When initially looking at the term ‘textual conversations,’ one can easily feel anxious. Yes- it may sound a bit convoluted and technical, however it really refers to the ways in which one text can create a dialogue- whether it be thematic, contextual, structural or paradigmatic- with another text. The other text may respond to this concept, theme or idea by reframing it in a similar manner; creating a resonance, or a slightly different manner; creating a dissonance. These alignments or collisions are often reflective of contextual circumstances, which are always evolving, and the perspective of the writer or auteur.

Okay, so we’ve decoded the rubric a bit. Now for the two texts. Firstly, we’ll anatomise one of Shakespeare’s most famous historical tragedies, King Richard III, (1593), which revolves around a hubristic royal who cynically transgresses the preordained order to usurp the throne. King Richard’s Machiavellian archetype aligns with the cunning and manipulative Michael Corleone, who is portrayed by Al Pacino in The Godfather.

Hang on a sec. Machiavellianism is a big word- and one that you should probably use in your essay, especially because as Shakespeare was creating characters who were not only more psychologically complex, but with greater dimensionality, even though Elizabethan England had very little understanding of human psychology. In essence, Niccolò Machiavelli was an Italian Renaissance philosopher and writer, whose oeuvre, The Prince, exposed the internecine deception inherent in political powerplay. His philosophical findings resulted in the eponymous trope that is endowed to someone who is deceptive and prepared to disregard moral and social rectitude in order to achieve and maintain a certain status; usually in the political sphere. Thus, Richard III would be considered a classic Machiavellian, primarily due to these traits:

o  Narcissistic

o  Deceitful under the façade of wittiness and charm

o  Fixated on their own ambitions

o  Extremely power-hungry

o  Exploiting others to follow his perceived trajectory

o  Lying is a frequent tool

o  Duplicity or verisimilitude

o  Manipulative

o  Lack of moral compass or moral incongruity

o  Lack of empathy

o  Self-aggrandizing

o  Struggle to express and identify their emotions

This trope is accentuated by Richard’s deformed figure, which he makes reference to throughout the play; “Cheated of feature by dissembling nature/ Deformed, unfinished, sent before my time,” wherein the nexus of unpleasant visual imagery and the polysyndeton elucidate how suffering discloses itself through the language of the body. During this period, Elizabethans believed that one’s external appearance was reflective of their inherent goodness or evilness, and as Richard was ‘cast’ out earthside, it suggests that his ‘evilness’ is indelibly etched from birth and his physical deformities are emblematic of his moral degeneracy; establishing him as a Machiavel from the outset.

Al Pacino attempts to physically emulate Richard’s deformity in his “docudrama type thing,” Looking for Richard, (1996) wherein he acts as an intellectual and emotional conduit to imbue the disconnected, postmodern society with authoritative knowledge on Shakespeare’s artistry. This is a resonance, and thereby a conversation that is being shared between both texts. Despite the fact a large proportion of Pacino’s film includes archaic discourse, in the form of Elizabethan syntax, he reimagines the play in a 20^th century setting and uses contemporary mediums, such as a handheld camera, to interpret and re-enact the timeless play from a postmodern perspective; creating a plethora of anachronisms. This is a resonance and a dissonance, respectively!

Pacino’s acting career has allowed him to play similarly villainous, anti-heroic characters, whose archetypal traits include:  

o  Moral incongruity

o  Lacking compassion, sympathy and loyalty

o  Cunning and manipulative

o  Deceptive

o  Ability to elicit sympathy from the audience

o  Have easily identifiable imperfections and deformities, (physical and emotional)

o  The reader is privy to their inner motivations from the outset.

o  Motivated by self-interest and cynicism

o  Duplicitous

In Looking for Richard, Pacino creates a filmic world that dissects King Richard III, analyses it and reframes it with the intention of informing a postmodern, increasingly secular audience, who have limited knowledge of the theological, social and cultural circumstances of the Elizabethan Era, about the play. He also attempts to discredit the British, scholarly authority over Shakespeare and make it more accessible to the general public. This is his main purpose!

Okay, so now we know that the conversation between both texts is textually is textually rich in form, context, stylistic devices and filmic theatricality to provide a more complex, profound insight into universal truths and values, as well as the multifaceted human condition. While Richard vows to live unencumbered by the historical demands of his time, Pacino adheres to the postmodernist, contextual demands of a politically-jaded American society. Let’s get into the context!

Contexts

Both texts were crafted under differing social, cultural and political paradigms, as well as contextual circumstances. There are a lot of contextual dissonances between both texts, so it’s important to know a bit about the worlds in which the texts were produced.

