English Advanced MOD A Essay (King Richard III & Looking For Richard)

[Dominique Gray]

Hi all,
This was basically my essay for Mod A Trials. I don't remember the exact question, but l was hoping that l could get some advice on it anyway. It was a little more rough than this easy, but this is what l am aiming for.

Thank you!

In view of the Shakespearean period’s attachment to the power structure of the Divine Right of Kings, in tandem with the Great Chain of Being, power could be understood in a metaphysical, non-external manner, this compared to Pacino’s 20th century docu-drama, which is made to give audiences an easier way to access King Richard. However, Shakespeare attempts to present the tumultuous thirst for power that underpins Richard’s character, by showing his deformity in a physical manner, as so does Pacino. As such, both Shakespeare and Pacino makes the thirst for power appear particularly morally abhorrent, by showing it in a way that all audiences can engage with.

The inherent complexity of Richard’s character comes to the fore in the instances of his ambition for power, exemplified by the separation of his personae into two disparate parts. The first component, aligned with the charismatic and virtuous leader, serves as a facade, by which Richard is able to deceive the other characters that he interacts with in the play. However, his more deceptive and inherently evil attributes are more readily showcased; symbolic of the contextual force of divine retribution. In the opening soliloquy, Richard is described as “deformed, unfinished, sent before my time into this breathing world scarce half made up”, alluding to the holes within his moral composition, and the imperfect nature of his character. This idea is capitalised upon by Richard himself, who commits to a life of villainy, noted in the line “I am determined to prove a villain”. Thus, from the opening soliloquy the audience is brought to understand that despite his pleasant appearance at times, Richard’s character is inherently deceptive; blinded by his thirst for power. The binding of his attributes are shown in the warping of the prophecy, wherein he convinces Clarence that he is the murderer alluded to by Margaret, with Clarence stating “my name of George begins with G, it follows in his thought that I am he.” Amidst the veil of persuasion utilised by Richard, is the truly deceptive and manipulative villain that is deflecting the charge of murder from himself, thus exemplifying that his duplicity affords him the opportunity to acquire power and advance himself at the expense of others. As such, the complex nature of Richard’s character highlights his position as a Machiavellian leader, that is simultaneously inherently evil, whilst working under the guise of the charismatic and virtuous monarch.

Through Pacino’s use of method acting, Richard’s duplicity is made literal in view of the fact that in performance, the character is half composed of the actor, and half fashioned from Shakespeare’s original text. This representation reimagines the original text’s position that Richard is “barely half made up”, removing the gravitas of the statement from its contextual bounds of divine retribution, and situating it in a post-modern fashion, wherein individual characters are a bricolage of the people, places and time that the performance is being conducted in. Similarly, the motif of shadows contends that Richard’s character is half in vision, and half hidden, highlighting that not only is the character a composition of multiple parts, but that the character is never fully revealed to the audience; speaking to Richard’s hidden agenda and inherent deceptiveness. Thus, in a meta-textual sense, the manipulation of the prophecy in Looking for Richard from G to C is an exemplar of the power of method acting in characterisation, as through Pacino’s change of the prophecy, the character of Richard is posed as a manipulative and deceptive one. Therefore, the power of studying King Richard III in tandem with Looking for Richard, is in the ability to understand the way that characters are formed off the page, and in highlighting that Shakespeare’s original purpose was to bring the play into reality, and thus breathe life into the characters.

