kings mixed up with my dukes again?
The Chilbained Lawyer
Topic:
October: Richard III (27 of 58), Read 80 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Pres Lancaster (plancast@slip.net)
Date:
Monday, September 25, 2000 10:47 AM
The best handy-dandy source of information about English kings,
and very informative, too, is:
http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon33.html
pres,
How do I know what I think until I see what I say ?
Topic:
October: Richard III (28 of 58), Read 80 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Beej Connor (connorva@mindspring.com)
Date:
Monday, September 25, 2000 02:58 PM
I want you all to know, as I sit in front of my computer and read
RICHARD III, I have been going back, reading over all your
tremendously helpful posts and browsing the various links. This
has been a real help for me. I think it was Dick who said it may, at
first, be a bit difficult to get into the Shakespearean "lingo", but
as you go on it becomes easier and more familiar. And I find this
to be true.
Beej
Topic:
October: Richard III (29 of 58), Read 73 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Pres Lancaster (plancast@slip.net)
Date:
Monday, September 25, 2000 02:05 PM
Shakespeare's History Plays are, generally, about claims to the
throne in and about 1400 and the doings engendered by such
claims.
With Richard III's death, and the accession of Henry VII (Henry
Tudor), the Lancaster and the York claims are realized because
Henry Tudor (Lancaster) marries Edward IV"s daughter, Elizabeth
(York).
But Henry Tudor (Henry VII), though descended from Edward III,
was, so to speak, neither legitimate nor descended in the male
line.
John of Guant, Duke of Lancaster, Son of Edward III, had three
wives. By his first wife he sired Henry IV (Bolingbroke). By his third
wife, Catherine Swynford,
"Governess to the Dukes daughter by his first wife, became John's
mistress in 1388. All their children were before they were married.
They were ligitimated later by the Pope."
One of the children was John Beaufort, Marquess of Somerset.
His child, John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, was father of
Margaret Beaufort who married Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, the
two becoming the parents of Henry VII
All square and above board.
And I promise no more genealogy.
pres,
How do I know what I think until I see what I say ?
Topic:
October: Richard III (30 of 58), Read 70 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Dottie Randall (randallj@ix.netcom.com)
Date:
Monday, September 25, 2000 03:49 PM
Well, Pres, I thought the genealogy lesson was terrific, myself --
but then I am a genie nut when I have the time and opportunity.
But my real comment here is on your sign off -- not only that you
have to see what you say to know what you think but if your
tongue gets wrapped around your eye-teeth you may not SEE
what you've said -- okay, I'm going quietly now.
Dottie
ID is an oxymoron!
Topic:
October: Richard III (31 of 58), Read 70 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Beej Connor (connorva@mindspring.com)
Date:
Tuesday, September 26, 2000 03:16 PM
In regards to Shakespeare's somewhat slanted presentation of
Richard III, doesn't this basically reflect Shakespeare's own
political stance of the times? Wasn't his respect for historical
truth relative to his own personal political beliefs? I think this
quote from Alexandre Dumas might aptly fit Shakespeare as well:
"True, I have raped history, but it has produced some beautiful
offspring."
Beej
Topic:
October: Richard III (32 of 58), Read 66 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Pres Lancaster (plancast@slip.net)
Date:
Wednesday, September 27, 2000 07:37 PM
BEEJ asks:
In regards to Shakespeare's somewhat slanted presentation of
Richard III, doesn't this basically reflect Shakespeare's own
political stance of the times?
I would say NO.
I think Shakespeare and political stance don’t go together.
Shakespeare wasn’t writing to change the government, to
propose a constitutional monarchy or a commonwealth. I know of
no evidence that Shakespeare thought "politically."
I think it a fallacy to attribute attitudes to Shakespeare based on
his writings. He was telling stories in play form. The rest is
conjecture. No doubt it is a wonderful game to play; academics
do it using enough paper to reforest not only the British Isles but
the colonies as well. But if we are going to play, please announce
the rules; I refuse to play under A. L. Rowse.
somewhat slanted presentation of Richard III
"Slanted" from where ? Yes, Shakespeare’s picture of Richard III
does not accord with what we now know. But there is no
evidence that S. distorted the history available to him in his time.
(We don’t know what was available to him; we know what is
available to us from his time, but that’s another story.) The play,
Richard III, contains historical characters dead at the time of the
action, but there is no reason to believe that S was including
them knowing that he was falsifying fact for either "political" or
dramatic purpose.
pres,
How do I know what I think until I see what I say ? Indeed?
Topic:
October: Richard III (33 of 58), Read 72 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Beej Connor (connorva@mindspring.com)
Date:
Wednesday, September 27, 2000 07:47 PM
Pres, I will give you, the term "political stance" is really not a good
one. However, I do feel his attitudes are reflected in his writings,
for whatever purpose, be it as a hunched back as a visual aid to
Richard's handicapped personality, or whatever. I do feel
Shakespeare did indeed slant history, if not for so called "political"
purpose, then definitely for dramatic purpose. And I was not
complaining, mind you, or even being critical. As I stated in my
quote of Dumas, It was perhaps a historical raping, but it did
indeed produce beautiful offspring.
Beej
Topic:
October: Richard III (34 of 58), Read 68 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Pres Lancaster (plancast@slip.net)
Date:
Wednesday, September 27, 2000 08:11 PM
BEEJ
IMHO, Shakespeare slanted history in R3 by creating in the
character a gleeful villain relishing his naughtinesses (archaic:
wicked, immoral) . All of the acts attributed to R3 in the play were
the common everyday acts of the powerful in R3's time and the
years leading up to it. The Duke of Gloucester probably
(CONJECTURE!) thought of them as no more than removing pawns
from a chess board. (Apologies, David M.)
pres,
How do I know what I think until I see what I say ?
Topic:
October: Richard III (35 of 58), Read 69 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Beej Connor (connorva@mindspring.com)
Date:
Wednesday, September 27, 2000 08:31 PM
Actually, Pres, I believe Shakespeare was not the original creator
of Richard III as a "gleeful villain". I've read he used the accounts
of Sir Thomas More in his HISTORY OF RICHARD III, as a source
for his (Shakespeare's) descriptions. According to Peter Holland of
the Shakespeare Institute, More's biography showed that
"Richard's life was already teetering on the brink of drama."
Beej
Topic:
October: Richard III (36 of 58), Read 65 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Julie Lea (geeklite@email.com)
Date:
Thursday, September 28, 2000 10:10 AM
Another thing to keep in mind is that the people of England firmly
believed Henry VII had delivered them from the strife they had
lived with during the war of the roses. And when Shakespeare
wrote this play the granddaughter of Henry VII was on the
throne.
An interesting note:
When Henry VII took the throne there was a propaganda
campaign against Richard. However, it was never said (during that
time) that Richard had killed the two princes in the tower.
I think we find people being killed for political gain horrifying by
contemporary standards, but it was fairly common during that
time. Edward IV had Henry VI put to death in the tower and much
later Henry VIII would have two wives convicted of treason and
put to death because he was tired of them.
Just a thought (or two)
Julie Lea
Topic:
October: Richard III (37 of 58), Read 62 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Beej Connor (connorva@mindspring.com)
Date:
Thursday, September 28, 2000 01:42 PM
So, what you are saying, Julie, is that Shakespeare's account of
Richard III is based on the atmosphere of Shakespeare's time and
place? I have read there is actually very little known about
Shakespeare, but that he expressed his personal views and beliefs
so totally within his plays and sonnets, (in affect his own
biographer) that we, ironically, probably know more about him
than we do almost any other writer.
Beej
Topic:
October: Richard III (38 of 58), Read 60 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Dick Haggart (law@haggart.com)
Date:
Thursday, September 28, 2000 04:56 PM
I think we do know that royal favor was important for the support
of the arts at that time -- certainly, that wonderful movie
Shakespeare in Love makes that point. And, if you were angling
for royal support, it would probably not be your best tack to write
a play about how the Queen's grandfather was a usurping
blackguard. We saved such revisionist stuff for our own, more
enlightened age.
The Chilbained Lawyer
Topic:
October: Richard III (39 of 58), Read 59 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Beej Connor (connorva@mindspring.com)
Date:
Thursday, September 28, 2000 07:57 PM
(True, Dick,,nowadays we would simply write a book about the
Queen's grandfather, make a million bucks AND get to escort some
rich and famous celebrity to the Academy Awards.)
Beej
Topic:
October: Richard III (40 of 58), Read 54 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Beej Connor (connorva@mindspring.com)
Date:
Friday, September 29, 2000 09:55 PM
This is from the BARRON'S BOOK NOTES on RICHARD III..
"Shakespeare's plays explored a number of concerns that
reflected currant issues. Foremost among these was the fear of a
return to the civil disorder of the 15th century that had preceded
the accession to the throne of the Tudor monarchs...Would the
fragile peace between domestic factions remain secure after the
death of Elizabeth? These were the questions he had to confront
when writing the drama of Richard III's rise to power and rapid
downfall...In order to make a claim for his queen-and against the
Yorkist claim- Shakespeare studied the history books available at
the time....The history books financed by the Tudor court sang of
Richmond and portrayed Richard III as an evil man...he juggled
historical facts by rearranging people and places to support
dramatic tension."
Beej
Topic:
October: Richard III (41 of 58), Read 53 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Ann Davey (davey@tconl.com)
Date:
Saturday, September 30, 2000 10:19 AM
Beej,
I just finished dipping into a book called Shakespeare's Kings by
historian John Norwich. As you said, Shakespeare did manipulate
time sequence and historical facts for dramatic purposes and
Norwich details these discrepancies. However, Norwich didn't
leave much doubt in my mind that old king Richard was definitely a
bad 'un. (Of course, one might legitimately ask, who of his power
grabbing peers was not?)
Norwich is quite certain that Richard murdered his nephews so
that he could be king. He rejects the theory proposed in
Josephine Tey's "brilliant" The Daughter of Time that this
accusation was a libel invented by Richard's Tudor successors. His
primary source for Richard's guilt is Sir Thomas Moore, a man who
was very much respected by his contemporaries and who was
later canonized a saint. This latter fact presumably creates some
confidence in his truthfulness.
Richard was ruthless and more than willing to execute anyone in
his way but Norwich absolves him of the death of his brother
Clarence (their brother King Edward V ordered this with some
justification) and doubts that he was responsible for the death of
his wife Anne, who more likely died from TB than poison.
He also says that Shakespeare greatly exaggerated Richard's
physical deformities, pointing out that a great warrior like Richard
could hardly have been a hunchback with a useless withered arm.
"But contemporary chroniclers are all agreed that he was
unusually small and at least slightly deformed, with his right
shoulder higher than his left" and "the left arm must certainly have
been damaged in some degree."
It seems that Shakespeare made Richard even more villainous
than he was in fact, but that he had plenty of material to work
with. In any case, Shakespeare was a dramatist, not an historian.
He would have been a fool if he had cast any doubt on the
legitimacy of the Tudor dynasty, which was established with the
defeat of our friend Richard III.
Ann
Topic:
October: Richard III (42 of 58), Read 52 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Pres Lancaster (plancast@slip.net)
Date:
Saturday, September 30, 2000 11:06 AM
Note:
The Duke of Clarence was ordered killed by his brother Edward IV
not Edward V. Clarence had been a rebel and a trouble maker for
many years, changing sides as the wind blew.
Edward V, son of Edward IV, nephew of Richard III, was one of
the "Princes in the Tower" whom we think was murdered by R3 -
who else had the power and would dare to do it ?
Also: I have read that Anne Neville, the Anne of R3, was a great
friend of his, they having been raised together in childhood.
Sir Thomas More, patron saint of lawyers, was very highly placed
at the Tudor Court. His history of R3 is at odds with his reputation
for integrity. And we don't know whether his sources were any
other than the intention of serving his master as long as he kept
his head.
pres,
How do I know what I think until I see what I say ?
