Power is a privilege and should only be given to those who can handle it. The act of counterfeit can often hinder success. King Henry himself rose to the thrown with help from the Percy’s as he “stole all the courtesy from heaven” and broke Richard’s “divine right” to being King. Although he is successful in gaining power, because of its illegitimacy, Henry struggles to use his this effectively. As he suggests to Hal, he wants to be “like a comet” to be seen on a rare basis to be “wondered at” by his subjects.
English 'Persuasive Writing' By Eva Kiss Literature is meant to provide a perspective on life. The ability to view writing through different perspectives allows a deeper understanding of the text, as well as a wider knowledge about the world around us. William Shakespeare's Henry IV:Part One is one of his many historical plays, arguably intended to divulge to the Tudor England audience a different viewpoint of the Royal family to contemplate the rule of King Henry IV. The text opens up the issues of duty, the question of honour, the 'right' approach towards leadership and the value of life which, considering the Elizabethan period in which it was written, delves into the many concerns of the responders of the time, as well as remaining
Pacino, however, contends with a time where it is increasingly becoming the norm, but still contends with a society that can be considered moral devoid in some manners, and thus the importance of spirituality and thought is evident in both. Pacino is able to effectively portray Shakespeare’s core values in a manner that is able to best serve his context, and the values he aims to present. Within Elizabethan times, power was a hereditary property, not based upon skill, but upon heritage, but still kept in check by the great chain of being. Shakespeare’s Richard usurps this natural order, and thus brings tyranny and corruption upon the Kingdom. From the outset, Richard makes his evil intent clear, noting cynically and declaratively “Since I cannot prove a lover … I am determined to prove a villain,” revealing that power itself has not corrupted him, but the desire for it.
A comparative study of Al Pacino’s ‘Looking for Richard’ and Shakespeare’s ‘The tragedy of King Richard the 3rd’ reveals to the audience the relevance and freedom of interpretation surrounding such profound pieces of literature such as Shakespeare’s plays. The vast majority of the modern audience feels distant to Shakespeare, many with a tainted outlook on his works due to a lack of understanding and unfortunate experiences studying his work. ‘Looking for Richard’, through the use of many cinema techniques conveys transcendence ideas on Richard’s role in modern society whilst supporting the idea that Shakespeare’s literature is timeless and germane. Looking for Richard reconnects us to the world of Shakespeare presenting the ideas and values of ‘King Richard 3rd’ to this post-modern era. ‘The Tragedy of King Richard the 3rd’ was a revolutionary play of its time due to its appeal of all classes ranging from the noblest Queen to the street pheasant.
By casting Richard (a York) as a villain Shakespeare is affirming to his Elizabethan audience of the emergent middle class and the nobility of the Tudor’s legitimate right to rule over England. The play also reflects the tension between providentalism and the growing secular interest in free will. This shift from God’s will to free will is particularly evident in the character of Richard as he fights for power and leadership, disregarding his conscience and religion. Al Pacino’s 1996 documentary Looking for Richard produced for an American audience that fails to see how Shakespeare is relevant to the world around them “It has always been a dream of mine to communicate how I feel about Shakespeare to others”. However like Richard III, Looking for Richard was set after another significant conflict in the Cold War.
Because the British government was not fulfilling Jefferson’s previously mentioned definition of a government’s duties; they were forced to take the very necessary step of removing themselves from the King’s rule and ruling themselves. In what has become one of the most identifiable phrases in political theory, Jefferson declares certain truths to be “self-evident”. These truths that all men are created equal and that men are endowed with certain unalienable rights became increasingly integral to the cause championed by Jefferson and the other creators of the
In his view, the end to political instability justifies the means no matter how shady they may be. He states, “Many have imagined republics and principalities that have never been seen or known to exist in reality. For there is such a difference between the way men live and the way they ought to live.... because anyone who determines to act in all circumstances the part of a good man must come to ruin among so many who are not good.” (Machiavelli p.186) Many of the virtues advocated for in The Prince are apparent in Claudius’ character from William Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet. Hamlet tells of the various activities that take place during a questionable shift of royal power in Denmark. It is the acquisition and maintenance of this power that shows just how Machiavellian Claudius’ character is in the play.
For example in the play Macbeth we are aware of Macbeth’s inner conflict which results in us (the audience) to sympathise with him. In contrast doesn’t give us an insight into Napoleon’s inner thoughts which in turn makes it harder for us to relate to his character. Each of the texts use this technique to demonstrate an explanation on the social-historical context of the time.
In the king’s monologue, Shakespeare’s use of antithesis creates a balanced contrast between Claudius’ real thoughts and lies that he is telling to the people. Such literary device not only emphasizes the contradiction in the king’s character but sets the border between the truth and the lie in his speech. When the king starts with the conjunction “though,” the reader can already be aware of the possible context of the second part of the sentence that will be contradicting with the first part. As Claudius talks about his brother, the contrast between the words “death” and “green” creates an effect of revealing Claudius’ insincerity as he talks about his brother. Also, when he talks about Old Hamlet, he does not call him “my brother.” In fact, he uses the first person plural pronoun “our” as if he tries to redeem himself from this connection to his brother.
Can the play be optimistic if the Antrobuses haven't changed fromtheir experiences? Topics for Research and Writing Projects 1. Wilder was accused of plagiarism by Campbell and Robinson. Read this essay and the response by