The struggle for power and legitimacy within King Richard III is situated in terms of an attempt to overthrow the Elizabethan notion of monarchical legitimacy. Thus, although their relationship is initially hinged on the acceleration of both of their statuses within the royal hierarchy, the relationship between Buckingham and Ricahrd ultimately falls apart as a result of the forces of Richard’s pride which goes against the relativist attitudes of the context. This fundamental unravelling becomes clear in Richard’s betrayal of Buckingham in Act 4 Scene 2, wherein he constantly ignored the pleas of Buckingham, calling out ‘Stanley’ instead. This highlights his childish attitude towards relationships, as he will only value that which advances him personally, and despises all that fundamentally disagrees with his own views. Furthermore, Richard’s position ‘I am not in the [giving] vein’ reveals his lack of mercy and forgiveness, detailing not only his drunkenness on the power that he has acquired, but equally highlighting Richard’s increasing state of isolation, as he loses the support of what was previously his ‘right hand man’. Such isolation is reinforced by the ghost scene, wherein Buckinham, as the last ghost, condemns Richard to his own downfall, noting ‘and Richard fall in height of all his pride’. Similarly, in willing Richard to ‘dream on, dream on, of bloody deeds and death’ Buckingham inadvertently condemns Richard to a sleepless future, shroud in imagery of his own crimes, thereby reinforcing the retribution that is afforded by a loss of loyalty. Therefore, the value of loyalty is explored in Richard and Buckingham’s relationship, revealing the intrinsic role of sin, in the form of pride, to the breakdown of not only political relationships, but individuals in the Shakespearean context.

In view of the text’s original positioning within a monarchical structure, Pacino reinvents the relationship between Buckingham and Richard so as to replicate a contemporary political relationship. This is aided by the use of political titles, such as the reference to Buckingham as ‘the secretary of state, propped up to the king’. This alignment with titles and events that are familiar to a contemporary audience make the relationship more evocative in that they can be accessed without knowledge of the monarchy. By extension, the relationship is littered with self-referentiality to Pacino’s own association with Italian Mafia theatre, and New York gang culture; facilitated by costuming, particularly the symbol of flat caps. The pair are depicted wearing flat caps, allusive to their being of the ‘same gang’, until Buckingham refuses to kill the princes. Following this scene within the play, Spacey, who portrays Buckingham, ceases to wear the cap. This is a subtle expression of the fall out between the characters, that resonates with a modern understanding of political relationships in a manner cogent with Pacino’s past. Finally, the aforementioned scene in which Buckingham is ultimately betrayed by Richard is portrayed in period style costuming, with additional visual stichomythia representing Buckingham as physically beneath Richard, whilst similarly dressed less elaborately than the King. Thus, Pacino emphasises the breakdown of loyalty through visual cues rather than ambiguous language that cannot be accessed by a late 20th century American audience. Thus, the authority and hierarchy within Buckingham and Richard’s relationship is made relevant by Pacino’s conscious adjustment of the political structure, which mirrors a more contemporary, parliamentary relationship, and utilises visual modes of representation to further insinuate this point.

Therefore, the power of studying King Richard III in tandem with Looking for Richard, is in the ability to understand the way that characters are formed off the page, and in highlighting that Shakespeare’s original purpose was to bring the play into reality, and thus breathe life into the characters.

[alice343]

Hi Dominique Gray! I've provided you with some writing feedback

---

In view of the Shakespearean period’s attachment to the power structure of the Divine Right of Kings, in tandem with the Great Chain of Being, power could be understood in a metaphysical, non-external manner, this compared to Pacino’s 20th century docu-drama, which is made to give audiences an easier way to access King Richard. However, Shakespeare attempts to present the tumultuous thirst for power that underpins Richard’s character, by showing his deformity in a physical manner, as so does Pacino. As such, both Shakespeare and Pacino makes the thirst for power appear particularly morally abhorrent, by showing it in a way that all audiences can engage with.

I don’t know what the question is, but your thesis should never be this long. Try to avoid introducing the context in the first sentence. Save that for the later part of your introduction! I also like to include a conceptual statement about Mod A as my first sentence (Something about textual conversations)


The inherent complexity of Richard’s character comes to the fore in the instances of his ambition for power, exemplified by the separation of his personae into two disparate parts.