Topic:
October: Richard III (43 of 58), Read 55 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Janet Mego (vsjego@cs.com)
Date:
Saturday, September 30, 2000 03:32 PM
I have here on my lap Charles Dickens's A Child's History of
England, a marvelous book I've found really helpful as a
supplement, in weeding through the play. I'd like to share an
excerpt or two from Dickens's own unique point of view, but let's
consider the animal "historical accuracy" first for a moment. What
is it, exactly? Orwell claimed it was pretty much an oxymoron, in
that man, inspired by his own political motivations, recorded
history; therefore, its "accuracy" was inherently flawed.
Dickens might have been as much victimized by dramatization of
historical events as anyone, but was perhaps more cognizant than
some, of Orwell's later observation. Anyway, here are Dickens's
findings on the matter of the little princes and their murder:
The late King's eldest son, the Prince of Wales, called EDWARD
after him, was only thirteen years of age at his father's death.
He was at Ludlow Castle with his uncle, the Earl of Rivers. The
prince's brother, the Duke of York, only 11 years of age, was in
London with his mother. The boldest, most crafty, and most
dreaded nobleman in England at that time was their uncle
RICHARD, Duke of Gloucester, and everybody wondered how the
two poor boys would fare with such an uncle for a friend or foe. .
.(197)
. . . (Later)King Richard stayed a week at Warwick. And from
Warwick he sent instructions home for one of the wickedest
murders that ever was done--the murder of the two young
princes, his nephews, who were shut up in the Tower of London.
Dickens then gives vivid details of the murder of the little princes,
including a reference to those evil demons, John Dighton and
Miles Forest, who smothered the two princes with the bed and
pillows, and carried their bodies down the stairs, and buried them
under a great heap of stones at the staircase foot. . (203).
Dickens also describes Richard as . . .a clever man, fair of
speech, and not ill-looking, in spite of one of his shoulders being
something higher than the other. . . and includes a scene in
which Richard pulls up his sleeve and shows it to Lord Hastings,
insisting that Jane Shore caused the deformity through witchcraft
(199).
I thought this might interest some of you. Published first in 1851,
the book is dedicated to Dickens's "own dear children, whom I
hope it may help, bye and bye, to read with interest larger and
better books on the same subject."
I hope they were as grateful as I.
Janet
Topic:
October: Richard III (44 of 58), Read 60 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Janet Mego (vsjego@cs.com)
Date:
Saturday, September 30, 2000 03:49 PM
Whether or not Shakespeare was "biased" in his portrayal of
various historical characters is to me a sort of a moot point, I
guess. How does anyone avoid such bias? He was a great of all
greats, perhaps, but he was also human. . .
My favorite reference to Richard is made by Queen Margaret, I
believe, who calls him lots of things, but the one I like best is " . .
.that bottl'd spider. . ..";spider, OK, as she notes in another
passage, ". . .when he bites,/His venom tooth will rankle to the
death. . ." but why "bottl'd"? Bottled by what? His physical
deformity, also (I really do think) a symbol of his moral deformity?
Those whom he considers his enemies? Something else? I'm
scanning for the quote and can't find it. Maybe it wasn't
Margaret.
Can anyone help?
Janet
Topic:
October: Richard III (45 of 58), Read 59 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Beej Connor (connorva@mindspring.com)
Date:
Saturday, September 30, 2000 04:29 PM
For some reason, I liked Margaret. She just haunted Richard,
didn't she?! I loved it when Richard called her (Act1;Scene3) a
"hateful withered hag", and she doesn't miss a beat, but comes
right back at him with an insult that is so true, there is no
rebuking..she calls him an "abortive rooting hog." It is in this
scene she calls him not only a bottled spider, but also a bunched-
backed toad.
Beej
Topic:
October: Richard III (46 of 58), Read 64 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Ann Davey (davey@tconl.com)
Date:
Saturday, September 30, 2000 04:45 PM
Pres,
You could certainly be right, but when I visited the Tower of
London this month the Beefeater guide indicated there was little
doubt Richard disposed of the princes. If not him, than who?
But as Janet has pointed out, all of this historical conjecture is a
digression from the play itself.
Ann
Topic:
October: Richard III (47 of 58), Read 62 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Pres Lancaster (plancast@slip.net)
Date:
Saturday, September 30, 2000 06:19 PM
ANN
I certainly agree that Richard III was most likely responsible for
the death of his two young nephews, Edward V and the Duke of
York. Almost everybody believes so, mostly on the basis of
Shakespeare's drama, but not on the basis of factual evidence.
Note that I say Edward V; he was not just a prince, but King. It is
quite likely that Richard III murdered the King rather than have
him, at 13 years, in the control of his mother and her family, the
Woodvilles.
But then Henry Bolingbroke murdered Richard II after deposing him
to become Henry IV.
JANET
The post of the Dickens is great.
pres,
How do I know what I think until I see what I say ?
Topic:
October: Richard III (48 of 58), Read 66 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Dick Haggart (law@haggart.com)
Date:
Saturday, September 30, 2000 08:07 PM
"When you strike at a king, you must kill him."
--Attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
The Chilbained Lawyer
Topic:
October: Richard III (49 of 58), Read 70 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Barbara Moors (bar647@aol.com)
Date:
Sunday, October 01, 2000 08:10 AM
I agree that the history and the play can be separate animals, but
I certainly think that each adds to the appreciation of the other.
This play, as I said earlier, has been very hard for me to follow
because I keep getting the people mixed up and don't always
understand their familial and political connections. The capsule
histories presented here have straightened all of that out a bit.
Pres, I've printed out that Britannia site. Thanks so much for this
concise history.
It makes sense to me that Shakespeare was a pragmatist. In
order to survive, his plays had to appeal to the royalty in power
which must have affected his presentation of history.
Barb
Topic:
October: Richard III (50 of 58), Read 46 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Janet Mego (vsjego@cs.com)
Date:
Sunday, October 01, 2000 12:27 PM
Beej,
I like Margaret too; she minces no words and is SO colorful and
caustic with her insults! But I'm frustrated--I scanned that scene
twice for the "bottl'd spider" line and somehow missed it both
times. Seems my scanning powers are waning. . .I'd thought it
was in that scene.
I think another reason I like Margaret is she seems the perfect foil
to Anne, who knows what Richard is but lets him "hypnotize" her
into marriage and complete exploitation. Margaret seems the
embodiment of outrage and unabashed accusation to me. I like
her style and admire her courage.
Another question--which may lead back to the "bottled" aspect of
the spider question--is there to be any sympathy for Richard at all
from audiences/readers? How does he compare to Macbeth in this
light and otherwise? It may be too soon for this type of analysis,
but these are the questions that have fascinated me through the
years.
Janet
Topic:
October: Richard III (51 of 58), Read 42 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Candy Minx (candyminx@hotmail.com)
Date:
Sunday, October 01, 2000 02:28 PM
I find with Shakespere that its super helpful and important to read
the first couple of pages very carefully. I think 'historical
correctness' is immaterial to Shakespere, when he writes of
royalty he is using them for their charisma factor not for politics.
It is important to him and now us to see that people 'with
everything' can act like the cheerleader mum and kill her
daughters compitition...royalty is drivien by ambition and so are
the 'little people'. It really doesn't matter that this is royaLTY in
the story, but it adds glamour to morals and behaviours and
ambitions.
there is something wrong with Richards body. He says 'I'm not
shap'd for sportive tricks'. Which means hes not good in bed or
able to be good in bed. He's also not attractive to the ladies. I
think just a little Shakespere has amplified his handicaps so that
we may feel we understand Richards bitterness. He is a sore loser
and bitter, but I think we are able to almost feel sorry for him in
that opening speech. He says that now that war has secured the
state, why are not the people happy and bound together/united.
Instead of being united and there fore prepared to conquer any
enemy, there is in-fighting. there is maybe adultery? He sees the
sexual antics of his peers as wasteful now and he can take
advantage of them...ooh hes sucha bad guy! I feel for him when
he says that he is in this world half made. He is not grown up
completely....raw half finished. He is implying that god has let him
be like this and even dogs are afraid of him and hate him. I think
his deformity is also associated with the idea of evil. We have
always had the icon of cripple or handicap as evil, or sinister---it
is his left side that is most described, and left is traditionally
thought of as evil-ish.
anyway, I love Shakespere I border on being a Shakespere kook...
and am looking forward to reading this today and the
discussions....
Hey I loved the idea of the movie recommendations of Ian
MacCleeans and Al Pacino(I haven't seen that one) and I'm also
going to rent, The Good-bye Girl!!!!(yes, there is R3 in there too
anybody remember?)
Candy giddy on the bard
Topic:
October: Richard III (52 of 58), Read 43 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Candy Minx (candyminx@hotmail.com)
Date:
Sunday, October 01, 2000 02:29 PM
I am laughing so hard at my spelling of Shakespeare, sorry you all
out there, I've got my act together now....
Topic:
October: Richard III (53 of 58), Read 45 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Beej Connor (connorva@mindspring.com)
Date:
Sunday, October 01, 2000 03:20 PM
Janet,
Try Act1, Scene 3. line 242 for the bottled spider reference.
There really is attractiveness to Richard... its part of his ability to
manipulate so completely. It explains why Anne agrees to marry
him..why Clarence trusted him completely. He's just so lustily and
passionately self serving, it becomes funny!
Beej
Topic:
October: Richard III (54 of 58), Read 35 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
S. Bohinka (bohinka@riconnect.com)
Date:
Sunday, October 01, 2000 08:50 PM
For anyone else struggling with Shakespeare like I am, there's a
new book out called: Shakespeare: The Basics by Sean McEvoy,
Routledge, London and NY. (Apparently this is part of a series:
Philosophy: The Basics, etc.)
It looks like a nice overview of Shakespeare's language, stage
action, etc.
There's a section on each 'genre', e.g. Understanding History.
I also noticed that the Folger's series had similar helps along with
each play.
So, I think I'll go read the 'helps'. It wasn't encouraging to see
that those of you who know/like Shakespeare have had trouble
with this play!
Bo
Topic:
October: Richard III (55 of 58), Read 36 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Robert Armstrong (rla@nac.net)
Date:
Sunday, October 01, 2000 10:15 PM
I've rented the Ian McKellen version of RICHARD III and Al Pacino's
LOOKING FOR RICHARD. Will see them this week. So, far I've only
read the play and it's for the first time and I haven't seen the play
performed, so it's all new to me.
The scene I'm most anxious to see is the early scene between
Richard III and Anne. How in the world does she end up marrying
him?? I don't get it. It seems this must be a scene which only
works with great acting.
Robt
Topic:
October: Richard III (56 of 58), Read 34 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Susan Strahan (tales@1001knights.com)
Date:
Monday, October 02, 2000 08:00 AM
I too was a bit baffled at how she went from loathing him to that
bit of flirtation at the end of the scene, but then she is back to
loathing him when she has to marry him. I found her to be a
confusing character.
One of the things that just stunned me and delighted me about
this play was the sheer number of insults per page. This play
really packs them in. I don't think I've ever read anything where
the insults and disparaging comments were packed as thick! ;-)
Of course, it's not just words, either; fair amount of blood spilt,
too. I told my husband that Richard III made MacBeth look like a
children's teaparty by comparison. ;-)
~~Susan~~
"Then would you read a Sustaining Book, such as would help and
comfort a Wedged Bear in Great Tightness?" ---Winnie The Pooh
Topic:
October: Richard III (57 of 58), Read 20 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Beej Connor (connorva@mindspring.com)
Date:
Monday, October 02, 2000 08:03 PM
Anne actually seems to soften after Richard says he killed King
Henry because of her great beauty. She says:
"I would I knew thy heart."
Suddenly she isnt as convinced he is as a "diffused infection of a
man.."
Then, as he continues, she seems to take on the blame of his
hideous deeds:
"If I had thought that, I tell thee, homicide, These nails should
rend that beauty from my cheeks."
