Customer Reviews

Richard III (Bantam Classics)

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Having never read Richard III, I knew that I would be in for a treat, but nothing quite THIS good. Originally labeled as The Tragedy of Richard III by Shakespeare, one can see, upon reading this enthralling play, why this history/tragedy firmly entrenched itself as one of The Bard's most prolifically performed plays with almost unrivaled longevity due to its immense popularity among the genteel and yeomen alike.

Although the much-maligned humpback King Richard was by no means a saint by any stretch, he was not, however, as wretchedly insidious as Shakespeare might have us believe. In an effort to pander to Queen Elizabeth, Shakespeare cast perhaps an overly morose shadow over the House of York. The play itself, interestingly enough, focuses not so much on the bloody ending of The War of Roses and the ascension to the throne of Henry VII(the grandfather of Elizabeth) as it does on the uncannily cunning connivances of Richard III. Richard's dastardly deeds, the sordid means to his end of usurping the crown, know no limits as he murders any and all who dare get in his way - and even those that don't(I suppose they're guilty by association).

Inextricably, although I by no means empathize with him even remotely, Richard somehow, despite his inordinately decadent reprobate ploys, coupled with his twisted soliloquies pleading to the audience his hopeless case, make him one entirely enigmatic, yet entirely captivating, antagonist that makes this play enticingly enjoyable -- in a most devilish kind of way.

"O coward conscience, how dost thou afflict me!"

This edition has one of the best introductions I've read: informative, well-written and with photos from productions of R III. Just the section on Macbeth and Richard makes this top-notch. Even the Folio/Quarto stuff is interesting -- short and not pedantic. This is my choice for Richard III edition.

Shakespeare portrays King Richard III as a hunchbacked thoroughly evil man. While based upon the historical Richard III, the play is a dramatization. Although classed as a history, remember that Shakespeare's histories aren't historically accurate biographies. Richard is a power-hungry brother of a king who murders, schemes, marries, and plots to usurp the throne from rightful heirs. Richard gets his due when he meets Henry Tudor on the field of battle and the reign of the Yorkist kings comes to an end. Written under the rule of a Tudor monarch (Elizabeth I), the play paints the brutal Richard in an especially unfavorable light. After all, the rise of the Tudors depended upon the death of Richard III. The treatment of women in the play has been criticized, especially the speed under which Anne accepts Richard III -- with her dead father in law in the scene, no less. The play compresses 14 years or so of real history into 5 acts. It is hard to go wrong with Shakespeare. A good but dark read.

I'm a Ricardian, but I love this play--it's Shakespare at his finest. He manipulates the historical characters beautifully, especially Richard himself (and Richard then manipulates most of the other characters). The play opens with Richard, then Duke of Gloucester, who gives a poetic list of all the nasty things that he will do...why? Because he wants to be king? Partly. But there are plenty of psychological reasons as well (for instance, does anyone notice that once Richard does become king, he isn't as happy as he thought he'd be?).

Slowly, Old Crookback's conscience begins to tug (forget the Sixth Sense, *he* sees plenty of dead people himself!). Some of my favorite quotes are to be found here, for instance:

Anne Neville, to Richard, before accepting his proposal of marriage: "Never hung poison on a fouler toad. Out of my sight! Thou dost infect mine eyes."

or

"Off with his son George's head!" And of course "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!" and the very nifty little pun at the beginning of the play. (Richard's lines, of course.)

You *do* begin to like him, that that *is* rather frightening!

For better or worse, Richard III's enduring image of the cunning, hunchbacked usurper, more monster than man, is immortalized in Will's tragic history of his bloody rise and fall. This version contains good notes, a superb intro, and even illustrations to liven the text!

This play by Shakespeare is a fundamental achievement in drama. The main character is shown as evil but at the same time, if one can read properly and see all the details, he is the one who finally establishes the principle that the English king has to be accepted at least if not selected by the representative of the City of London, hence establishing the « constitutional » or « parliamentary » nature of the English Crown. It also establishes the fact that a bad king must give way to a good one, that it is a moral duty for everyone to fight against a bad king. We are miles away from the feudal acceptance of the king as the direct representative of God on earth and against whom all rebellion is unacceptable. The play builds up this moral resistance against the bad king little by little and makes it irreversible. Here we really touch the historical value of this king : he is a complete turning point in the English monarchy : the king has to accept being scrutinized and criticized by all the representatives of civil society, even if, for a time at least, these can be lured and cheated. Sooner or later good will prevail. This is Shakespeare's fundamental belief that tragedy comes from the disruption of a balanced situation by some crime and finds its resolution in the rebalancing of the situation by the elimination of the bad ones and the coming to the front of a new generation of good ones. The value of this belief in our present world is fundamental and essential.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

This is my favortie Shakespeare play, simply because Richard is so evil and so power hungry. You have to get under his skin in order to like it: something many people are afraid to do. If you are able to sympathize with evil desires, then this play promises many rewards.