Hmm I think you can work on making your topic sentences more straightforward and clearer. I didn't quite understand the ‘separation of his persona into two disparate parts’, until I read the rest of the paragraph. Topic sentences should never leave the readers guessing what they're about to read, so that's why I think you could reduce it down to something about his duplicitous nature instead, something that would make your topic sentences more concise.

The first component, aligned with the charismatic and virtuous leader, serves as a facade, by which Richard is able to deceive the other characters that he interacts with in the play. However, his more deceptive and inherently evil attributes are more readily showcased; symbolic of the contextual force of divine retribution. In the opening soliloquy, Richard is described as “deformed, unfinished, sent before my time into this breathing world scarce half made up”, alluding to the holes within his moral composition, and the imperfect nature of his character. This idea is capitalised upon by Richard himself, who commits to a life of villainy, noted in the line “I am determined to prove a villain”. Thus, from the opening soliloquy the audience is brought to understand that despite his pleasant appearance at times, Richard’s character is inherently deceptive; blinded by his thirst for power. The binding of his attributes are shown in the warping of the prophecy, wherein he convinces Clarence that he is the murderer alluded to by Margaret, with Clarence stating “my name of George begins with G, it follows in his thought that I am he.” Amidst the veil of persuasion utilised by Richard, is the truly deceptive and manipulative villain that is deflecting the charge of murder from himself, thus exemplifying that his duplicity affords him the opportunity to acquire power and advance himself at the expense of others. As such, the complex nature of Richard’s character highlights his position as a Machiavellian leader, that is simultaneously inherently evil, whilst working under the guise of the charismatic and virtuous monarch.

I enjoy the originality of your evidence analysis! I haven’t really read any similar analysis of these quotes!

Through Pacino’s use of method acting, Richard’s duplicity is made literal in view of the fact that in performance, the character is half composed of the actor, and half fashioned from Shakespeare’s original text.

I don't think the 'made literal in view of the fact that in performance' is necessary, this could be reduced to just 'revealed through...'. I also think the wording of 'the character is half composed of...' could be reworded for clarity. Something like 'Through Pacino’s use of method acting, Richard’s duplicity is revealed by the consummation of actor and persona'.

This representation reimagines the original text’s position that Richard is “barely half made up”, removing the gravitas of the statement from its contextual bounds of divine retribution, and situating it in a post-modern fashion, wherein individual characters are a bricolage of the people, places and time that the performance is being conducted in. Similarly, the motif of shadows contends that Richard’s character is half in vision, and half hidden, highlighting that not only is the character a composition of multiple parts, but that the character is never fully revealed to the audience; speaking to Richard’s hidden agenda and inherent deceptiveness. Thus, in a meta-textual sense, the manipulation of the prophecy in Looking for Richard from G to C is an exemplar of the power of method acting in characterisation, as through Pacino’s change of the prophecy, the character of Richard is posed as a manipulative and deceptive one. Therefore, the power of studying King Richard III in tandem with Looking for Richard, is in the ability to understand the way that characters are formed off the page, and in highlighting that Shakespeare’s original purpose was to bring the play into reality, and thus breathe life into the characters.

Consider separating your linking statement into two separate parts, or work on making your statement more concise

The struggle for power and legitimacy within King Richard III is situated in terms of an attempt to overthrow the Elizabethan notion of monarchical legitimacy.

I really like this topic sentence! I do think the 'in terms of an attempt' part can be reworded for clarity though, maybe something along the lines of 'The struggle for power and legitimacy within King Richard III is situated in desire to overthrow the Elizabethan notion of monarchical legitimacy.'