Richard pulls all the stops out. He uses tactic after tactic, and in
less than 5 minutes time, has her convinced he loves her, and has
killed because of her.
"And wet his grave with my penitent tears..." He avows his
remorse.
Anne replies:
"With all my heart, and much it joys me too To see you are
become so penitent."
She leaves, and Richard seems as surprised as anybody that she
actually fell for all this balderdash...
"And yet to win her, all the world to nothing!
Ha!
Hath she forgot already that
brave prince....?"
Oh Richard, you low life cad, you!!!!!
Oh Anne, dumbdumbdumbdumbdumb.......
Beej
Topic:
October: Richard III (58 of 58), Read 12 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Pres Lancaster (plancast@slip.net)
Date:
Tuesday, October 03, 2000 06:14 PM
mel·o·dra·ma n. 1.a. A drama, such as a play, film, or television
program, characterized by exaggerated emotions, stereotypical
characters, and interpersonal conflicts.
Fit ?
Pres,
How do I know what I think until I see what I say ?
Topic:
October: Richard III (58 of 71), Read 36 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Felix Miller (felix3rd@bellsouth.net)
Date:
Wednesday, October 04, 2000 08:38 PM
Susan remarks on the number of insults per page; check out the
Falstaff/Hal exchanges in HIV pt 1. Great stuff.
I, too, find Anne's speedy acceptance of Richard's suit
incomprehensible. If WS were a contemporary writer, I might
speculate that he was showing the helplessness of women in a
chauvinistic society. But then there is Queen Margaret, talk about
invective! There were many strong women in Shakespeare's plays,
I don't think he was anything but a compleat humanist.
Greetings from north of the river,
Felix Miller
Topic:
October: Richard III (59 of 71), Read 37 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Barbara Moors (bar647@aol.com)
Date:
Wednesday, October 04, 2000 09:46 PM
Anne seems to be a person who is made dumb by her vanity.
Shakespeare does those kinds of human frailties so well.
Barb
Topic:
October: Richard III (61 of 71), Read 40 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Ann Davey (davey@tconl.com)
Date:
Thursday, October 05, 2000 08:16 PM
I finished Richard III today and just caught up on all these great
notes. I had hoped to rent a tape and follow the text while I
listened to it. However, perhaps because Richard III is not
generally in the high school curriculum, I couldn't find a tape at
the library. I did manage to borrow a BBC video of the play which
I plan to watch now that my son has so kindly shown me how to
work the VCR with our new equipment (well, "newer" equipment;
it's probably 2 years old but I don't usually get to be in charge of
the audio-video machinery).
I just clicked on the first scene of the video and noted that the
actor playing Richard III makes him look very handicapped indeed.
Not only does he have a bad arm, but he more or less lurches
across the stage. Hard to believe that such a man could convince
any woman of his suitability as a mate.
The early scenes with Anne are my favorite, perhaps because an
eon ago I was involved in a teen theater group and played Anne
in class. I am anxious to see how that scene plays in the video
because it is almost impossible for me to believe that she could
willingly accept him. I obviously couldn't pull it off.
Richard is certainly a smooth talker. In some ways it is fun to
watch someone so out and out bad. Candy pointed out that the
opening scene arouses some sympathy for Richard, but I think it is
very quickly dissipated. Janet, I don't think that Richard III has
the depth of Macbeth because he is so one-sided. He has bad
dreams at the end when the ghosts of the people he has killed
haunt him, and he admits that even he dislikes himself, but I didn't
feel a twinge of pity at his passing. The video may make me feel
differently.
I also had a lot of trouble with the characters in this play. The
historical characters were apparently so familiar to his audience
that Shakespeare didn't feel a need to explain them in the play. I
appreciate the historical links people have posted. Almost all the
rules during this period were named Edward or Henry, which
doesn't help.
Robt, have you watched the Ian McKellan version? I love that
guy.
Ann
Topic:
October: Richard III (62 of 71), Read 41 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Janet Mego (vsjego@cs.com)
Date:
Saturday, October 07, 2000 05:26 PM
Ann,
Good points, all. I didn't mind Richard's death, either; in fact, it
seemed overdue and fitting.
I saw this play performed beautifully at the Alabama Shakespeare
Festival in Montgomery, and the actress who played Anne
portrayed her as intricate and complex: tentative and confused
about things; naive, but sad and perhaps anxious to cling to
something that seemed to have potential for good as well as evil.
It worked.
Pres,
Melodramatic? No. The criteria you listed seem to fit a satire or a
soap opera, but never Shakespeare. His emotions are the
products of the most intense human situations, and are
PASSIONATE or inconsistent(as we humans are), often, but never
exaggerated or overdone--and stereotypical
characters?--Never.IMHO.
Janet
Topic:
October: Richard III (63 of 71), Read 37 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Pres Lancaster (plancast@slip.net)
Date:
Saturday, October 07, 2000 06:42 PM
JANET
Of Shakespeare you say, "His emotions are . . . never
exaggerated or overdone . ."
That is, his characters' emotions.
IMHO, Margaret's curses are exaggerated and overdone. Richard's
self characterization is exaggerated and overdone. The stage
Richard is a roaring exaggeration of the historical Richard, which is
what WS, or his sources, intended.
To deny Shakespeare melodrama is rather hard on our greatest
dramatist.
And don't forget Titus Andronicus, though it is probably more
Grand Guignol than melodrama.
Pres,
How do I know what I think until I see what I say ? (Psst! Do you
think he knows what he thinks ?)
Topic:
October: Richard III (64 of 71), Read 39 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Dottie Randall (randallj@ix.netcom.com)
Date:
Sunday, October 08, 2000 05:11 AM
Pres --- LOL over this extended version of your current tagline!
>
>How do I know what I think
>until I see what I say ?
>(Psst! Do you think he knows
>what he thinks ?)
>
My own answer to the question -- which I realize was not
intended to be answered -- is THIS:
We probably shouldn't care whether he knows what he thinks --
as long as he continues to share his thoughts with us on CR
because WHATEVER he thinks and shares has a tendency to make
US think -- which is good for all of us!
Dottie -- thinking life might be truly awful if we all knew what we
really thought about everything and never gave it any further
thought
ID is an oxymoron!
Topic:
October: Richard III (65 of 71), Read 36 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Janet Mego (vsjego@cs.com)
Date:
Sunday, October 08, 2000 08:50 AM
Pres,
To me, the phrase "exaggerated or overdone" implies a lack of
realism. We don't know much about the "historical Richard" or his
"true" personality, and it's true that Shakespeare altered history
to write his plays--he took artistic licence to do, and THIS "lack
of accuracy" is I think a given.
That's not the lack of realism implied in the definition, though. TO
ME, the idea that something is "melodramatic" or "overdone" is to
say it is TOO dramatic or TOO "done," whatever that means. My
response is, "too 'done' or too 'dramatic' for WHOM?
Exaggeration in terms of projection of voice is usually necessary in
any drama. I'll grant that sound level is "exaggerated" during
Shakespeare's plays, especially during times of great emotional
turmoil. And, again, many of the characters and plots of his
dramas involve these types of situations. But I do not see these
scenes as MELOdramatic. This term implies a pejorative, a
superficiality as well, and its application to the Bard oversimplifies
the emotional intricacy and intensity Shakespeare is known for.
Janet
Topic:
October: Richard III (66 of 71), Read 34 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Janet Mego (vsjego@cs.com)
Date:
Sunday, October 08, 2000 08:56 AM
One other point about the "melodrama" of this play--didn't the
term include "stereotypical characters" as one of its definitive
qualities? I just don't see any of S's major characters as
stereotypes.
Janet
Topic:
October: Richard III (67 of 71), Read 31 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Sherry Keller (shkell@earthlink.net)
Date:
Sunday, October 08, 2000 10:01 AM
Janet,
I think that many of Shakespeare's characters are archetypal,
which is different only slightly than stereotypical. But that slight
difference means the world. Archetypal characters resonate with
us all. Stereotypes seem tired and underdeveloped. What's your
take on it?
Sherry
Topic:
October: Richard III (68 of 71), Read 32 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Candy Minx (candyminx@hotmail.com)
Date:
Sunday, October 08, 2000 11:25 AM
Pres, you bring up a good point about realism. This is a matter of
personal taste and philosophy regarding art. Sure there has been
a trend(and I call it a delusion) to make art more and more
'realistic' since Renaisance. Realism is really impossible to achieve
in art and also comes down really to personal needs in art
because of ones taste. Whether something is realistic doesn't
make it better art except to someone who enjoys realism in their
art. My taste says, that Monet and Picasso and Salle are just a s
realistic as Rembrant or Byzantine.
One time a film prof said opening lecture, any time an audience
relates to a character in film is a form of insanity, because its just
light on a wall. Same as in a book its figures on paper. But its darn
fun becomming emotioanlly involved and adds to understanding
the writers intent. I love Douglas Sik movies but they are so
melodramatic with sugar on top, but still there is a truth in them...
Truth can come in diferent packagges, doesn't decrease its
insight...??????
Topic:
October: Richard III (69 of 71), Read 37 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Ann Davey (davey@tconl.com)
Date:
Sunday, October 08, 2000 11:27 AM
I have watched about half the BBC video of this play and it is
excellent. While reading the play I also felt that it was
melodramatic. Richard seemed somewhat over the top, like those
villains in old fashioned melodramas that you love to hate.
However, actually watching the play performed adds an entirely
new dimension. The actor playing Richard makes him a much more
subtle and interesting character. This Richard is an extremely
bitter man, who deeply resents his lameness, his hunchback (not
too pronounced), his useless arm, and his small stature. He has
never experienced real love, even of himself, so he will substitute
power.
The only pleasure he finds in life is conning the rest of the
characters into thinking he is a good man with their interests at
heart, while behind their backs he plots their destruction.
Watching Richard manipulate the rest of the characters is
fascinating. He does a wonderful job of seeming absolutely sincere
as a loving brother and uncle, only giving himself away to the
audience with those many asides.
As for Anne, her first reaction to his declaration of love is horror
and fear. Her father, husband, and father-in-law are all dead.
Who will protect her against Richard? In her world, an upper-class
woman had to ally herself with a man in order to survive. As
Richard continues to woo her with sweet words, and he is very
good indeed, I think she continues to fear him but clings to the
hope that his repentance and love are sincere because she may
not have much choice in the matter.
Ann
Topic:
October: Richard III (70 of 71), Read 17 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Pres Lancaster (plancast@slip.net)
Date:
Sunday, October 08, 2000 01:43 PM
JANET
Our discussion seems to turn on our differing values for the word
"melodrama". I think of the word as descriptive, not pejorative.
Given the desire of some of our best actors to play Richard and
given the history of the play down the years, one doesn't belittle
the play. But there are few plays in the Shakespeare canon that
match Richard III for tearing up the scenery in such a forthright
manner.
I know that to label a play "a melodrama" carries a strong
suggestion of "You don't want to waste your time on that", but to
see the play or read it and accept it and then describe it as "a
melodrama" would not have that connotation without further
additional pejorative material.
I think many actors (and directors) see R3 as a particular
challenge - "How can I do this without having the character and
the whole fall into ridiculousness ?"
An aside: Reading about the play, I have been struck by the fact
that while there are fairly frequent performances, the critics are
less eager to spend time on the subject.
Pres,
How do I know what I think until I see what I say ? (Psst! Do you
think he knows what he thinks ?)
Topic:
October: Richard III (71 of 71), Read 10 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Ann Davey (davey@tconl.com)
Date:
Monday, October 09, 2000 09:12 AM
I finished watching the 3 hour Richard III video, which originally
appeared on BBC TV around 1982 or 1983. Ron Cook, whom I had
never heard of before, did an excellent job of playing Richard III.
Zoe Wanamaker (Sam's daughter?) played Lady Anne.
