Richard III the (Un)historical Underpinnings

Richard III

The (Un)Historical Underpinnings for Shakespeare's Richard the Third and Modern Interpretations of the Same

Richard III is without a doubt one of Shakespeare's most deliciously wonderful villains; though e gives reasons for his evil actions, he does not attempt to morally justify them as other Shakespearean villains such as Othello's Iago and King Lear's Edmund do. Instead, he reveals is plots and the selfishness that lead to them with an absolute and palpable glee, co-opting the audience as a silent ally in each of his nefarious deeds and enjoying every minute of it. There is really very little historical basis for this characterization, however; the real Richard the Third was likely no worse than most other monarchs of England and of his day, and was probably far better than some. Shakespeare's characterization can best be seen as an explanation for what was otherwise a fairly tenuous hold on the throne by the Tudor family at the end of the period known as the Wars of the Roses.

This history of this period is complex, but essentially Henry Tudor, who defeated Richard in battle and became King Henry VII, was the son of a noble lady and Owen Tudor, who had no claim to the throne whatsoever. Making Richard a complete villain enabled audiences to revile him and revere the dynasty that replaced him. This was only fully accomplished, however, due to the audience's enjoyment of watching Richard on stage. Had he been a normal and more human seeming character, sympathies might have been higher, and watching Richard's climb to power eventual destruction would have been far less satisfying. In making Richard III a full embodiment of total and unapologetic evil, the audience is permitted to enjoy what Richard gets away with, and leave the theatre enjoying what he got.

It has been noted that the morality of Richard the Third is entirely certain, and that this lack of ambiguity marks the play as one of Shakespeare's early works (Riverside 750). This can be seen in Richard's manipulation of the Lord Mayor of London in III.iv.; though the mayor was generally independent of the Crown, as was the City of London, Richard is able to uses and manipulate everyone around him in any way he sees fit (Barton 117). By repeatedly sharing such manipulations with the audience in an overt manner, Richard makes it clear that everyone does what he makes them, even when they seem to know better -- as the audiences of Shakespeare's day even more than our own were certainly expected to. In some ways, the enjoyment of watching Richard climb to the pinnacle of power is enjoyable precisely because the audience/reader knows better; Richard is able to do what most people wouldn't even let themselves consciously consider.

Examining the scholarship and criticism of Shakespeare's works in the century following his death, Hugh Grady comes to the conclusions that "Shakespeare had to be reinvented" in the Restoration period (268). This reinvention has continued in every era since, including in the modern film adaptation of Richard the Third starring Ian McKellan. Set just prior to World War II and with Richard as a fascist dictator who often appears quasi-Naziish, this film version gives much darker political overtones to Richard's climb and eventual reign than appear in Shakespeare's text. Though this makes the depth of Richard's evil far more profound and influential, it also has the effect of somewhat ruining the original impact of the play (or script) by making the outcome too serious.

There is, of course, no lack of seriousness in the political effects of the play or the grief of the many characters that Richard wrongs on his way to the throne, but it is tempered throughout the script by Richard's sense of his own dastardliness, and his completely self-serving attitude. In the script, he does desire to not wield power simply or even primarily because he thrives on being in charge, but more because he thrives on being the center of attention. Though McKellan's performance of the part is highly watchable and even shows the delicious evilness of the character at some moments, the politicization of the plot weakens the sense of humor and selfishness that is such a fundamental part of Richard's character and the script. It certainly lets the film make a strong statement about modern politics and the similarities that exist between the leaders and beliefs of today's governments and those that existed in the supposedly more ruthless time of the Plantagenets and Tudors (and Stuarts, though later). But this reinterpretation and reinvention of Shakespeare necessarily loses something of the original flavor of the Bard's work.