The Documentary Movie Looking for Richard - Essay Example

Sassot LOOKING FOR RICHARD, THE DOCUMENTARY MOVIE Brief Description of the Movie This documentary movie is not a rehash of any of those Richard III movies previously shown. Al Pacino, who directed and starred in this movie, is obviously not bent on giving the great Laurence Olivier and Ian McKellen a run for their own money by presenting the best interpretation of Richard III’s character, who is perhaps one of the most complex character ever created by the bard William Shakespeare. Instead, it is plain to see from the posturings of Pacino on screen, that he wants to educate all those dilettantes in the realm of Shakespearean drama, to better appreciate, understand and perhaps fully embrace Shakespeare as the best dramatist and playwright the world has ever produced. From his impromptu interviews in the streets of New York and the Global Theatre in London, we glean that indeed a lot of people regard a Shakespearean play as all Greek to them. Someone even wryly commented, “it sucks”. Pacino clearly attempts to modernize this Shakespearean tragedy, lacerate all the 16th century trappings cloaking it and present it under a new light influenced by 21st century modernism. In other words, he wants to make it hip. We can just surmise that Pacino, who was a high school dropout, had belabored Shakespeare in his high school days because of the 16th century lingo that helped to make his high school days exasperating and a survival of the fittest contest. Unlike that movie Romeo + Juliet where Shakespeare’s dialogues were altered to conform to 21st century taste, Pacino never attempted to refurbish Shakespeare’s work out of respect for the bard’s genius. Instead, he presented Shakespearean scholars and actors and actresses such as Kenneth Branagh, Sir John Gielgud and Vanessa Redgrave Sassot 2 to elucidate and instruct us on the intricacies and character motivations of a Shakespearean play. He particularly disentangles the complexity of the theme in Richard III and outlines in order to simplify the complex relationships by the character personae involved in the War of the Roses i.e. the Houses of York and Lancaster. He teaches us that Richard III is all about the intense competition by both houses to take accession to the throne of England and the ambition and lust for power even within one family and the use of unscrupulous and Machiavellian means to eliminate all those who stand in the way to one’s inexorable march to the throne. Pacino also attempts to show theater afficionados the hectic preparations needed to stage-manage a Shakespearean play. He thus assembles his cast, rehearses them for particular scenes while intermittently analyzing and dissecting the elements composing that segment and possibly to ease the strain of the Shakespearean denouement, he clowns around. Then the actors lay bare their Shakespearean souls with all the intensity they can muster by enacting specific scenes of the play. There was Lady Anne (played by Winona Ryder) marching in a cortege to inter her assasinated husband Edward V, King Henry VI’s putative heir, who were both slain by Richard of Gloucester (Richard III). Richard was there to woo and seduce her by dishing out blatant lies. She fell on the trap and later married him which signaled her end. Then there was the scene involving the Duke of Clarence (portrayed by Alec Baldwin), Richard’s brother, meeting his pathetic end, a victim of his brother’s lust for power. Kevin Spacey was also there portraying the once faithful Buckingham who was used and abused but still fell prey to Richard’s murderous rage. Then lastly, Richard met his match in the form of the Duke of Richmond (played by Aidan Sassot 3 Quinn) who ended his life after he was thrown off his horse. Richmond succeded to the throne and became Henry VII, the first of the Tudor kings and queens. The Movie’s Message The movie has a double-edged message. Like all Shakespearean tragedies, Richard III follows that preconceived moral lesson that crime doesn’t pay; that when one lives by the sword, he shall die by the sword; that there is a divine punishment for all the transgressions and misdeeds that one has perpetrated in this life and the chastisement is in this life as well as the after-life. In each play, there is always a moral lesson that earthly glory is but ephemeral especially if that is gained by devious means because God will always manifest His divine justice. Yes, He might allow the sinful to rise and bask in his stolen glory but He will soon smite him and provide his swift descent to his tragic end. But prior to that, he should realize the folly of his misdeeds and must suffer psychologically for these sins. This is what exactly Richard III experienced. Another message is that providence or fate cannot be escaped by anybody. As they said, it’s all written in the stars. Providence rules our lives. The wheel of fate carries one to its highest apogee and then hurls him down as it takes its precipitous descent. Richard III’s wheel of fate starts its climb as he manipulates people, plots and schemes and engineers devious acts designed to wrest crown and power from his brother King Edward IV and his rightful successors, his two little nephews. He then started to murder everybody who might be thorns to his burning ambition. First to fall was his brother Clarence, the Queen Elizabeth’s brothers Grey and Rivers, then Lord