Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 11

Richard as a Machiavellian Villain

Niccol Machiavelli once wrote that the end justifies the means, and this is strongly
believed by Richard of Gloucester because of his actions in achieving political power.
Machiavelli most famous book The Prince is a manual on how to achieve political power and
keep it. Although it is not clear whether Richard read this text, it is however suggested that he
follows what is written in Machiavellis text. Shakespeare wrote Richard as a villain, he did not
just write him as an average villain, he is written as a Machiavellian villain. A Machiavellian
villain is: intelligent, cunning, narcissistic, manipulative, believes the end justify the means, and
wants total control. Richard displays all of these characteristics, especially through his actions in
the play. Richard is a Machiavellian because he kills everyone that is blocking his path from
being king, he lacks remorseespecially in regards to what he did to his two young nephews,
and he is both malicious and charming.
The first sign in the play that proves Richards Machiavellianism is when he states, . . .
Ill marry Warwicks youngest daughter. What though I killd her husband and her father? (I. i.
153-154). In this scene, readers are exposed to how far Richard is willing to go to get what he
wants. He killed Lady Annes husbandEdward, Prince of Wales, as well as her father, and
plans on marrying her for his sadistic pleasure. Clearly, he is not normal; no sane individual
would commit such an act and follow it up by wooing the person in mourning. His action in this
particular scene is both nefarious and unpleasant. Nonetheless, this speaks of the character that is
Richard, Duke of Gloucester. Readers are first introduced to the villainess of Richard at the
beginning of the play when he states, Now is the winter of our discontent. Made glorious
summer by this son of York . . . I am determined to prove a villain . . . Plots have I laid,
inductions dangerous . . . As I am subtle, false, and treacherous (I. i. 1-2, 30, 32). In these
sentences, readers are made aware that Richard is not happy with the peace after deposing of

Henry VI, and plans on disturbing that peace. Readers now know that he is going to be wicked,
and will do atrocious things because he is discontent with his current status; he wants to be bad
and craves it. The fact that he does know that he is evil makes him even more horrifying. In a
sense he knows that he is a villain and plans on proving it. This opening serves to create the
groundwork for further actions made by Richard throughout the play.
Another action by Richard that speaks to his being a Machiavellian is his ordering the
execution of his own brother George, Duke of Clarence. Readers learns about Richards part in
Clarences execution in the Tower of London when the murderers states, You are deceivd, your
brother Gloucester hates you. Tis he that sends us to destroy you here (I. iv. 232-233, 243). Poor
Clarence believes that his brother loves him dearly and would never do a thing like ordering his
execution. However, readers later finds out that Richard did indeed order the execution of his
brother Clarence by switching the letter of his brother Edward IV. He switches the letters because
he needs Clarence to die so that he can kill his other brother Edward IV the current king. After
getting what he wants, he blames the execution of Clarence on his brother Edward IV to make
him feel guilty for sending Clarence to the Tower in the first place. King Edward does end up
blaming himself for Clarences death and becomes extremely sick; he ends up dying. However,
before his death, Richard manages to be named Lord Protector of the young Princes by Edward
IV. His ultimate goal is to be king, and by getting rid of all of his brothers, the throne is easily
his. Killing ones own brothers to achieve political power is the most Machiavellian thing a
villain can do, and Richard proves that he is willing to go all the way when it comes to being
powerful. He also shows no sign of remorse as he goes about killing people.
Additionally, after the execution of Clarence and the death of King Edward IV, the only
remaining obstacles in Richards path are the children of the late kingPrince Edward V and
young Richard. Richard knows that he must kill these two young princes so that he can finally

become King. When he meets the two, he is intimidated by how smart and cunning they are, he
states, so cunning and so young is wonderful (III. i. 135). He knew then that he absolutely has
to get rid of them. He does so by sending both of the Princes to the Tower of London with the
implication that they will meet their mother there, he states, Will to our mother, to entreat of her.
To meet you at the Tower and Welcome you (III. i. 138-139). By doing this, he can easily order
someone in the Tower to kill the Princes, and he does so. He first orders Buckingham to kill
them, but he hesitates (IV. ii. 24-26). Therefore, Richard orders Tyrell to kill them, and he does
kill both of them (IV. iii. 1-2). He actually hires two other murderers to do it for him. With the
Princes out of the way, Richard is finally going to be King. However, he is not well liked by the
people. Thus, he must do something to mend his bad reputation.
He still somehow manages to be kingfinally all of his hard work is paying off. After
becoming King, Richard however refuses to give Buckingham the land he promised him.
Buckingham helped Richard deposed and killed people blocking his path, and he even helped
remedy Richards horrid reputation, and also helped him become King. By refusing to give him
what he wants (IV. ii. 119-1222), Buckingham betrays Richard by rebelling against him.
However, he is captured and executed for being a traitor on decree by King Richard. Killing his
cousin Buckingham proves that Richard uses people and deposes of them with no afterthought.
He promised Buckingham land for helping himbeing King, but he actively chose to betrayed
this promise. The Machiavellian in Richard made him betrayed his partner in crime. With
Buckingham dead, Richard becomes extremely vulnerable because the people around him starts
noticing how truly evil he is and how far he is willing to go to hurt them. Likewise, this speaks to
his philosophy about proving to be a villain, because only villains kill people and feel no remorse
or some form of moral responsibility.