In Shakespeare’s Elizabethan world, the increasing influence of Renaissance Humanism provided the impetus for greater exploration into psychologically complex characters, moral fallibility and self-determination. Nevertheless, Shakespeare structured his narrative around the concomitant Divine Right of Kings, which ensured that kings were exempt from earthly consequences if they had transgressed; fuelling Richard’s hubris. Furthermore, predeterminism and cosmic determinism were also deeply entrenched in the Elizabethan society, in that a theological, divine force would determine the repercussions of one’s transgressive actions; thereby inevitably restricting character autonomy from the outset. Shakespeare also emulated the socio-political malaise and fragmentation of 16^th century England after the cataclysmic Battle of Tewkesbury, (1471), and subsequent power vacuum. In contrast, Looking for Richard reflects the postmodern, individualistic American society that values ambition and believes that moral transgression will inevitably result in negative repercussions.

o  Renaissance humanism is the dominant paradigmatic influence over the play. Humanists and intellectuals during this period encouraged society to think ethically about their actions, which, if you think about it, creates a dissonance with Richard III’s unbridled actions. It also altered contemporary thinking and placed greater importance on individual autonomy and agency in lieu of a preordained, religious order, which resonates with Richard and his actions.

o  The Battle of Tewkesbury created a monarchical precariousness that began to impinge on the socio-political fabric of the English society. Richard capitalised on this social malaise to accede to the throne relatively unscathed.

o  Postmodernism emerged mid-20th century as a reaction to world events and upheaval; prompting greater questioning of what it means to be human. The media was an integral part of the postmodern society, which one could use to discover and create their own realities, and that there were always multiple interpretations to any theory, art form or idea.

Form

o  Looking for Richard is crafted in a stream-of-consciousness and almost pastiche style as he attempts to recreate an archaic, Elizabethan ambiance and emulate Shakespeare’s theatrical intentions, but also reframe them for a 20^th century, postmodern audience. Coupled with the utilisation of more contemporary filmic techniques, this is quite dissonant from Shakespeare’s tightly wound, fast-paced narrative written for a 16^th– century stage performance.

o  Pacino’s docudrama also involves method acting, which is a form of metatheatricality that involves rigorous rehearsing in order to emotionally align with and embody the traits of their persona.

o  Vox populi is also a theme that runs concurrently throughout both texts. In King Richard III, Shakespeare transgresses the literary norms for 16th century literature, (and in this case, the Great Chain of Being), by increasing visibility to the lower class and endowing them with a voice. They are aware of Richard’s verisimilitude and their opinions end up foreshadowing the political discord towards the end of the play; exemplified by the haunting statement; “I fear t’will prove a troublous world.”

o  This resonates with Looking for Richard, which is interweaved with intercut sequences of Pacino interviewing Americans on the street as they provide valuable social commentary on the play. “We should introduce Shakespeare into the academics…. then children would have feelings.” This is a textual conversation, (yep, we can use this term!), between both texts, as they both feature voices that are perceived to have limited social value. 

Themes & Contextual Analysis

Pursuit of power

Both Pacino and Shakespeare’s texts underscore how the pursuit for power and ambition can be dangerous and unrelenting, but integral to cementing one’s identity. In the Elizabethan context of Shakespeare’s text, transgressing the preordained order for cynical purposes was sacrilegious; lending credence to fateful repercussions manifested in the form of Divine Retribution and leading to the inexorable ‘fall of man.’ In their pursuit of power, Pacino and Richard employ deception as part of their subterfuge to manipulate those around them and achieve their self-serving, politically motivated imperative of intellectual and artistic authority and usurping the throne, respectively. Pacino reconceptualises his powerful role as the glorified mediator between the archaic narrative and disconnected, postmodern audience, primarily through verisimilitude. His metatheatrical question, “Who’s gonna say action around here?” at the beginning of the film, coupled with the shaking, authentic handheld camera and self-reflexive stream-of-consciousness, portrays Pacino as ostensibly naive and oblivious; eliciting empathy with the postmodern audience as if he is unaware of the historical relevance of Shakespeare. This contextually resonates with the characteristics of Pacino’s anti-heroic archetypes, who are often morally incongruous, power-hungry and emotionally manipulative for cynical ambitions. This feigned ignorance is dispelled by Kimball’s blatant comment; “we’ve done Shakespeare three times.” Thus, Pacino’s understanding is obscured and the readers must rely on him as a conduit to imbue them with knowledge and shape their perception of the play; which he achieves by playing the naïf. The idea of power through deception is recontextualised in different contexts, wherein Shakespeare frames Richard’s pursuit to usurp the throne preceding the cataclysmic War of the Roses and as a transgression of the concomitant Divine Right of Kings; allowing him to embody a similar deceiving, Machiavellian voice. Shakespeare also thinks metatheatrically about his characters as actors and the world as a performance stage; profoundly expressed when Buckingham attempts to convince the Lord that Richard should be king; “I shall counterfeit a deep tragedian… ghastly looks/ Are at my service, like enforced smiles,” where the future tense and metatheatrical discourse reflects the corruption and cynicism inherent in the political sphere. After a protracted, artificially constructed argument, Richard feigns a begrudging acceptance; “I am not made of stone,/But penetrable to your kind entreats/ Albeit against my conscience and my soul,” where the metaphor of his emotional fortitude allows him to construct a façade of bravery when accepting the proposal; lending credence to his verisimilar nature, as his “honey’d words” endow him with a linguistic manipulation.