Hastings and eventually his nephews. Even his once-faithful minion, Buckingham had to join the litter of corpses strewn in his path, all sacrificed in the name of avarice, greed and lust Sassot 4 for power. After he has deceived, lied and killed to consolidate his powers, providence intervened and the wheel of life must now go down. The people and the courtiers who acceded to his reign out of fear refused to cushion him when the chips were down and left him to face his ultimate fate, which is to die in the hands of the Duke of Richmond. Another message that Pacino, himself, wanted to impart is that a Shakespearean play could be appreciated by all people of all stripes if the background of the conflicts as well as the complexities of the characters are elucidated and explained to everyone. The Machiavellian Nature of Richard III’s Character Al Pacino’s narration, the discussions of the play’s stellar cast as well as Pacino’s analysis and incisive descriptions of the movie, the comments of the Shakespearean actors point to the fact that the play Richard III hinges on Richard’s character. The uniqueness and complexity of his character make the play stand out among the rest and are the exact reasons why actors of the first caliber dream of portraying Richard’s character. The issue is whether or not Richard is basically evil and if he is, what is the root cause of his wickedness. In reality, Richard’s character is too complex for any analytical study. In my opinion, it is a sum of so many factors: psychological, emotional, political, social and economic. We have an inkling of his character right at the start of the play when Richard goes into monologues: I, then are rudely stamped, and want love’s majesty, I, that am curtailed of man’s fair proportion, Cheated of features by dissembling Nature, Performed, unfinished, sent before my time Into this breathing world, scarce half made up, And that so lamely and unfashionable, Sassot 5 That dogs bark at me as I halt by them…….. Why, then, to me this restless world’s but hell, Till this misshapen trunk’s aspiring head Be circled in glorious diadem………… I’ll climb betimes, without remorse or dread, And my first step shall be on Henry’s head. (Shakespeare 8) It’s plain that in the above passages, Richard is constantly hounded by the emotional and psychological turmoil of being ‘deformed’ and ‘misshapen’ and is so bitter with the world for the aforesaid reasons and wants to get back at the world by being evil and villainous and that nothing else can neutralize the world’s ‘injustice to him but the crown in King Henry’ VI’s head. This became his eternal passion. But he realized that there were so many barriers along the path to the throne and thus he resolved to eliminate all these barriers, may these include his own brothers and nephews. But this is just one facet of his character. The political aspect is that Richard fell prey to the Machiavellian doctrine, which is a ‘contagious’ disease suffered by political rulers who taste power and immensely enjoy what they experience that they become addicted to it. The heady feeling of being the most powerful person in the land often makes one forget about his morality and idealism, if these are shallow and not deeply rooted in his being. Machiavelli in The Prince contended that “the only real concern of the political ruler is the acquisition and maintenance of power” (Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy). As an offshoot of this statement, this theory considers as legitimate, the skillful use of whatever resources in the politician’s hands to guarantee his political survival may it be lying, Sassot 6 cheating or assasinating. It holds that the end justifies the means and whatever step he utilizes to stay in power even if that is devoid of morality is legitimate. Richard III is indeed a Machiavel because he is able to manipulate people and warp and deform things to suit his immediate needs. He was able to convince King Edward IV that there is a prophecy that a certain G will murder him and to insinuate that Clarence, whose first name is George, is the future assasin. He was able to win Lady Anne’s hand in marriage despite the knowledge of the latter that it is he who murdered her husband. He was able to impart to the populace that King Edward IV is illegitimate. He used Tyrell’s love for money and ambitions to murder his nephews and he used Buckingham’s credulity and dog-like fidelity to assist him in his dastardly schemes. He is such a master in the art of taking advantage of other peoples’ weaknesses for his personal gain. He is so twisted and spirited that he represents the ideal Machiavel. I chose to dwell on Richard’s character because it is the heart of the play. Take out the complexity of his character and the whole play falls apart. Movie Presentation, Class Presentation and Book Presentation Practically all Shakespearean tragedies are essentially of the romantic mold with a romantic hero. They follow the Romanticism style where the plot of the story is laden with intrigues and make use of lots of symbolisms, metaphors, similes, and hyperboles. There are even scenes that are mystical or supernatural or out of the ordinary such as the use of ghosts, witches, surrealistic dreams and devils or demons. The characters’ speeches are highly stylized with lots of ‘alas’, ‘fies’ and the like. Most of them make use of exotic settings and exotic costumes. Richard III