As the rule dictates in Renaissance literature, all Machiavellian Villains must fall.
Richards story is about his rise to power and his fall from it. Thus, he has to fall at some point in
the play, especially, since he has been getting away with murdering people. Most Machiavellian
Villains have horrid deaths at the end, and Gloucester is no exception. His death is foreshadowed
on the night before the battle with Richmond. Gloucester is visited by the ghosts of all of the
people he has killed. They all came together to curse him so that he will lose the battle to
Richmond. The number of ghost cursing him with the despair and die! chant is eleven. He has
killed eleven people and must pay for it, as he should. The list of individuals killed by Gloucester
is as follow: Young Prince Edward, Henry VI, Clarence, Rivers, Grey, Vaughan, Young Richard,
Hastings, Lady Anne, and Buckingham. In this Act V Scene iii with the ghost, they are finally
able to avenge their wrongful deaths.
Ultimately, Gloucester is a Machiavellian true and true because he eliminated all of his
enemies, and achieved what he wanted. He was charming and manipulative on his way to the
top. He showed that intelligence can be used for nefarious purposes. As a villain he is explicit
and likeable in the sense that he was both comic relief and the source of all the problems in the
playthese characteristics are what makes a Machiavellian Villain, which he is.

Analysis of Thomas Mores History of King Richard the Third


In Mores text, Richard is portrayed as a Machiavellian villain who kills his brothers
George and Edward, their childrenYoung Edward and Young Richard, his wifeLady Anne,
and wanted to marry his nieceYoung Elizabeth, so that he can obtain more power and keep
that power. Because of Mores infamous depiction of the physical and ethical ambiguities of
Richardas in he has no regards for eithereven though he is a Christian, as well as his
mechanism in usurping the throne to satisfy his ambitious lustShakespeare was able to create
the version of Richard that we see in his play.
Before Shakespeares creation of Richard III, the name was the subject of many poems
and playssome of which were written in ItalianMore wrote another version of Richards
history in Latin. Thomas More is no exception when it came to writing about Richard, Duke of
Gloucester. In fact, he purposely chose to write Richard the way he didinaccurately and
villainous because of political propaganda. Richard was unpopular at the time, he was dead, and
Richards usurper HenryEarl of Richmond was king at the time. More actively and
aggressively characterized Richard as wicked, criminal, evil, and the ultimate tyrant.
Nonetheless, Shakespeare used this analysis of Richard and expanded on this historically
inaccurate representation in his playas stated before, instead of Shakespeare dictating to
audiences Richards villainy and misdeeds, Gloucester himself is telling audiences about them.
He takes center stage in Shakespeares play, and dictates his own story and invites audiences into
his world.
In Mores text, he describes Richard as a man without any respect of God or the world
(3), this emphasizes that More viewed Richard as morally evilthis is the same description of
Machiavelli Villains in Elizabethan England. Machiavelli rulers were synonymous with evil, and
by default, so was Richard; they were both evil personified. In a sense, those two were viewed as
being similar in how they approached politics, how they viewed people, and the notion that the

