To what extent have the connections you have made between the two texts shown how particular concerns, although timeless, impact differently on individuals in different contexts.
Cool question!Composers share the purpose of wanting to entertain, so their portrayal of certain concerns and their positioning of the audience to view these concerns is context specific, even when the nature of the concerns themselves is timeless.
I'm wary that "concerns" has been used three times in the first sentence.
Twice is the maximum, I'd say. With the purpose to affirm Elizabeth I and her family’s reign, William Shakespeare tarnishes the name of Richard III in his sixteenth century historical tragedy, King Richard III. He demonstrates how the Machiavellian rise to power of Richard III, focussing on his duplicitous nature, is immoral and therefore, appeasing commonly held contextual values, divine retribution is deserved. By contrast, Al Pacino has no political agenda in his 1996 docudrama Looking for Richard. Through method acting, he comes to appreciate Richard’s character as complex and due also to his American, secular audience, valuing the American Dream,
The American Dream, for me, is a step too far in the introduction. I'd leave this to explore later on. And while the audience is secular, yes, I'd say it in comparison to Shakespeare, like "due to an audience far less religious than Shakespeare's original audience.." or something like this to show the comparison stronger.portrays him as deeply flawed rather than evil. Further, the women of Richard III and Looking for Richard are portrayed as intelligent, recognising Richard’s malevolence, however, due to Shakespeare’s patriarchal context and Pacino’s reframing of the key themes, the women have limited power and effect upon their society.
Both composer’s
No need for the apostrophe here 
acknowledge the audience’s intrigue with the fascinating character of Richard III, however, contexts influence the portrayal of Richard’s characteristics and ultimate demise. In the first scene of Richard III, Richard grapples with the dilemma of determinism, that is, whether his deformities determine him to be evil
by divine affair?. Being “curtail’d of this fair proportion” and “deformed, unfinished, sent before [his] time” Shakespeare uses highly emotive language to portray RIchard’s discontent with his appearance. Shakespeare, influenced by Sir Thomas More, portrays Richard with the contextual knowledge that physical deformities were deemed a sign of inner corruption and evilness. According to Kimmel, “Shakespeare has exaggerated Richard’s deformity in order to ... expose the corruption of his mind”. This identification of Shakespeare’s choices but then decision not to copy it demonstrates how the texts have different audiences and purposes. Given that modern society doesn’t associate disabilities with evilness, Pacino dons black attire and chiaroscuro lighting is employed, directly splitting his face in half, to emphasise the malevolent, duplicitous nature of Richard’s character. On meeting Clarence, Shakespeare demonstrates Richard’s control of lexicon and emotions by telling his thoughts to “dive...down to his soul” and through pun, saying that he will “deliver [Clarence] or else lie for [him]”. He employs an artificially compassionate tone saying that “this deep disgrace in brotherhood | touches me”. Within the film however, Pacino admits that “the role and the actor will merge” and revels Richard’s Chameleon-like personality, implicitly encapsulating his duplicity through his costuming: in his modern, black attire, in civilian clothing, in Elizabethan costuming, as an interviewer, among a few, and through the combination of wearing the cap in public to convey the enmeshment of character and actor.
This is a really interesting paragraph, it so smoothly moves between the two texts I read it again to make sure it was your intention - and it was! So great! If I can suggest something in the way of textual analysis, I'd look more closely at the Richard III analysis and try bring out something that is an allusion to Christianity or divine ascension. Perhaps the opening soliloquy? I think you privilege the second text more, when there's still more digging to do with the original. Whilst both composers address the intrigue of Richard’s duplicity similarly, his death is the the most explicit contrast of differing portrayals. Shakespeare addresses the death with one stage direction of “King Richard III is slain”, following which Richmond proclaims as a victory speech, that “now civil wounds are stopped, peace lives again”, and then he concludes by saying “God say amen”, using the religious language to acknowledge divine retribution. By contrast, Pacino focuses on the battle for much longer, portraying Richard as flawed, with constant panning around him, then from his perspective, in an uncontrolled manner, mirroring his thoughts.
Syntax wise, this sentence needs improvement. There's a lot of commas and not a lot of sense can be made from it! I wasn't sure how to follow it. By battling on, Pacino portrays his respectable qualities, like persistence and bravery, which his American Dream-supporting audience can relate to. It is therefore easy to conclude that whilst Richard’s duplicitous nature is acknowledged by both composers as fascinating for an audience, the nature of his demise is most reflective of the differing contexts.
The function of women defined by the two texts yields a dissimilar connection influenced by the differing historical and cultural contexts, and therefore affecting the audiences differently. The women are the voice of reason in Richard III, together affirming determinism. Through Buckingham’s reference that “Margaret’s curse falls heavy upon [his] neck” Shakespeare conveys Margret’s important role as a woman as a force of fate, referring to her earlier curse, “O, but remember this another day … and say poor Margaret was a prophetess!” where her apostrophe emphasises her prophetic power. Pacino discards the role of determinism
observed in Shakespeare's text by discrediting Margaret. As a voice-over, he dismisses her as a “ghost from the past”, discarding her credibility of curses.
Your movement between texts is so seamless that sometimes I don't actually realise, so a simple comparative phrase like I've added just before will allow the reader to follow through with you.In a frenzied montage of Margaret cursing, she is costumed in oversized clothing with frizzled hair. This insane representation of her is amplified by non-diegetic, inharmonious orchestral music, which positions the audience to question her authenticity. Where Shakespeare’s comments on the nature of the patriarchy: that despite everything the women prophesise, eventuating, they are powerless, Pacino portrays woman as a stepping stone in Richard’s attainment of power, furthering audience dislike towards him, but for his social immorality rather than lack of godliness.
An absence of divine order in the modern representation, despite shared beliefs concerning audiences’ fascination regarding Richard’s complex, duplicitous character, reflects the contextual differences. Further, the dissimilar portrayal of women and their roles within each text demonstrates each composer’s acknowledgement of their respective audiences and their values. The impact on audiences is therefore different, based on the composers’ differing emphases.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Topic: Advanced: KRIII and LFR (Mod A) (Read 2025 times)