There was an emotional intensity in Cook's performance which
made Richard at least partially sympathetic throughout the movie,
although it became increasingly difficult to feel positive towards
him as the corpses piled up. His limp was very bad and you could
tell that it humiliated him with every step he took. During the
wooing scene with Anne, he hardly moved at all. As played by
Cook, he was an angry, bitter man;I felt that he was taking
revenge for the bad hand fate had dealt him.
Pres, I think that you are correct that actors' like this part
because it is such a challenge to play. It would be so easy to
make Richard a one dimensional villain. It's much more difficult to
play him so that he elicits at least some audience understanding.
Janet, how was Richard played in the production you saw? Has
anybody watched the Ian Mckellan movie yet?
Ann
Topic:
October: Richard III (72 of 88), Read 33 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Janet Mego (vsjego@cs.com)
Date:
Tuesday, October 10, 2000 09:15 PM
Ann,
Ray Chambers created an evil, sardonic and blase' Richard who
was often offhand and ironic to the point of subtle humor about
his evilness and the naivety of the other characters. He played
an intricate and complex character, in my view, NOT a
stereotype. He was brilliant, dressed all in black with a bright red
lining to his cape, reminiscent of a bottl'd black widow spider,
with an equally complex leather and metal leg brace, and a
background of web-like wooden levels of flooring and balconies:
the perfect setting for this arachnid predator.
Pres, I'm still looking at the definition you posted and am still not
convinced that these characters are stereotypes or that the
emotions are "overdone." Descriptive or pejorative, the criteria for
the definition do not seem to fit this play. Not wanting to beat
the point to death, I just don't see this as melodrama.
Janet
Topic:
October: Richard III (73 of 88), Read 33 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Robert Armstrong (rla@nac.net)
Date:
Wednesday, October 11, 2000 06:22 AM
I viewed the Ian McKellan film version of Richard III last night.
(SPOILER ALERT: this post will discuss the film.) This is not my
favorite Shakespeare play, so far. Perhaps I'll feel differently if I
see the play live. McKellen is fairly awesome. At times he is
magnificent with a commanding presence. What falls short is my
sympathy, I guess. I can't feel sorry for the man. Rather just
sickened. He reminded me of Milosevic: someone who causes so
much death for personal gain. These are tragic types and do
exist.
I think that a lot of enjoyment of the story depends on the
understanding of the set up, a previous awareness of the
historical characters and an emotional bond with the eventual
victor would make it all come alive. I can see how it was tailor
made for the Elizabethan audience. Even though I just read the
play I was still scrambling to understand who everybody was and
straining to place their loyalties and motivations. The film did a
good job in assisting this but I'm still dense.
The film was set in 1940's England and Richard was a fascist
prototype. As he gained power the country takes on a Nazi look
and this works very well. Anne becomes a morphine addict to kill
her pain and that works well also. I still couldn't comprehend her
choice to marry Richard. An effective scene is when Buckingham
asks Richard for his promised reward and Richard refuses.
Buckingham's subsequent realization that he was used is chilling.
The concept that Richard chooses power over love because he
feels unloved comes across. The cast is good and the costumes
gorgeous. I would love to hear a second opinion.
Robt
Topic:
October: Richard III (74 of 88), Read 35 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Dick Haggart (law@haggart.com)
Date:
Wednesday, October 11, 2000 09:14 AM
Robert: I have been a big fan of this production since it first
came out. Like you I thought McKellan's portrayal was
outstanding and the use of the neo-fascist, modern setting
extremely effective.
As you note, Ann's decision to marry Richard seems inexplicable,
in part because McKellan's Richard is so loathsome and so
malevolent, it's impossible to imagine his oily charm actually
prevailing upon a person. Olivier's version made for a more
charming Richard, on occasion at least, if I recall correctly but it's
been years since I last saw it.
Others have remarked on the problem of Ann, and I think one
difficulty is our modern inability to accept something Elizabethans
would have found less problematic: that a woman of the time
would attach herself to a strong man, simply because he was
strong, and not because she necessarily loved or admired him.
I think the McKellan version of the play gets a bit high-centered
on this issue, with Ann's character lying half-way between a
traditional Shakespearean Ann and an interpretation suggesting
one of the Mitford sisters.
Your mention of Buckingham's realization of betrayal recalled one
of my favorite, and poignant, scenes with Clarence in his bath,
protesting that his brother "loves him well", as the assassins
patiently explain that the old fellow is about to die -- on his
brother's orders.
Sheer propaganda to delight Tudor audiences, I think, but still a
play that I find interesting and intriguing, and this film version is
(for this year at least) my favorite interpretation.
The Chilbained Lawyer
Topic:
October: Richard III (75 of 88), Read 36 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Robert Armstrong (rla@nac.net)
Date:
Wednesday, October 11, 2000 09:32 AM
Dick,
That is a very good point about Ann going for a strong man for
protection rather than love, as an Elizabethan woman would do.
Thanks for your assessment of this fine flick. Years ago, I saw
Ian McKellen do a solo show on Broadway of Shakespearian
characters and he was really something. Fine actor. It seems all
the great Shakespearian actors are getting old and dying off.
Where are the young Oliviers, Richardsons, Guilguds, Guinesses
and McKellens? Maybe Ralph Fiennes. Who else?
Next I will view Pacino's LOOKING FOR RICHARD. (He's getting up
there, too.)
Robt
Topic:
October: Richard III (76 of 88), Read 37 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Dick Haggart (law@haggart.com)
Date:
Wednesday, October 11, 2000 10:27 AM
There's that short guy, was married to Emma Thompson, am
blanking on his name. He's done some good work.
The Chilbained Lawyer
Topic:
October: Richard III (77 of 88), Read 36 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Dick Haggart (law@haggart.com)
Date:
Wednesday, October 11, 2000 10:30 AM
Kenneth Branaugh. That short guy.
The Chilbained Lawyer
Topic:
October: Richard III (78 of 88), Read 36 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Robert Armstrong (rla@nac.net)
Date:
Wednesday, October 11, 2000 10:58 AM
I'd like to see his Hamlet. The play, that is.
Robt
Topic:
October: Richard III (79 of 88), Read 37 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Dick Haggart (law@haggart.com)
Date:
Wednesday, October 11, 2000 11:20 AM
Heh. In some of those costumes, you damned near can. It was
really good. I also very much enjoyed his Henry V -- but that
play could put blood in the eye of a Quaker in any event.
The Chilbained Lawyer
Topic:
October: Richard III (80 of 88), Read 36 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Candy Minx (candyminx@hotmail.com)
Date:
Wednesday, October 11, 2000 11:51 AM
Well, I watched the Olivier version the other night. The acting
was great, but the movie sucked. Anne seems to be impressed by
his act of murder as some kind of proof how much he loves. Then
finds out there is not to be a sleepful night ever in his bed...sort
of because he is evil and tosses and turns and moans(hmmm)
It's weird that after stories like this humans continue to have
shitheads...see this is a case where art is almost useless, haven't
vile selfish CEOs and ambitious producers ever seen or read this
play? I guess its charm is to see such a bad guy and its kind of
like a lot of characters, like citizen Kane, who has to search and
shop for his lost childhood with his consumerism and rise to
power. With Richard as was sid earlier, he had to fill his heart
with power to feel loved. Its a comentary on birth defects too
and how his left side was crippled and mauled in the womb(blame
the mother again ha ha)his left side the sinister side and how
likely superstitious prejudice of his family raised such a
person...unloved and prejudiced and hurtful.
But this is not my favourite Shakespeare by any means.
I have Looking For Richard yet to watch...
Topic:
October: Richard III (81 of 88), Read 36 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Dale Short (dshort5005@aol.com)
Date:
Wednesday, October 11, 2000 11:52 AM
Dick: Amen. "We few. We proud. We brave..."
Goshamighty, it doesn't get much better than that. Where's my
sword?
>>Dale in Ala.
Topic:
October: Richard III (82 of 88), Read 39 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Dick Haggart (law@haggart.com)
Date:
Wednesday, October 11, 2000 12:22 PM
Thought this speech was worth quoting:
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead!
In peace there’s nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour’d rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let it pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon; let the brow o’erwhelm it
As fearfully as doth a galled rock
O’erhang and jutty his confounded base,
Swill’d with the wild and wasteful ocean. 1
Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath, and bend up every spirit
To his full height! On, on, you noblest English!
Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof;
Fathers that, like so many Alexanders,
Have in these parts from morn till even fought,
And sheath’d their swords for lack of argument.
Dishonour not your mothers; now attest 24
That those whom you call’d fathers did beget you.
Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to war. And you, good yeomen,
Whose limbs were made in England, show us here 28
The mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;
For there is none of you so mean and base
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start. The game’s afoot:
Follow your spirit; and, upon this charge
Cry ‘God for Harry! England and Saint George!’
'Scuse me. Got to go split some froggy heads now.
The Chilbained Lawyer
Topic:
October: Richard III (83 of 88), Read 39 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Dick Haggart (law@haggart.com)
Date:
Wednesday, October 11, 2000 12:38 PM
And, on the morning of Agincourt, when the Duke of
Westmoreland wishes for some of the men sitting idle in England
to aid the out-numbered English army, Henry says (Dale's quote
above):
What’s he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin:
If we are mark’d to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God’s will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires:
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England:
God’s peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more, methinks, would share from me,
For the best hope I have. O! do not wish one more:
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man’s company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call’d the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam’d,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian. 48
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say, ‘To-morrow is Saint Crispian:’
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say, ‘These wounds I had on Crispin’s day.’
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he’ll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words,
Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember’d.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered; 64
We few, we happy few, we band of brother;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile
This day shall gentle his condition: 68
And gentlemen in England, now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.
The Chilbained Lawyer
Topic:
October: Richard III (84 of 88), Read 41 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Dale Short (dshort5005@aol.com)
Date:
Wednesday, October 11, 2000 01:45 PM
Dick: Woh. Goosebumps. Man, that is some beautiful writing.
>>Dale in Ala.
Topic:
October: Richard III (85 of 88), Read 16 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Pres Lancaster (plancast@slip.net)
Date:
Wednesday, October 11, 2000 07:20 PM
I thought the quote below quite telling. It is from 3 Henry VI,
spoken by Queen Margaret (of Anjou), Henry's wife/widow.
Richard, Duke of York, father of Edward (Edward IV), George
(Duke of Clarence), and Richard (Richard III), has tried to depose
Henry VI ("pious and incompetent"), and has been killed in battle;
Henry VI's son and heir is killed in another battle.
The references are to the three York sons:
And what is Edward but a ruthless sea ?
What Clarence but a quicksand of deceit ?
And Richard but a ragged fatal rock ?
All these the enemies to our poor bark.
Say you can swim, alas, 'tis but a while;
Tread on the sand, why, there you quickly sink;
Bestride the rock, the tide will wash you off,
Or else you famish - that's a threefold death.
This speak I, lords, to let you understand,
In case some one of you would fly from us,
That there's no hop'd for mercy with the brothers
More than with ruthless waves, with sands and rocks.
Pres,
How do I know what I think until I see what I say ? (Psst! Do you
think he knows what he thinks ?)
Topic:
October: Richard III (86 of 88), Read 19 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Pres Lancaster (plancast@slip.net)
Date:
Wednesday, October 11, 2000 08:41 PM
I will here state that "melodrama" does not fit Richard III - that
is, Richard III is not a melodrama. I'll aver that it is not of the
same genre as "Uncle Tom's Cabin", one of the classic examples
of melodrama.
Not tragedy; not comedy. A history play, of very imperfect
history.
I'll hold that Richard is stereotypical in that he is an
"oversimplified convention" and thus satisfies the definition of the
term.
The Encyclopedia Britannia says of melodrama, ". . . drama with
an improbable plot that concerns the vicissitudes suffered by the
virtuous at the hands of the villainous but ends happily with
virtue triumphant."
The virtuous: Well, not Clarence. Hastings, maybe. Margaret,
Elizabeth, Anne, the Princes.
The villainous: Richard, Duke of Gloucester, and his minions.