Shakespeare got away with this play because he is critical of two monastic houses that were no longer in power when he lived. The ultimate nod to the Tudors and Stuarts for whom Shakespeare worked, this play paints a picture of the York and Lancastrian dynasties as petty and foolish--as inbred buffoons. One of the most comic scenes (yes, I said comic) comes in Act II when the Duchess gets together with the wife of Clarence and his children and they all argue over who has the most to mourn.

This play is a good sketch of human self-centeredness, and we like Richard perhaps because he is the only character willing to admit he's a hypocrite.

By the way, I always recommend that students buy the Folger edition--this version eliminates the side-by-side in lieu of a comprehensive glossary parallel to each page of text.

"Richard III" is a fun play. It has some great lines like "True hope is swift and flies with swallow's wings/Kings it makes gods and meaner creatures kings" (not said by the title character, though) and of course "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!", the line that committed many men to the Richard III ward of Monty Python's Hospital for Overacting. But it also showcases the life and times of one of the meanest men ever to hit the stage: Richard, Duke of Gloucester, unlawful heir to the throne of England.

Richard's outward appearance is unfortunate -- he has a crooked back, is unlucky in love, and dogs bark at him -- but it's his inward personality that makes him unpleasant. He's cruel, selfish, manipulative, hot-tempered -- for dramatic purposes, he makes the perfect villain. Nobody seems to like him except his cronies Catesby and Buckingham, and even Buckingham later turns against him; even his own mother despises him after she figures out what a rat he is. On the other hand, he has all the positive qualities of a fighting underdog: Rather than wallow in self-pity over his deformity, he's decisive, fearless, and motivated. Only in the last act, when he realizes that he does indeed have a "coward conscience," does his confidence begin to falter.

Richard tells the audience in the very first scene what kind of guy he is and what he's planning to do, which is ultimately to become King of England, the office held currently by his brother Edward IV. To do this, he must arrange for the deaths of his brother George the Duke of Clarence, King Edward's sons, the Lord Chamberlain, and Buckingham, done by simply dispatching his henchmen. All the while, he is continually informing the audience of his next vicious scheme, winking at us with a you-know-you-love-me-anyway impudence as though we were accomplices in his dirty deeds.

What makes Richard the perfect dramatic villain, though, is not just his wickedness, but the underhanded ways he deflects censure from the people he most wishes to impress. Watch how he plays the innocent lamb to Lady Anne, whose husband and father-in-law he murdered and whom he is trying to marry; how he rationalizes his evil deeds to Queen Elizabeth, whose sons he ordered killed and whose daughter he would like to marry after Anne dies; how he feigns piety and modesty to appear to the English people all the more deserving of the crown. I think this is the mark of Shakespeare's genius -- creating not just a bad guy, but a guy who's so bad he knows exactly how and when to pretend to be good.

Richard III is the most well crafted satanic character in all of Shakespeare's writing. What can get frightening is that you see his evil, and yet you like him. The play is dramatically frightening from one scene to the next. To this day, I never could forget the scene where Hastings is sentenced to death or when Richard is haunted by the 11 ghosts. But the virtuous Henry VII also offers captivating passages (especially his passage that announces the end of the War of the Roses.) It is also interesting to see how carefully Shakespeare had to handle Henry VII, seing his granddaughter Elizabeth was in the audience. To be sure, Richard III is blamed for several things he did not do. The dramatic irony is that whatever he was innocent of, all the circumstancial evidence says he murdered his nephews.(Rumors that he killed them continued to spread like fire. Not only did he start losing England's loyalty, but many of his own followers in a rage abandoned him and joined Henry VII. France began to humiliate Richard by broadcasting official accusations and Richard never so much as denied having done it. If he could have produced the princes, his troubles would have been over.)This one vile deed made it possible for Shakespeare to make Richard this monster from hell and convincingly pile a slew of vile deeds upon him of which he was innocent. But all that aside, women such as Richard's furious mother and the raging former Queen Margaret add to the drama and chills. The gradual unfolding of Margaret's curses adds a charming orginizational bonus to this masterpiece. If you want to enjoy this play all the more, make sure you read "3 Henry VI" first. Richard's demonic nature is heavily prepared in this preceeding play.