The role of women and patriarchy

Both texts explore how the acquisition of power reflects differing social paradigms in terms of the subservience and dominance of women. In Elizabethan England, women were passive, subordinate individuals situated on the lower echelons of the Great Chain of Being; deprived of agency. However, Shakespeare recontextualizes this perspective through his tragic form by endowing the female characters in King Richard III with a significantly authoritative role; ironically subverting the deeply entrenched axioms of the Elizabethan period. The hegemonic, yet sacrilegious status of women is exemplified by their prophecies, which shape Richard’s narrative of upheaval and allow them to act as powerful agents of cosmic determinism; irrespective of the highly patriarchal social milieu. Despite the fact that Margaret is a disenfranchised widow, her linguistic prowess allows her to be the voice of Providence; “Can curses pierce the clouds and enter heaven? / Well give way, dull clouds, to my quick curses!” wherein the emphatic tone, coupled with the cosmic metaphor, illuminate her prophesying propensities and ability to engage with the supernatural; ultimately sealing Richard’s dismal fate. The fateful repercussions of these imprecations are focalised through Buckingham’s narrative after his imprisonment and before his impending execution; “Margaret’s curse falls heavy upon my neck/ When he, quoth she, ‘Shall split thy heart with sorrow’/ Remember Margaret was a prophetess,” where the retrospective reflection upon Margaret’s curse and the power ascribed to it, as it is the curse that “falls heavy upon my neck” rather than Richard’s axe, highlights his past fallibility and obliviousness to her occult imprecations. This suggests that Shakespeare offers an admonition: that undermining female capabilities will provide the impetus for tragic consequences. Contrastingly, in Looking for Richard, Pacino silences the unbridled, sophisticated female voice by dismissing Margaret’s role to merely a “ghost of the castle who haunts the Yorks;” a stark contrast to the egalitarian paradigms upheld by his postmodernist American society, which have evolved over time due to successive feminist upheavals. The negative, disturbing connotations of “ghost” and “haunt” highlights her marginality, and represents the plight of women in patriarchal Renaissance England, but for a modern context. Through this subdued female dynamic, he presents her as a threat to masculine hegemony and Richard’s threshold on power; which would have undermined Pacino’s role as the mediator. Margaret’s debasement acts as an archetypal trope for a secularised audience; suggesting that one’s downfall is not a byproduct of the supernatural but of their own morally incongruent actions.

Cosmic determinism

Both Pacino and Shakespeare explore the inevitable nature of self-destruction as a byproduct of man’s unbridled, tempered desire for power. While Shakespeare rendered Richard’s demise a byproduct of the supernatural, Pacino reconceptualises his emotional and psychological undoing to be a repercussion of his cynicism. Under the Elizabethan theological order of cosmic determinism, wherein all events are determined by pre-existing causes, Richard’s soliloquises; “Since I cannot prove a lover/ To entertain these fair, well-spoken days/ I am determined to prove a villain,” where the juxtaposition and diction of “determined,” illuminates how his insecurity concerning his appearance has enforced him to adopt the role of a Machiavellian vice; transgressing the divine moral code. He is driven by his unrestrained, untempered will in an attempt to circumvent the moral conscience of his fellow characters. This reaffirms that individuals have a natural proclivity to resort to evil in undesirable circumstances, however it can often lead to fatalistic consequences. Due to the spiritualism inherent in the play, Richard’s transgression of divine providence suggest that his self-destruction was ‘determined’ and indelibly etched from birth. The idea of predeterminism transcends time and continues to shape the moral framework of the postmodern, American society; manifested in the form of guilt, wherein one’s anguish is as a result of their actions. Pacino reconceptualises this paradigm during the dream sequence montage, wherein the audience is invited into Richard’s degenerative psyche, and the rhythmic repetition of the ghost chants; “despair and die/ despair and die” in both texts during Richard’s anagnorisis represents Richard’s inability to not only escape God’s preordained, Divine Order, but his ruthless actions and the consequences. The close-up and Dutch angle shots of Pacino’s tormented facial expression mirrors his inner, psychological anguish as he critically realises the consequences of his monomania. Despite the fact that Pacino has omitted the spiritual ‘ghost’ element of the scene, he experiences a flashback of those who have suffered because of his actions, as well as a foreshadowing vision of him being stabbed at Bosworth Field. This aligns with the modern ideal that one’s trauma can infiltrate into their subconscious; and deny them any absolution or solace; reaffirming Kimball’s blatant social commentary; “Richard has let the pursuit of power totally corrupt him… he is alienated from his body and self.”

Want to see how our tutors can help you write with insight and sophistication? Contact us today to learn more about how we help students succeed in English!