Ends happily with virtue triumphant: Richard killed in battle; Henry
Tudor to become Henry VII.
********************************************
A side note: In the near classic Greek Tragedy by H.D.F. Kitto, K
says of Aeschylus' Supplices, "We have all sympathy for one side,
none for the other, but it is in melodrama, not in tragedy, that
the side we sympathize with must be wholly right."
And in a chapter entitled NEW TRAGEDY: EURIPIDIES'
MELODRAMAS, K says of Electra and Orestes, "These two plays
are melodramatic, not tragic;"
********************************************
JANET, I do agree; Richard III is not melodrama. I think, though,
that the notion repays thinking. If not melodrama, what ?
Pres,
How do I know what I think until I see what I say ? (Psst! Do you
think he knows what he thinks ?)
Topic:
October: Richard III (87 of 88), Read 20 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Dick Haggart (law@haggart.com)
Date:
Wednesday, October 11, 2000 08:59 PM
Hah! Kitto! Freshman year. All us geezers received the same
education.
The Chilbained Lawyer
Topic:
October: Richard III (88 of 88), Read 22 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Dick Haggart (law@haggart.com)
Date:
Wednesday, October 11, 2000 09:00 PM
Well, not quite. I not only can't quote from my copy, I'd have to
scrounge the shelves for it. But, in spirit, we're together on this
one, Pres.
The Chilbained Lawyer
Topic:
October: Richard III (74 of 94), Read 37 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Ann Davey (davey@tconl.com)
Date:
Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:23 AM
Pres,
I'm not sure Margaret was really one of the good guys. She too
could be very brutal.
In real life she was a very strong woman married to the weak and
completely ineffective Henry VI. With French support and that of
Anne Neville's father the Earl of Warwick, she organized armies to
fight against the house of York in the name of her husband and
son.
In his plays, Shakespeare says that she drove a dagger into the
heart of Richard III's father, the Duke of York, and he also
implicates her in the death of Richard's 17 year old brother
Rutland. Putting a paper crown on the father's head, she mocked
him and he cursed her. Her murder of the senior Duke of York and
the Duke's subsequent curse seems to be an invention, but it is
effective dramatically. In Richard III, Richard says:
The curse my noble father laid on thee,
When thou didst crown his warlike brows with paper,
And with thy scorns drew'st rivers from his eyes,
And then, to dry them, gavest the duke a clout,
Steep'd in the faultless blood of pretty Rutland,-
His curses, then from bitterness of soul
Denounced against thee, are all fall'n upon thee;
And God, not we, hath plagued thy bloody deed.
What goes around, comes around?
Topic:
(no subject) (75 of 94), Read 53 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Susan Stroud (astroud@icomnet.com)
Date:
Friday, October 13, 2000 07:42 AM
unsubscribe
Topic:
(no subject) (76 of 94), Read 58 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Steve Warbasse (wk4@uswest.net)
Date:
Friday, October 13, 2000 08:30 AM
Here is a Constant Reader who has quite obviously lost interest.
Ah well, former Constant Readers are coming to inhabit the world
in significant numbers.
Steve
Topic:
(no subject) (77 of 94), Read 66 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Dottie Randall (randallj@ix.netcom.com)
Date:
Friday, October 13, 2000 08:43 AM
Steve -- she did an unsubscribe up in the Constant Reader
conference also -- I don't think these are kosher but it's obvious
she's dumping us for now!
Dottie
ID is an oxymoron!
Topic:
(no subject) (78 of 94), Read 68 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Dick Haggart (law@haggart.com)
Date:
Friday, October 13, 2000 10:26 AM
Yeah, like, what does 'unsubscribe' do?
I'd try it, but I'm kind of worried about my computer signing off
the internet permanently or something.
The Chilbained Lawyer
Topic:
(no subject) (79 of 94), Read 63 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Ann Davey (davey@tconl.com)
Date:
Friday, October 13, 2000 11:33 AM
There is a little email symbol in the right hand corner of the
unsubscribe message, so I suspect Susan no longer wants to
receive the CC discussions downloaded to her email.
Gee, we're so wonderful :). Why would anyone ever want to
leave?
Ann
Topic:
(no subject) (80 of 94), Read 57 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Janet Mego (vsjego@cs.com)
Date:
Friday, October 13, 2000 09:19 PM
Now, THAT'S melodrama!!!
Pres,
Interesting question--what is "high drama?"
Janet
Topic:
(no subject) (81 of 94), Read 44 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Candy Minx (candyminx@hotmail.com)
Date:
Friday, October 13, 2000 10:50 PM
eek, is this where I post re:Richard lll?
I'm lost...
I was trying to find former posts on R3 because I couldn't
remember if anyone had posted about Harold Blooms book on
Shakespeare...I dug out my copy and I forgot what truly great
reading it is.
Pres, I thought of you today when I was reading blooms take on
R3 because he says how weak it is as far as Shakespeares
development as a writer. Does he use the idea melodrama? uh
no...
...and makes us all into the Lady Anne, playing upon the profound
sadomasicism that any audience creates merely by assembling.
We are there to be entertained by the suffering of others.
Richard co-opts us as fellow torturers, sharing guilty pleasures
with the added frisson that we may join the victims,
if the dominant hunchback detects any failure in our complicity.
Marlowe was sadomasochistic, but rather unsubtly, as in the
gruesome execution of Edwardll murdered by the insertion of a
white hot poker in his anus. Shakespeare, resonably free of such
cruel prurience, shocks more profoundly by rendering us incapable
of resisting Richards cruel charms...
....What , then is Richards peculiar charm, that alone rescues
Shakespeares perpetually popular melodrama? Sadomasochistic
sexuality is certainly a crucial component:to surmise R#'s
bedroom behaviour with Anne is to indulge one's unhealthiest
fantasies. We are not told how she dies, only that,"Anne my wife
hath bid this world good night" doubtless delivered with a certain
relish. But kinkiness alone cannot account for Richards exuberant
appeal:endless gusto aappears to be his secret, energy that
delights and terrifies. He is like a Panurge turned from mischief to
malevolence, vitalism transmorgrified into the death drive. All of
us, hai audience, require periodic rest and recharging, Richard
incessantly surges on, from victim to victim, in quest of more
power to hurt. His allianceof gusto and trimphalism
Shakespeare a new kind of nasty comedy....
'But now Richard takes command of the sun, and genially invites
us to share in his triumph over Annes virtue, expressed as only
another of the worlds hypocrisy: 'And yet to win her, all the world
to nothing' That subsequent Ha!is intoxicating, a grand expletive
for a great actor. Richards gusto is more than theatrical, his
triumphalism blends into theatricalism, and becomes
Shakespeare's celebration of his medium, and so of his rapidly
developing art. Toinvent Richard is to create a great monster, but
one that will be refined into Shakespeare's invention of the
human, of which Iago, to everyone's delight and sorrow, will
constitute so central a part.'
Topic:
(no subject) (82 of 94), Read 51 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
George Healy (malword@aol.com)
Date:
Saturday, October 14, 2000 06:26 AM
In drama, lies are true.
Some people tell us more about themselves with their lies than at
any other time. Richard has monologues, but they are mostly
self-congratulatory. But Richard's lies... ah, they say so much. In
III.7, Richard falsely resists being crowned king, saying that: '...
so much is my poverty of spirit, so mighty and so many my
defects, that I would rather hide me from my greatness...' and:
'... I am unfit for state and majesty.'
Part of this is political expedience (don't seem too eager for
power)... but a deeper part is powerfully compulsive. I suspect
that rather than hiding from his greatness, he's hiding from his
inner void. Can an ugly man woo a beautiful widow? Can a
spiritual savage become royal? Can a cripple become an
accomplished warrior? Richard lives to refute himself, alter his
given situation and status, willing at the end to trade (and he
means this) an entire kingdom for the means to strike at his
enemies.
When he accepts the crown he says: 'Will you enforce me to a
world of cares? I am not made of stones, but penetrable to your
kind entreaties, albeit against my conscience and my soul.' A very
interesting choice of words. Perhaps they reveal some motivation.
Richard is unable to care about anyone, including himself. Now,
being king forces him to at least care about something, namely
retaining power. He wants to be made of stone, impenetrable, an
awesome human battlement with nothing at the core. As for his
soul... aren't scabs fascinating? Who here hasn't poked at a
scab, amazed that something made of skin feels nothing
whatsoever? Richard is mentally and verbally poking at his own
conscience, realizing it is dead and awestruck at how far he can
go without any coherent pangs of guilt.
Personally, I think Richard is doing what we all do... maneuvering
himself into a position where he must begin to care while
attempting to mortar over the disturbing elements in his own
personality. His methods, however, are truly villainous: He wants
to become someone else while reducing everyone around to what
he believes they are. A very dark ambition....
Topic:
(no subject) (83 of 94), Read 52 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Candy Minx (candyminx@hotmail.com)
Date:
Saturday, October 14, 2000 12:39 PM
Wow, George, you are a good writer, and so far you've done it
again, helped me understand a character and story that was
fumbling around out of reach on me...!!!
Topic:
Richard III (84 of 94), Read 47 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Sherry Keller (shkell@earthlink.net)
Date:
Saturday, October 14, 2000 03:03 PM
I agree, George. Very good note.
Sherry
Topic:
Richard III (85 of 94), Read 24 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Barbara Moors (bar647@aol.com)
Date:
Sunday, October 15, 2000 08:53 AM
I finished Richard III yesterday and read through these excellent
notes. As usual, they added enormously to the experience. I had
many of the same problems that have been mentioned here.
Keeping the characters straight when they were referred to by
different names was the biggest of them. It also took me a good
while to get any feel for Richard or for any of the other
characters actually. The characters in Lear, Othello and MacBeth
seemed to have a depth and complexity that were lacking here. I
mention those three because they are the only other
Shakespearean plays I've read (embarrassing to be such a
novice).
On the other hand, I find myself wanting to read this again now
that I have characters a little straighter in my mind. Since I don't
have the time for this, will haunt my library system for an audio
version. Will let you know if I find anything good, Ann.
My Folger edition had an excellent article by Phyllis Rackin which I
actually wish I'd read before the play. I'm going to copy the
opening paragraph here instead of inadequately paraphrasing it:
From the standpoint of Tudor history, the most important event
in Richard III is the conclusion, and the most important
character is Richmond. The victory of Queen Elizabeth's
grandfather at Bosworth Field and his marriage to Elizabeth of
York ended the Wars of the Roses and established the Tudor
dynasty. On Shakespeare's stage, however, the future Henry VII
was a pallid figure with a minimal part, and he was not even
mentioned on the title page of the first published edition which
identified the play as "The Tragedy of Richard the third,
Containing, His treacherous Plots against his brother Clarence:
the pittiefull murther of his iunocent nephewes: his tyrannicall
usurpation: with the whole course of his detested life, and most
deserved death." The monstrous villain of Tudor history became
the star of Shakespeare's play. Almost always onstage, he
dominates the dramatic action in a role that has attracted
leading actors from Shakespeare's time to our own.
I tend to think of William Shakespeare as a politic kind of guy who
knew that he had to please royalty in order to continue to have
the freedom to produce his plays. It's notable to me that he
walked this line of making Richard such a despicable character,
yet also made him, by far, the most interesting character on the
stage.
Barb
Topic:
Richard III (86 of 94), Read 24 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Ann Davey (davey@tconl.com)
Date:
Sunday, October 15, 2000 12:21 PM
Barb,
Good point that Richard is by far the most interesting character in
the play. Oh sure, he's crafty and despicable (hey, nobody's
perfect), but he is also very clever and totally skilled at playing
whatever part is most expedient at the time. It's fascinating to
watch him operate.
I can say that about few of the other characters. For the most
part, they seem hopelessly naive. Clarence, King Edward,
Hastings, and Anne Neville are all out of their element in dealing
with Richard. The King at least has a fatal illness as an excuse,
and Anne may be too frightened by her powerless position to
cope effectively, but Clarence really does comes off as naive and
almost childish.