is one of these romantic novels. However such romanticism is tinged with realism because as we said his character is molded unto the Machiavellian style which is a realist Sassot 7 doctrine. Richard never intended to be a Machiavel but the Machiavellian traits exist in his subconcscious and find expression in his actuations. Shakespeare never designed Richard as a Machiavel but all the characteristics he presents to us point to a Machiavel personality. Shakespeare also may never subscribe to Freud’s theories and doctrines but the character essayed by Richard III is so complex that psychologists and psychiatrists definitely would love to have his motives, mind and emotions dissected ands his subconscious reached to find out what really compels him to manipulate, lie, deceive and murder and do all those hideous, villainous acts. If Freud were alive, Richard III would be a challenge to his capability to entangle the complex workings of one’s mind. Shakespeare may not want it, but Richard III is a child of Freudian psychology. We must also stress that Richard III, the play doesn’t make use of the modernist assault on tradition. The play is in fact traditional, through and through. It doesn’t bother to make use of concepts of global village, diverse ideologies or economic dichotomic concepts. In the play Richard III, there are battles galore. In fact the backdrop of the play is The War of the Roses. The struggle itself for the crown of England is a war that all dramatis personae must wage. It is mainly a psychological war between the House of York, symbolized by a white flower and the House of Lancaster, symbolized by a red flower.. But these battles, whether physical or psychological, are mere backdrops to the drama and tragedy of Richard’s rise to glory and fall from grace that ultimately led to his destruction. Shakespeare was not interested in possible ways that Richard might utilize to politically subdue the populace to his every whim and caprice, the same way that Hitler did. Richard does not have a political plan Sassot 8 and agenda. With all his intelligence, energies and prudence, he might even turn out to be an effective ruler if given the chance. But it was his blind ambition to wrest power and hold on to it that spelled his doom. Nowhere in the play that Shakespeare entertained the thought of dictatorship, fascism, racism and the like. Thus, there is no implication of a move toward modernism or a modernist assault on tradition. It therefore doesn’t have a tinge of totalitarian trait. The Movie Is an Utter Delight The movie Looking For Richard is innovative, unique and a class of its own. It has its own genre and it is unparalleled in style. In my memory, there has never been a movie that tackles a play and dissects and analyzes it while accosting people in the streets to comment what they think of Shakespeare and the play, Richard III. Moreover, there has never been a movie that I can recall wherein celebrated actors and actresses are grilled to find out their sentiments and share their experiences portraying Shakespearean characters. I have never witnessed a movie where the cast was deep in the rehearsals for the play and discuss their roles and clown around and then submerge themselves into the roles they are portraying for the actual take. It is one of a kind. It will be copied in the future, that’s for certain. I therefore had fun watching the movie and had Shakespearean education to boot. Conclusion Al Pacino added a feather to his cap by producing, acting and directing in this movie about his favorite historical character, Richard III. Pacino once essayed Richard III on stage and the experience must have etched in his being that he just can’t let go of the Richard III character. Thus the decision to transfer it on film and it was a wise decision because he caused Shakespeare to be easily assimilated and comprehensible to all who have the capacity to comprehend. He was Sassot 9 aided by his cast and those much awarded and respected actors and actresses who gave their opinions and experiences with working in a Shakespearean play. Suddenly, Shakespeare is not only for the intellectuals, the elite, the cultured and the affluent but for the pedestrians in the streets and the common mass. We also connect this movie with the lessons on the Romantic and Realist styles and conclude that Richard III is mainly a Romantic play based on so many points but it can also to a small extent be classified also as a Realist play because Richard’s character takes on the characteristics of a Machiavellian personage. We also conclude that the play doesn’t have the nature of a Modernist play nor takes part of a Modernist assault on tradition. However, Richard’s character is a keen example of a Freudian character because of its psycholgical compexity. It also doesn’t partake of a totalitarian trait. Sassot 10 REFERENCES Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Niccolo Machiavelli. Plato.standard.edu/entries/machiavelli. Shakespeare, William. King Richard III: A Tragedy in Five Acts. London: T. Hughes. 1823. The Romantic Hero. Book 5, Chapter 28. The Romantic Style In Art and Music. Book 5, Chapter 29. Industry Empire and the Realist Style. Book 5, Capter 30. The Move Toward Modernism. Book 5< Capter 31. The Modernist Assault. Book 5, Chapter 32. The Freudian Revolution. Book 5, Chapter 33. Total War, Totalitarianism and the Arts. Book 5, Chapter 34. Read More