Thus, although their relationship is initially hinged on the acceleration of both of their statuses within the royal hierarchy, the relationship between Buckingham and Ricahrd ultimately falls apart as a result of the forces of Richard’s pride which goes against the relativist attitudes of the context. This fundamental unravelling becomes clear in Richard’s betrayal of Buckingham in Act 4 Scene 2, wherein he constantly ignored the pleas of Buckingham, calling out ‘Stanley’ instead. This highlights his childish attitude towards relationships, as he will only value that which advances him personally, and despises all that fundamentally disagrees with his own views. Furthermore, Richard’s position ‘I am not in the [giving] vein’ reveals his lack of mercy and forgiveness, detailing not only his drunkenness on the power that he has acquired, but equally highlighting Richard’s increasing state of isolation, as he loses the support of what was previously his ‘right hand man’. Such isolation is reinforced by the ghost scene, wherein Buckinham, as the last ghost, condemns Richard to his own downfall, noting ‘and Richard fall in height of all his pride’. Similarly, in willing Richard to ‘dream on, dream on, of bloody deeds and death’ Buckingham inadvertently condemns Richard to a sleepless future, shroud in imagery of his own crimes, thereby reinforcing the retribution that is afforded by a loss of loyalty. Therefore, the value of loyalty is explored in Richard and Buckingham’s relationship, revealing the intrinsic role of sin, in the form of pride, to the breakdown of not only political relationships, but individuals in the Shakespearean context.

You need techniques and effect for every quote you include in your essay.

In view of the text’s original positioning within a monarchical structure, Pacino reinvents the relationship between Buckingham and Richard so as to replicate a contemporary political relationship. This is aided by the use of political titles, such as the reference to Buckingham as ‘the secretary of state, propped up to the king’.

It would be good to include a brief contextual point about the nature of contemporary politics.
Maybe consider political allusions instead of titles? Sounds more like a literary technique? Or political nomenclature

This alignment with titles and events that are familiar to a contemporary audience make the relationship more evocative in that they can be accessed without knowledge of the monarchy. By extension, the relationship is littered with self-referentiality to Pacino’s own association with Italian Mafia theatre, and New York gang culture; facilitated by costuming, particularly the symbol of flat caps. The pair are depicted wearing flat caps, allusive to their being of the ‘same gang’, until Buckingham refuses to kill the princes. Following this scene within the play, Spacey, who portrays Buckingham, ceases to wear the cap. This is a subtle expression of the fall out between the characters, that resonates with a modern understanding of political relationships in a manner cogent with Pacino’s past.

See this is where the contextual point at the beginning would have been helpful in making the rest of your paragraph analysis easier to understand.

Finally, the aforementioned scene in which Buckingham is ultimately betrayed by Richard is portrayed in period style costuming, with additional visual stichomythia representing Buckingham as physically beneath Richard, whilst similarly dressed less elaborately than the King.

Analysis on this scene could be more in depth.

Thus, Pacino emphasises the breakdown of loyalty through visual cues rather than ambiguous language that cannot be accessed by a late 20th century American audience. Thus, the authority and hierarchy within Buckingham and Richard’s relationship is made relevant by Pacino’s conscious adjustment of the political structure, which mirrors a more contemporary, parliamentary relationship, and utilises visual modes of representation to further insinuate this point.

You started consecutive sentences with ‘thus’, this is minor but consider changing up sentence structures. As a result, this reads as an extremely long linking statement, which is unnecessary.

Therefore, the power of studying King Richard III in tandem with Looking for Richard, is in the ability to understand the way that characters are formed off the page, and in highlighting that Shakespeare’s original purpose was to bring the play into reality, and thus breathe life into the characters.

---

Overall, I think I might have been a bit overly critical but I think you should be proud of yourself for producing an essay of such level within exam conditions! This might be a personal thing, but I prefer to have less pieces of evidence within a paragraph, but analyse them more in-depth. I find it a lot clearer in my opinion, since you aren’t introducing new evidence left, right and centre. But this is completely up to you, and also different teachers prefer different things! In general, I think you can work on making your topic sentences and linking statements more concise, since they should give the reader a perfect overview of what they are going to read/just read, instead of revealing too much of what the rest of the paragraph is going to explain. Keep in mind that this feedback is based off of what my teacher and what I prefer in an essay

Alice