Admittedly, naive is not a word I would ever apply to Margaret of
Anjou. However, she is not a fully developed character--more like
an abstract voice of fate and revenge, wildly cursing the entire
cast of other characters. In fact, the only one who really
competes with Richard for my interest is Buckingham, another bad
guy but one who is at least willing to draw the line at murdering
children.
Is evil just more interesting than good?
Also, what do you all think? Does Richard ever show signs of true
remorse? Is so, does that make him more human and therefore
less of a stereotypical villain?
My conscience hath a thousand several tongues,
And every tongue brings in a several tale,
And every tale condemns me for a villain.
Perjury, perjury, in the high'st degree;
Murder, stern murder, in the direst degree;
All several sins, all used in each degree,
Throng to the bar, crying all "Guilty! guilty!'
I shall despair. There is no creature loves me;
And if I die, no soul will pity me:
Nay wherefore should they, since that I myself
Find in myself no pity to myself?
Ann
Topic:
Richard III (87 of 94), Read 22 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Ernest Belden (drernest@pacbell.net)
Date:
Monday, October 16, 2000 12:36 AM
Hi,
As I am approaching the end of Richard III I decided to look at all
(or almost all) your comments. The most puzzling one was the
person who writes:
UNSUBSCRIBE !
What did she mean? Unsubscribe to CC, or is it worse,
Shakespeare or perhaps computers in general. Well I have gone
to periods myself when all I wanted to do was unsubscribing to
the world ot even the Universe. However I never did unsubscribe
being rescued by an interesting book, a good conversation and
last but not least a glass of Napa Merlot Yet I respect a person's
right to subscribe or unsubscribe to most anything.
I had the same problems with Richard III as some of you. Getting
the characters straight, getting used to the antiquated language.
Perhaps I had more trouble with it than anyone else on CC since
English is not my native language (nor is Esperanto) but German
is. But some of S's plays I have read were less difficult for me. I
do remember I had hardly any trouble with Julius Caesar in High
school. Perhaps because I was younger at that time.
But the play did, what it was supposed to do, arouse my curiosity
and wish to read up on it. I have heard so much about the War of
the Roses but had no idea what this was all about.
Well I better quit now and finish the play.
Ernie
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (88 of 94), Read 22 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Susan Strahan (tales@1001knights.com)
Date:
Monday, October 16, 2000 09:00 AM
Though I realize this discussion is winding down, I was waiting to
see if anyone else noticed what I'd noticed in the play...I guess
not. :-)
One of the things that struck me was that the group of women in
the play seem to have Richard's number from the very beginning.
Even though Anne vacillates, she begins with a terrific
denunciation. Then there are other scenes with the women
together in which they all agree that Richard is up to no good.
But, of course, being women at that time in history they are not
in a position to stop him.
The men in this play however seem to have no clue what Richard
is up to and are universally dismayed (and killed) by his betrayals
and treachery.
It just struck me as really interesting that the women were
inclined not to trust him from the outset and that the men in the
play trusted him with their lives---right up to the point their lives
were forfeit.
~~Susan~~
"Then would you read a Sustaining Book, such as would help and
comfort a Wedged Bear in Great Tightness?" ---Winnie The Pooh
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (89 of 94), Read 22 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Sherry Keller (shkell@earthlink.net)
Date:
Monday, October 16, 2000 09:12 AM
There are two times where Richard does his snakecharmer bit.
One is Anne, of course, and then another is when he is arguing to
marry the young Elizabeth. Both times, the women try to stand
pat, but they have this battle going on between their hearts and
their heads. Their hearts know what Richard is and you can
almost feel the will draining from them. Then their heads give in
to the "logic" of Richard.
Sherry
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (90 of 94), Read 23 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Susan Strahan (tales@1001knights.com)
Date:
Monday, October 16, 2000 09:24 AM
Yeah, but the point is...the women know in some part of their
brain that he is bad news but the guys in this book go blithely
along with nary a clue that they may lose their heads. He may
seduce the women with his charm (?) but he dupes the men so
totally that they typically don't even have a qualm. Sometimes it
seemed to me like the men in this play were really dim
bulbs--especially since we've got the women basically spelling out
what sorts of disasters Richard is going to precipitate. it seemed
to me that the women are sort of like a greek chorus addressing
the audience while the main action involves men dumbly being
betrayed.
(OK I know I'm painting with a broad brush here...) :-)
~~Susan~~
"Then would you read a Sustaining Book, such as would help and
comfort a Wedged Bear in Great Tightness?" ---Winnie The Pooh
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (91 of 94), Read 20 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Sherry Keller (shkell@earthlink.net)
Date:
Monday, October 16, 2000 10:00 AM
I guess my point in return is that when not directly confronted
with Richard, the women had his number. But when confronted,
they folded just like the men.
Sherry
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (92 of 94), Read 21 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Candy Minx (candyminx@hotmail.com)
Date:
Monday, October 16, 2000 11:39 AM
Susan, this is a fabulous observation(you SAW! something) and I
commend you and feel like kicking myself for not noticing that.
For years I have been enjoying the aspect of mystery movies/film
noir and how the women always know whats going on. I even
wrote a poem about this. From Maltese Falcon to Bladerunner the
women know the inside scoop to the murderers or the mystery. In
Chinatown Polanski pays homage to this by having something
amiss in Faye Dunaways eye. The writers or directors of this
genre often have the womans eye referred to in some way, in a
subtle way letting/reminding the audience of her SIGHT. Now I
wonder if this tradition started in R3. I hmm wonder of anyone
noticed any reference to the female eyes in it? I know I didn't.
Some examples I can think of in the past of movies was in
Maltese Flacon, Bogart knoows what she has short sight I can't
remember, but in Bladerunner, the robot Sean Young has her eyes
tested, and she passes, the movie Snake Eyes has the female
actually lose her glasses...
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (93 of 94), Read 5 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Janet Mego (vsjego@cs.com)
Date:
Monday, October 16, 2000 07:11 PM
I think evil IS more interesting than good--but each, when when
juxtaposed with its opposite, becomes even more interesting by
contrast.
Richard IS evil, but he also has the irresistible charm inherent in a
twisted, ironic sense of humor. He's the "bad-boy charmer" of
every woman's experience, I think, which is one element making
him complex and individual rather than static and flat.
George, as always, enjoyed your note and a few others,--Susan
and Candy, but others too. How do you think Richard compares
with Iago of Othello, for Pure Villainy?
Fascinating to compare characters sometimes. . .
Janet
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (94 of 94), Read 4 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Pres Lancaster (plancast@slip.net)
Date:
Monday, October 16, 2000 07:32 PM
To compare Richard III and Iago, first tell what motivates each.
Richard, desire for power? Iago, jealousy of position or racial
hatred?
Pres,
How do I know what I think until I see what I say ? (Psst! Do you
think he knows what he thinks ?)
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (95 of 110), Read 50 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Barbara Moors (bar647@aol.com)
Date:
Monday, October 16, 2000 08:40 PM
Ann, I honestly don't think that evil is always more interesting
though I know that many would disagree with me. I just think
that, in this play, Shakespeare put all of his efforts into Richard
and sketched the rest with a very light brush.
Interesting point, Susan. I agree that the women seemed to have
had a sense of Richard's evil from the beginning even if two of
them couldn't resist. Aren't we supposed to think that Richmond
and his followers saw Richard in his true colors as well though?
Barb
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (96 of 110), Read 46 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
George Healy (malword@aol.com)
Date:
Tuesday, October 17, 2000 05:31 AM
All: some very good points to chew on.
Unfortunately, R3 is not an Othello... it's not even an R2 or a King
John. There is no complex interweaving of characters, at least
not psychologically. The women may see R in a truer (but more
distant) light, though it strikes me like being the first person on a
plane to notice the wings are on fire... you end up in the same
crash as the ignorant.
Iago and Richard. Iago is the director of 'Othello'. He 'stage
manages' the characters with eerie precision. Richard is a
character in a play that suspects he is a character in a play. To
me, the most unsettling thing about Richard is how intimate he
becomes with us, the audience. Iago is a villain and a work of art
of a much higher order, so it's almost unfair to compare the two.
I think it's more productive to compare R to, say, Marlowe's
Tamburlaine... both are villains with some heroic traits, both
succeed mainly through use of seductive rhetoric, but only
Richard gives me the sense that he wishes the audience was IN
the play, in range of his manipulation. Or even worse, that he
could get beyond the bounds of his fiction, and start dealing
directly with us....
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (97 of 110), Read 47 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Sherry Keller (shkell@earthlink.net)
Date:
Tuesday, October 17, 2000 08:17 AM
Boy, that's a scary thought, George.
Sherry
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (98 of 110), Read 48 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Dottie Randall (randallj@ix.netcom.com)
Date:
Tuesday, October 17, 2000 08:37 AM
Sherry -- LOL -- that was EXACTLY what I remarked to myself
after reading George's post! It IS a chilling thought isn't it?
Dottie
ID is an oxymoron!
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (99 of 110), Read 47 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Susan Strahan (tales@1001knights.com)
Date:
Tuesday, October 17, 2000 09:23 AM
The idea that Richard sees himself as within a play ("all the
world's a stage" ) is interesting. One of the uncomfortable things
about this play is that Richard is the lead, he's the protagonist.
We are privy to his thoughts, his plans, his schemes and dreams.
If he weren't a ruthless SOB (eg if he were a good guy) we'd be
rooting for him.
It was a bit horrific to be drug along, captive, with Richard as he
executed his plans (and quite a few people). It was almost like
Richard held us hostage and we were hauled from scene to
scene, seeing it all unfold, but unable to do anything about it
(rather like the women in this play).
I wondered how Shakespeare's original audience reacted to this.
Were they horrified or at least uncomfortable to be put into the
position by the playwrite of almost being forced to embrace this
protagonist?
Or did they get a vicarious kick at the amount of power he was
able to amass and use? I have to wonder how it played in the
peanut gallery. Richard was not a legitimate successor to the
throne, yet he schemed his way to a position of (almost)
unstoppable power. I sort of suspect that might have been a
crowd-pleaser to the downtrodden masses, with their own petty
schemes and dreams to get ahead or stick it to the landlord or
whoever was hassling them.
~~Susan~~
"Then would you read a Sustaining Book, such as would help and
comfort a Wedged Bear in Great Tightness?" ---Winnie The Pooh
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (100 of 110), Read 49 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Pres Lancaster (plancast@slip.net)
Date:
Tuesday, October 17, 2000 11:31 AM
GEORGE:
An astute reading and a great post.
SUSAN:
I am pretty sure the audience of the period lapped it up. One
could say that, for the time, it was as juicy as Clinton and
Monica, though not as prurient.
ABOUT THE LADIES:
Allen Bloom on the subject of Richard II, an earlier subject but
written later:
"Whereas all the principal men in Richard II are artificial, and none
particularly admirable, the three women in the play (Richard's
queen and the Duchess of York in addition to the Duchess of
Gloucester) are all both natural and admirable. They love their
husbands and their children. Humanity, banished by the men,
seems to have taken refuge in the women. For varying but
related reasons these women cannot depend on the men in their
families; and in their sufferings they do not appear to hope in
God. They endure, and in their fortitude they provide a measure
for the failings of the men to whom they are most nearly related .
. ."
Following this analysis, I would say that the women in Richard III
are not so closely related to the men but rather stand apart as a
chorus, as I believe somebody here has already said.
ASIDE:
Bloom's essay, as you can see from the above, talks intensely
about the play, but quotes the language only twice and that not
of a muchness. I boggle.
Pres,
Fly at once; all is discovered !
How do I know what I think until I see what I say ? (Psst! Do you
think he knows what he thinks ?)