end, justify the means. An example of such disregard for God or the world in the play is when
Richard kills Lady Annes husbandEdward and father-in-lawHenry VI, then schemes to woo
her with the intent of using and discarding her later (1.2).
Mores text is explicit about the ambitious nature of Richard from a narrative
perspectiveMore is dictating to readers that Richard is wicked and we are suppose to believe
that what he tells us, and to exactly how wicked Richard is. This is shown when he explains that
Richard broke his promise to his dead brother Edward to protect his children, instead, Richard is
unnaturally contrived to bereave them, not only their dignity, but also their lives (5). From the
start of the text, More tells readers that Richard is quick to act in his plans to kill his brother
children who are in line for the throne. He rather murdered the two princes now so that he can
easily usurp the throne and manipulate the other lords into wanting him to be king. Shakespeares
play takes a different approach to this concept by creating the plotline of Clarence imprisonment
in The Tower of London, then going into Edwards death, before Richard starts plotting the
assassination of the Princes. Shakespeare takes time to develop the character Richard
especially since Richard is directing his own plots unlike the Mores text in which heMore is
directing the plots for Richard. Shakespeare uses Mores text as a model for the character by
making Richard darker, more manipulative, and more charming. Richard is overly exaggerated in
the Shakespeares text in comparison to Mores text.
Richard is smart, funny, manipulative, villainous, and boastfulall throughout Mores
text. In Mores version, Richard actively goes to Westminster, takes the crown, named him-self
king, and manipulates the ministers into allowing him to do this (80). His actions are intentional
in Mores textas he is trying to depict Richard in a negative manner. This is also similar to
Shakespeares portrayal of Richard in that it is easy for him to manipulate others, and make fun
of them for being stupidhe does so in his asides. There is no middle ground for Richard in

either of these textshe is evil through and through, and no one can stop himexcept
Richmond. An example of Richard willing to do whatever it takes to be King is displayed in
Shakespeares text when he fakes being religious even though he is not (1.3.28); he does so to
pretend to be moralistic knowing that he is notthis reinforces Mores depiction of Richard not
being moralist. Shakespeare takes advantage of that little information found in Mores text.
Shakespeare creates Richard as a Machiavellian by having him feign being moral and godly to
get what he wants, even when he is not. He even calls himself a villain when he talked about
how easy it is/was to steal the crown from his brotherin Henry IV play (3.2.16). Richard is
evil, he knows it, and constantly tells the audience this every chance he gets.
Shakespeare used this text as a source because even though Mores opinion of Richard
was biased and not completely accurate, he was able to portray Richard as a complex character
with a psychological disposition that is not one-dimensional. Shakespeare used this to his upmost
ability. The only changes that Shakespeare made to Gloucester is his physical deformitythere
is no prove that Richard was physically deformed, and More did not write about this. More
talked about Richard personality and disposition being deformed, and Shakespeare used this to
actually write about Richard being deformedhe combined both his disposition and physicality
to create the prefect Richard of Gloucester. Although Mores text is detailed and has some
historical events, it is filled with both accurate and inaccurate information. Shakespeare used it
because it was extremely popular at the time, and it displayed another insight into the character
of King Richardthe ambitious nature of Richard of Gloucesterhis disregard for morals and
ethics, his manipulations of others, and his Machiavellian practicesthis is why Mores text was
popular, and why/how Shakespeare used it.

Richard III (1995): In-Depth Analysis


Julie Sanders states, adaptation seeks to update an already existing text and transpose it
using a different medium. It can also be revised into a different genre that is comprehensible to
newer audiences (Sanders, 18-19). This is the case with the 1995 film adaptation of Richard III
also titled Richard III. The film is adapted by Ian McKellenwho also plays titular character
Richard, and is directed by Richard Loncraine. The film is based on a stage production adapted
for the Royal National Theatre, and McKellen also performed the part of Richard. The 1995 film
adaptation is extremely important because the portrayal of Richard as a tyrannical ruler is similar
to Shakespeares description of Richard. This adaptation of the source material matters because it
emphasizes the fundamental nature of the character Richard by making him a tyrannical ruler;
and he is extremely similar to Adolf Hitler in characterization. Shakespeares Richard is
malevolent, charming, cunning, and manipulative, and there is no argument there; but the 1995
film version calls attention to how evil Richard actually is and would be if people think about
him as a modern ruler in modern times.
Following the idea of Richard being similar to Hitler, the film chooses to transpose the
play to 1930s Nazi England, with the theme of communism as the backdrop. This is interesting
because if one think about it, Richard would absolutely be consider a Stalin, Hitler, Putin, or Kim
Jung-un type of rulerthese individuals are all communist and are consider dictators in the
twentieth and twenty-first-century similar to Richard in the fifteen-century. The adaptation uses
Nazi references of symbols, places, and weapons to call attention to the topic of the story. The
uniforms worn by the characters are also Nazi uniforms from the 1930s. The concept of the
uniforms is fascinating because it is noticeable that the virtuous characters are dressed in Alliedish uniform style, and the not-so-virtuous characters or bad characters are dressed in Nazi
uniforms. This speaks to how brilliantly thought out the production team of the movie planned