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (101 of 110), Read 58 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Candy Minx (candyminx@hotmail.com)
Date:
Tuesday, October 17, 2000 05:28 PM
This is much of the enjoyment of R3 is that we follow and are
seduced into his movements, you're right about this George. It
ties into some of what I posted earlier from Harold Bloom too
about watching his sadomasichistic actions. I just finished
Looking For Richard, Steve, great recommendation. I think I might
have to buy a copy of this film, it was so awesome. And Pacino
says also the attraction of this play(it is apparently the most
performed of Shakespeare) is that R3 says I'm going to do this
this and that...and then he does it and we just follow along with
it, his willing accomplices. I was paraphrasing there...
there is an hilarious part where the whole purpose of the movie is
to show how the actor owns Shakespeare but then Pacino wants
to ask a scholar WHY does Anne fall for R3 and Pacinos assistant
chews him out why would he succumb to seeking scholarly
advice, but Pacino says everyone has a right to comment....then
cut to scholar dude and he says, Why does Anne fall for R3? I
don't know.
It was so funny.
This is a great comparrison the thing between Anne and R3 and
Disgrace and Lucys life...
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (102 of 110), Read 44 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Robert Armstrong (rla@nac.net)
Date:
Tuesday, October 17, 2000 07:55 PM
Been having computer troubles and now that I have access I'll
quickly post this note I composed earlier. Haven't read all the
above notes but I will later. I get withdrawal without this
webboard!
Finally, I got around to seeing LOOKING FOR RICHARD. Al Pacino
wrote, directed, produced and starred in this exploration of
RICHARD III which is my favorite version so far because it makes
the play understandable. The film is a documentary about Al
Pacino's creative process of filming R3. He assembles an excellent
cast and films the rehearsals and final (edited) costumed
performance of the play including the actors' ruminations on the
history and motivation of the characters. In addition he
interviews actors (such as Vanessa Redgrave and John Guilgud)
and Shakespearean scholars about various aspects of R3 and
Shakespeare. It is entertaining and enlightening to watch actors
approach their part and the play.
Pacino plays Richard, of course, and his scene with Winona Rider
as Lady Anne is propelled by erotic energy. The actors discuss
before hand how Lady Anne is a survivor of the losing house of
Lancaster and without protection she has no future. Estelle
Parsons is particularly good as Margaret. Kevin Spacey plays
Buckingham. Pacino is good as always. Highly recommended.
Robt
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (103 of 110), Read 51 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Janet Mego (vsjego@cs.com)
Date:
Tuesday, October 17, 2000 08:21 PM
Oh, to see Al Pacino as Richard and Winona Rider as Anne.
Wonderful comments. I've truly enjoyed this!
Janet
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (104 of 110), Read 30 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Felix Miller (felix3rd@bellsouth.net)
Date:
Wednesday, October 18, 2000 07:32 PM
I will have to rent this one. I watched Ian McKellen in a Nazi-fied
version, which had its moments, but suffered from anachronisms,
the most famous of which was the "My kingdom for a horse"
scene, with Richard astride a defunct personnel carrier.
Anything Al Pacino does is worth watching.
Greetings from north of the river,
Felix Miller
Schizophrenia beats the heck out of being alone.
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (105 of 110), Read 28 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Candy Minx (candyminx@hotmail.com)
Date:
Thursday, October 19, 2000 01:59 AM
I'll tell ya I feel like I have been eating sleeping R3. I loved this
version with Pacino, okay and not just because it was
Pacino(who I have had a crush on since Dog Day Afternoon and
Serpico!!) this wa sfantastic. And I have re read hamlet which I
tend to do once a year anyway and really feel like I see how R3 is
a precurser to Hamlet.
I dunno, does this play reaLLy seem to affect eveything to do
with bullies and revenge and vengence and sore loser....and also
I was thinking about the prejudice to handicapped how it was so
associalted to evil, perhaps from the amplification Shakespeare
did.
The Harold Bloom work on Shakespeare has been an awesome
read, anybody else? read it? Steve if you love Camillle, he is her
mentor!!!!
He is so into saying how Shakespeare has informeed WHO we are
and how we think, he invented us today, quite intersting...
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (106 of 110), Read 29 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Ann Davey (davey@tconl.com)
Date:
Thursday, October 19, 2000 09:22 AM
Candy,
You made an interesting observation about the connection
between evil and disability in this play. From what I have read,
Shakespeare exaggerated Richard's physical imperfections a great
deal, and it seems to me that the only purpose was to make him
an even more sinister character.
I imagine he was just reflecting his times. At least society has
become more enlightened in some respects.
Ann
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (107 of 110), Read 28 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Candy Minx (candyminx@hotmail.com)
Date:
Thursday, October 19, 2000 11:28 AM
well, different things I have heard was to show his corruption
inside and his deformed spirit, S amplified his ailments. This is kind
of freaky nowadays and I feel it must have really influenced ideas
have about how we look. I know it's changing in the legal realm
about prejudice against differences, but bullies (uh oh here she
goes again) have been manifesting this sort of history...there are
still some parents out there raising their kids to judge people by
looks and by personal taste.
I like to think of R3 as having been so judged and so he carries
this bitterness and unloved feeling from his childhood, that people
despised him first for his appearance and then he became a creep
inside.
I know DISCLAIMER, my personal opinion and experience is that
babies are blank slates. I in no way want to change other peoples
opinions about childraising here at CR. But when reading I find
this always coomes up in literature and 'people watching' for me,
sorry. I can be such a broken record, you should hear me on
farming! yikes
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (108 of 110), Read 25 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Susan Strahan (tales@1001knights.com)
Date:
Thursday, October 19, 2000 12:08 PM
One more Richard III portrayal that keeps popping to mind is
Richard Dreyfuss in the movie "Goodbye Girl". Anybody remember
that? He plays an aspiring actor who is hired to play Richard in an
off-Broadway production which bombed due to the director's
insistence that Dreyfuss's character portray Richard as a swishy
flaming queen. The bits and pieces we get of the play and
production during the course of the movie are painfully funny.
~~Susan~~
"Then would you read a Sustaining Book, such as would help and
comfort a Wedged Bear in Great Tightness?" ---Winnie The Pooh
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (109 of 110), Read 24 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Ann Davey (davey@tconl.com)
Date:
Thursday, October 19, 2000 01:38 PM
Candy,
Richard speaks of the burden of his deformities and how they
make him unlovable in his opening speech. I'm with you. I think
his bitterness corrupts his entire spirit, so that he derives his joy
from manipulating other people for his own ends, rather than
forming any emotional ties with them. Here is some of his speech:
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deform'd, unfinish'd, sent before my time
Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them;
Why, I, in this weak peeping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to spy my shadow in the sun,
And descant on mine own deformity:
And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determine to prove the villain,
And hate the idle pleasures of these days.
Maybe Shakespeare also uses Richard's reactions to his physical
shortcomings (pronounced limp, withered arm, unusually small
stature) to give some motivation for his twisted character. A
mind that diabolical begs for some kind of explanation.
The irony is that, much as Richard seems to hate almost
everyone else, few seem to reciprocate it until he twists the knife
in their back. Both his brothers, for example, seem well disposed
to him, and Lady Anne becomes at least reconciled to her fate
with him, although I don't detect any enthusiasm.
Susan, now that you mention it I do vaguely recall Richard III in
"The Goodbye Girl." That was a funny film, but it's been years
since I've seen it.
Ann
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (110 of 110), Read 8 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Candy Minx (candyminx@hotmail.com)
Date:
Friday, October 20, 2000 09:35 AM
I think I may have mentioned that I took out a few movies and
books to inspire my reading here of R3 and one of the movies was
Goodbye Girl. I love this movie. Dreyfus is so good in this!!!
And the R3 is hilarious.
Yeah, Ann I think that must be so much of the pleasure of
performing R3 is for the actor to finsd a place where they can
plan and do these dastardly (and worse!) and yet some how even
manage to be lovable/seductive to others. I have to say H Bloom
struck a note for me on the s and m qualities/desires of Anne and
her feeling of 'trading off' and barganing to live in the royal life. I
think R3s zest for life his energy and murders showed made some
feel he was a leader type or powerful till he got to them too.
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (107 of 118), Read 20 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Ann Davey (davey@tconl.com)
Date:
Friday, October 20, 2000 02:20 PM
Candy,
By "s and m qualities" do you mean sado-masochistic? If so, I think Bloom
might be reading something into the play. Women of Anne's class had few
options as far as love and marriage were concerned. They pretty much
functioned as political pawns even if they had male relatives to watch
out for them. Anne's father, husband and father-in-law were all dead.
Shoot, I guess part of the problem is I just can't believe that anyone
could marry the murderer of a beloved husband unless they were under
real duress.
I agree with your observation about the appeal of the part of Richard III
to actors. It takes a lot of skill to present two convincing , but opposite
faces of the same man -- one caring and solicitous and the other
diabolically cruel.
Ann
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (108 of 118), Read 22 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Pres Lancaster (plancast@slip.net)
Date:
Friday, October 20, 2000 06:56 PM
REPLY TO ANN:
I think you are so right in thinking that Bloom is reading something into
the play when he speaks of S&M (SAM?). He drags the idea into the
play, for there is nothing in Richard's behavior, even the painted up
version the play gives us, that isn't ordinary, everyday, go-for-the-crown
behavior of the period. It is clearly Shakespeare's intent to show us
Richard painted black, but painted sadistic, NO.
About Anne and her marriage to Richard, one should remember that she
was the daughter of Richard Neville, Duke of Warwick, The Kingmaker.
Warwick put Edward IV (York) on the throne in place of the deposed and
ineffectual Henry VI. Quarreling with Edward IV, Warwick restored Henry
VI and effectively ruled in his name AND arranged that his daughter,
Anne, married Edward, the Prince of Wales. Tell me that that was a love
match. So, in the course of Edward IV regaining the throne from Henry
VI, Anne is widowed. The Prince of Wales was 18 when he died in battle.
And, as I said somewhere above, Richard and Anne had been raised
together as children.
Pres,
Fly at once; all is discovered !
How do I know what I think until I see what I say ? (Psst! Do you think
he knows what he thinks ?)
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (109 of 118), Read 20 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Ann Davey (davey@tconl.com)
Date:
Friday, October 20, 2000 08:44 PM
Pres,
Thanks for that very interesting historical update. I had read that Anne's
father was an important player in the political intrigues of the times, but I
didn't realize just how significant he was.
The real Anne was engaged to young Edward, but had not actually
married him, had she? I understood her engagement was strictly a
political maneuver on her father's part in real life, but Shakespeare
certainly sharpened the drama a great deal by making her a bereaved
young widow, lamenting the death of a near perfect husband.
Actually, this play has really grown on me. That BBC video I borrowed
from the library made it much easier for me to appreciate its complexities,
but I have to agree with you that in many cases it is melodramatic. I
imagine it was a real crowd pleaser in its day.
Ann
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (110 of 118), Read 19 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Pres Lancaster (plancast@slip.net)
Date:
Friday, October 20, 2000 08:57 PM
REPLY TO ANN
I believe that Anne Neville was actually married to Edward, Prince of
Wales, or so it says in the genealogy table in a English Monarchs book I
have. I don't find Anne in the Encyclopedia Britannica.
A crowd pleaser in its day ? I certainly think so. One of the earliest of S's
plays and preserved all these years. And what actor, worthy of the
name, wouldn't like a go at the part.
Though, so far as I can find out, Gielgud never played the part.
Pres,
Fly at once; all is discovered !
How do I know what I think until I see what I say ? (Psst! Do you think
he knows what he thinks ?)
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (111 of 118), Read 19 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Ann Davey (davey@tconl.com)
Date:
Friday, October 20, 2000 09:03 PM
Pres,
I took back the book to the library that I checked out on Shakespeare
and the English kings, but I'm almost certain that it said they were only
engaged. I go to the library fairly often nowadays and I doubt very much
that it's been checked out again. I'll let you know if I'm wrong.
It certainly wouldn't be the first time.
Ann
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (112 of 118), Read 20 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Candy Minx (candyminx@hotmail.com)
Date:
Friday, October 20, 2000 09:35 PM
Hi all, um I didn't mean to say Anne liked s and m, but that R3 really was
sadistic.(in the play). He LOVES this murder and games. He was totally
into torture.First he goes to great detail to tell us what hes going to do
to different people and then he does it. And he often does it right to us/
the audience. This is about us watching all this going down. It is a little
capitalizing on us being morbid and voyeuristic and then, do we not ('do
we not?', what am I saying I'm going Shakespeare here eek)want to see
him get pay back? I think Shakespeare really worked up on the audience
loving a bad guy and also wanting to see him get his just desserts. And
with this great lesson on money and power...what is it if you can't even
save yourself...(money can't give you immortality)
you know, the business about 'my kingdom for a horse'.
Something does 'happen' to Anne, doesn't she die? and how? it's just
hinted at...and like I said earlier why couldn't she sleep well at night? I
took that as she was being kept awake hint hint nudge nudge by
R3...and not with perfume and roses.
But no, I didn't mean to imply, as I must have that she was 'into
submission' like we use that term today. egad. She simply was submissive
to him.
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (113 of 118), Read 25 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
George Healy (malword@aol.com)
Date:
Saturday, October 21, 2000 03:45 AM
I've only been able to find one rule to adhere to when reading
Shakespeare: he's always deeper and stranger than you think.
I don't think Bloom drags S&M into the play (presumably on a leash)... I
think Richard is both sadistic/masochistic in certain ways, and I think
Anne is also. In essence, Richard offers Anne POWER, the (illusory) power
of turning a man mad with love for her, so enraptured with her beauty
that he would kill to possess it. To me, that's the secret of her
'submission'... she's actually given the chance to become dominant if she
believes Richard's lie that he kills for HER. And she bites. Richard doesn't
sell her himself, he sells her a vision of herself as Helen of Troy.
We like to call Richard diabolical. But WHY? Because he murders and lies?
I think him worse than that. A crackpot theory of mine: Shakespeare, an
incessant punner, gives us 3 Richards in 'Richard the Third'... one falsely
good, one definitely evil, and one unknowable at the core. R sees himself
and others as fragmented, virtually his last words are: 'I think there are 6
Richmonds in the field, I have killed 5 of them...' Richard believes that we
are all Jeckyll and Hydes, and he plays to that evil and sadistic person in
each of us. I think he believes that he has a dark ally in each human
soul, and that humans are as crippled inwardly as he is physically. The
extent to which he proves that point, and successfully exploits it, is
what makes him diabolical.
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (114 of 118), Read 32 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Candy Minx (candyminx@hotmail.com)
Date:
Saturday, October 21, 2000 08:54 AM
I have had the best time reading (and living with)R3 the last couple
weeks. Honestly, I feel like I started out reading this yeah yeah, R3 okay.
But then between all the posts here, the reading about Shakespeare and
movies regarding then...welll this has been great!!!! I was caught off
guard how much I got into this, driving everybody around me crazy
talking about r3. I think I even posted that this was not one of my
favourite SW plays...(did I also say, I am a bit of a Shakespeare geek? I
even made a 22 minute film on a contemporary version of Ophelia, my
premise being that she is not crazy?)...and yet here I have so enjoyed it.
Sometimes I wish I had a camera on my face as I read the posts here
because its a combination of awe and excitement and I know I am
getting teased by my family as they see me reading posts and going "oh
my god! this is great!)
Everybodyhere has been a an amazing inspiration on 'how to read and to
give it ones all'. Thank you.
George, what an incredible thought of their being three Richards. My god,
you should publish something on that! I hadn't looked at it like that, but
see it, it does fit with the way SW brought so many layers into his work.
I also agree there isn't a time I don't pick up and read him that each time
there is something new. I read Hamlet at least every year, and books
written about Hamlet and I can't ever see an end to the enjoyment of
following the biggest character written to date.
I am reading Othello in a couple weeks, as my sister is taking this in a
course at University of Vancouver) and not only do I see how R3 had so
much to do with Shakespeare for Hamlet, but now for Othello...
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (115 of 118), Read 27 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Candy Minx (candyminx@hotmail.com)
Date:
Saturday, October 21, 2000 11:02 AM
George, I just wrote you a gushing e mail about how much I appreciate
your posts. You are a very interesting reader. I must say I have been
saved the embarrassment of you reading my 'fan letter' because your e
mail doesn't seem to work, just wanted to let you know that. Anyway, I
am prying here sorry, are you a teacher or a writer? An actor? There is
something artistic about many of your perspectives of literature.
curious Candy
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (116 of 118), Read 26 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Ann Davey (davey@tconl.com)
Date:
Saturday, October 21, 2000 01:17 PM
Candy,
Regarding Anne's fate, she died and the implication in the play is that
Richard disposed of her. Remember, at the end he wants to marry his
niece to help secure his position. According to the source I read, it is
more probable that Anne died of TB.
I'm so glad you are enjoying Classics Corner. It can be addictive, can't it?
George, the text supports your view that Anne is seduced by power.
However, it was difficult for me to buy this interpretation while I was
reading the play because she seems like such a decent person, not at all
the grasping, conniving sort.
Zoe Wannamaker's interpretation of the character in the BBC video
shows her fearful throughout the whole "seduction" scene, which
reinforced my view of Anne as an innocent, trying to make the best of a
situation that left her virtually powerless.
But then, I am sure that this part can be interpreted in many different
ways, as can all of Shakespeare's characters--which, after all, is why his
plays continue to fascinate us.
Ann
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (117 of 118), Read 12 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
George Healy (malword@aol.com)
Date:
Sunday, October 22, 2000 08:46 AM
Candy--
Thanks. Enthusiasm for literature should never embarrass you (unless you
start getting tattoos of of all the Beat poets faces... that I suppose
would be going too far, and they're a pretty unattractive bunch.)
Nearly everything that writers have done, Shakespeare has outdone.
William Faulkner created some starkly sadistic characters. Shakespeare
created the same, but deeper, more troubling and compelling. To me it's
simply a given. Pick an adjective. Inspirational? Sure... Stephen in Joyce
(for example) inspires, but more than Cleopatra or Hamlet or Rosalind?
So in R3 we're dealing with sadism and a host of other adjectives positive
and negative. But where does Shakespeare take us and why? Richard is a
massively driven man, so many of his lines give a sense of motion as a
key to his character ( 'does Buckingham stop to pant for breath?' 'dogs
bark at me when I halt by them' 'on me, that halts and am misshapen
thus'... and of course his very last wish is to have a horse to go faster.)
I ask...why? Why did Shakespeare portray a man crippled and deformed
in terms of unceasing motion? 'Halting' is bad. Moving furiously and
perpetually is good. There I think is Richard's creed, his only set of
ethics. What an amazing angle Shakespeare has taken! Richard defines
deformity not in terms of shape but speed. This empowers him. Nothing
he could do about his shape... but his pace, he will rage about, and his
mind will race forward like a chessplayer always 3 moves ahead.
Unfortunately, his mind outpaces morals and emotions, and a mind that
leaves those behind deforms itself. He left the starting block deformed,
and raced right back to it. Maybe that is his tragedy?
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (118 of 118), Read 4 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Candy Minx (candyminx@hotmail.com)
Date:
Sunday, October 22, 2000 12:09 PM
I can't take anymore George, marry me!!!!
This makes me think of an old political science book. Called Speed and
Politics. It's basic premise was that sure the paperwork and voting and
lobbying is time consuming, but it's a great safety catch for protecting
people from dictatorship or any other sides of policy making that if acted
on too quickly would be detrimental or worse deathly. That even in
democracy the time it takes to act on change gives us more time to
reflect on movement and progress and where policies might lead us.
I'm trying to imagine a man like R3 if he were even faster!
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (118 of 119), Read 10 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
George Healy (malword@aol.com)
Date:
Tuesday, October 24, 2000 03:38 AM
Candy--
Alas, relationships built on a mutual regard for a homicidal maniac
seldom work out (did I find THAT out the hard way!)
Seriously though, it's going to be hard to let Richard go as
Halloween creeps upon us... it's a great time to tackle him and his
play. Ah well, there's always Macbeth...
Topic:
Richard III (male and female vewpoints) (119 of 119), Read 10 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Candy Minx (candyminx@hotmail.com)
Date:
Tuesday, October 24, 2000 11:15 AM
ha ha ha!
Topic:
October: Richard III (101 of 103), Read 12 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Ernest Belden (drernest@pacbell.net)
Date:
Saturday, October 28, 2000 06:49 PM
Sorry, my response comes rather late. I did finish Richard III some time
ago and went through the usual soul searching process. Actually I
wanted a better understanding as to what was going on. Part of my
problem is that I have very little background in drama and have read
relatively few plays.
Well my first impression of Richard was not the best and I was amazed
about the Queen standing up to him. I would have expected Richard to
get even with her. Secondly I thought that the actions and the drama
was the outcome of chaotic political circumstances and then it turned
out it was the war of the Roses. I have frequently heard about this war,
but it was never clear in my mind what it was all about.
The most interesting point for me was the order and type of presentation
on a stage. In other words people have only a short time to have their
say and it all needs to fit together to come to a climax. Well I don't know
if you can fallow me on this particular point. There is the timing not only
of action but also of emotions and interactions and all this takes place in
a theater. This seems to be the most difficult part of the drama.
Of course I had difficulties with Shakespeare's language and the
numerous characters that appear in the play. This meant that I needed
to go over some of the pages a number of time and look up the names.
My edition was poorly annotated. I wish I had the time to spend some
time reading up on what other people have said about this play and I also
wish I knew more about Shakespearean drama. But it was a fine
experience.
Ernie
Topic:
October: Richard III (102 of 103), Read 9 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Ann Davey (davey@tconl.com)
Date:
Saturday, October 28, 2000 10:05 PM
Thanks for posting your thoughts about RICHARD III, Ernie. I own a
complete set of Shakespeare's plays from my teenage days when I had
visions of reading all of them. That project has progressed v-e-r-y
v-e-r-y slowly. It isn't annotated at all and I really miss that, but at
least I can feel free to write in the book.
Ann
Topic:
October: Richard III (103 of 103), Read 6 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Barbara Moors (bar647@aol.com)
Date:
Sunday, October 29, 2000 07:42 AM
You make a good point about the time that each character had to have
their say, Ernie. I think that one of the reasons I liked this play less than
the others of Shakespeare I've read is that there were too many
characters with too little understanding of any of them.
Someone here mentioned that this was one of Shakespeare's earlier plays
and I'm wondering if that is part of the reason.
Barb
Topic:
October: Richard III (77 of 77), Read 11 times
Conf:
CLASSICS CORNER
From:
Ernest Belden (drernest@pacbell.net)
Date:
Monday, October 30, 2000 11:12 PM
Barb,
You have a very good point which makes a lot of sense to me. I had a
similar feeling as you just expressed but could not put it into words and,
as I said before, my background in drama, plays, etc., is minimal. I tried
to understand how it all did hang together so that the spectator get the
right impression and emotional impact. It is the ability to do that which
calls for dramatic genius. Thinking about this matter made reading this
play an interesting experience.
I just reviewed the the comments regarding female perceptiveness of
Richard III. As a rule women are much more perceptive than men. They
sort of sense the way a man's mind works. I even remember a study
which confirmed that. Women who state they have been taken in by a
clever con artist may have looked the wrong way and had their own
agenda.They want to avoid seeing the true picture. Ever since I became
a psychologist I have been amazed and puzzled about female intuitive
understanding of human behavior and motivation. Well women need quick
understanding of men and interpersonal relations in the game of survival.
Insight into people is a valuable asset in the process of natural
selection.
One wise male psychologist spontaneously stated: Men go on studying
psychology and never get very good at it. Women with few exception
are born psychologists.
Apologetically I would say fellow males may have some compensatory
skills, such as being handy with tools and sometimes being genuinely
helpful around the house.
Ernie
|
|