this adaptation, taking into account little details such as the uniforms representing the sides the
characters are on.
There are some changes made by this adaptation that are questionable. For example, the
use of old Modern English in 1930s Fascist England is strange and unnatural, but the acting by
the characters makes it believable and natural. The setting being that of fascist England in the
1930s is different from fifteen-century England, and only some of the original dialogue from the
text is usedeven though they are speaking Modern English in 1930s England. Speaking of
language, a drastic change in this department is that of the character Queen Elizabeth being an
American Socialite, and her brother Lord Rivers being a combination of Rivers, Dorset, Grey,
and Vaughan. These four characters are somewhat interchangeable because they are part of
Queen Elizabeths entourage, and do not serve a major purpose in the play. This change is
important as an adaptation because these characters ends up dying in the play, and dies in the
movie as wellhe is stabbed in his bed. The major change that is noticeable about the movie is
the Now is the winter of our discontent soliloquy being changed to a public speechthe
speech then turns into a private speech by Richard in the bathroom. The significance of the
speech in the play is to create a connection between Richard and the audience, to give them
insight into the inner workings of his mind, and to explain his true intentions. The production
team was going for a timeless adaptation to show that the play, the characters, and the themes of
power and tyranny are timelessit can be transpose to the civil war era, to the cold war era, to
whatever era one can imagine, and there will always be an evil ruler like Richardthey
succeeded with this concept.
The original Shakespeare play serves as a warning against tyrannical rulers, and shows
that the end does not justify the means; and the film adaptation follows the same notion. The film
amplifies many of Richards evil deeds by making them explicit to show how active his actions

are, this is different then the play where he has people doing his bidding. The movie starts with
Richard actively killing Lady Annes husband with a gun, this is different from the play, which
hints at Richard partaking in his death but not actually killing him. The visual of this scene is
important to the movie because it is both horrid and makes one cringe at his later wooing Lady
Anne after killing her husband and her fatherit seems as if the director is trying to astonish
audiences with Richards cruelty. As a result of being explicitly evil, and following the notion of
the end not justifying the means, the movie allowed Richard to choses how he end his own life at
the end. He chooses to jump to his own death rather than allow Richmond to shoot him. Richard
does not just jump to his death, he dies on his own term by laughinghe laughs about having to
see Richmond in hell, which is the place he knows he is going. In a sense, Richard goes out with
a bang literally, as he falls into a blazing flame of fire that devours him. Again, this change,
while extremely different from the Shakespeares play, keeps the spirit of the message about the
end not justifying the means. Since Richard is excessively evil in this adaptation, it is befitting
that he should die the way he wants, but still keeping the spirit of Shakespeares play.
A curious change made by the production team for this film is having Richmond be
present in most of the movie, and not just reference like he is in the play. In the play, Richmond
does not appear until Act 5, when he fights Richard at The Battle of Bosworth. However, in the
movie, Richmond does appear early, and is shown marrying and consummating his marriage to
Young Elizabeth. This choice is curious in and of itself, because in the play Richard plans on
marrying Young Elizabeth when Queen Anne dies (4.3). Having her marry Richmond without
Richard knowing is thought provoking. To the audience, this puts an impediment on Richards
plan to use Young Elizabeth as a political pawn to unite The House of York and The House of
Lancaster. Due to the ending scene of the movieRichmond looking at the camera and smiling
cynically like Richard, one can assume that this marriage serves as a political usurping of

Richard, because there is something out there Richard wants but cannot have. He is being
stopped from being more powerful because the power is now Richmonds. It is an interesting
take on the power struggle between both Richard and Richmond. One is losing power as the
other gains power. This adaptation coincides with the theme of power and the concept of the
fascist world of the movie. In the play Elizabeth and Richmond do not marry until he has been
crowned King Henry VI.
The changes the movie makes are important because they reflect the world it is set in.
Instead of there being horses and swords, there are trains, bombs, machine guns, and military
vehicles. These changes reinforce the political seriousness of the play, and display its
timelessness. If one move the setting of the play to any political era, the story will still be the
same, about corruption and power, but will become modernize to fit the world of the era. That is
what the movie adaptation was aiming for, and they achieve this through the changes of
Westminster being a railway station, a power station being the Tower of London, where Clarence
and the Princes are imprisoned and killed. Most of the changes are significance and are not just
there because the movie is an adaptation, the changes amplifies the major concept of
Shakespeares Richard III, and wants people to imagine this story in any time period, to see how
important it is to be wary of such rulers.

Вам также может понравиться