Parallel Between Conscience And Power In Shakespeare And Pacino's Works

Despite comparable differences in context, texts have a unique ability to converse and interact with each other in a fulfilling way, enabling them to appeal to audiences across differing contextual periods. Composed for a theocentric Elizabethan audience, William Shakespeare’s historical play, King Richard III (KRIII) (1593) aims to justify the Tudor throne in light of the providential paradigm. Conversely, Al Pacino’s 1996 docu-drama, Looking for Richard, (LFR) transcends the confines of the Elizabethan context and draws upon modern ideals to reshape the social and religious values present in KRIII. Subsequently, providing a new lens for which contemporary American audiences can understand and ultimately appreciate Shakespeare’s text. Through a profound comparative study, it becomes apparent how the exploration of universal themes like the pursuit of power and the individual’s moral conscience, transcends time and contextual difference, and creates a mutually performative nexus between both pieces.

The individual’s ambition for power is a universal theme explored in both texts in relation to their respective contextual influences. Shakespeare explores a Machiavellian desire for power in KRIII and depicts this as a catalyst for social chaos and a downfall of the ‘Vice’, which in turn serves as royalist propaganda to promote the Tudor’s right to the throne. Richard’s determination, “to prove a villain” is explored throughout the Wooing of Lady Anne scene, (Act 1, Scene 2), where his duplicitous, villainous actions threaten the stability of the Great Chain of Being. The physiognomy and animalistic imagery of Richard as “that poisonous hunchbacked toad” from Anne, emphasizes his evil nature, loss of human qualities, pre-ordained need for punishment and primitive lust for power.

In LFR, Pacino similarly extrapolates on Richard’s ambition but contrastingly depicts him as psychologically flawed rather than villainous as a result of the increasing secularism and post-modernism in 1990s New York. He focuses on projecting the emotions of duplicitous, ambitious characters which resonate with audiences. He utilises the Wooing of Lady Anne scene and clothes Richard in black and depicts him in chiaroscuro lighting, a direct reflection of his duplicitous nature and the ongoing symbolic metaphor of the sun and und shadow. Pacino, to appeal and engage his own audience, fuses the originality of the character’s encounter with seraphic non-diegetic music, to allude to Richard’s self-perceived divinity. Further, close up shots of Richard, in conjunction with his triumphant laugh and dialogue, ‘I will not keep her long’, affirms his deceiving nature and lust for power. Hence, the pursuit of power is epitomized through the villainous, corrupt nature of Richard in Shakespeare’s KRIII, which also facilitates the opportunity for Pacino’s adaptation (LFR) in which the delivery of Richard’s ambition is contextually engaging and enriches the twentieth century audiences’ understanding of Shakespeare.

Conscience is universally resonant with audiences from both the Elizabethan era and late 20th Century and is thoroughly explored in relation to contextual influence. Shakespeare utilises the Battle of Bosworth scene (Act 5, Scene 1) to explicitly convey Richard’s desertion of conscience. Here, Shakespeare employs Richard as a vehicle by which he perpetuates contextual Tudor myth; as well as highlights his refutation of the providential paradigm. The ghosts which appear in Bosworth Field are symbolic of divine retribution and serve to punish Richard by haunting him. It is demonstrated how even the most ruthless of characters, Richard, the ‘Vice’, succumbs to the guilt of his actions. The personification of the moment of epiphany ,“O coward conscience, how dost thou afflict me?” amplifies the inescapable toils of reflection upon one’s own speech and conduct. Shakespeare communicates to his Elizabethan audience how Richard has neglected morality but cannot suppress his innate conscience. Comparatively, Pacino explores Richard’s morality and conscience by reshaping the Dream/Battle scene for a more secular society by focusing upon Richard’s villainy and his psychological crisis. As Kimball’s voiceover states, ‘he does not have his own humanity, he’s lost it’. This is not due to a neglect of religious morality, but the inherently human value of conscience. As a result, Richard is weakened as evidenced by the key lighting on his face showing his fearful sweating and his moral desertion is illustrated by his indifference when Catesby dies. Further, hand-held camera shots of Pacino discussing the scenes and the incorporation of ‘method acting’, exhibit the connections to modernism and realism. In a society where reality is often desensitised, the raw footage of these moments is powerful in allowing the audience to resonate in the process of development and delivery of Shakespeare. Hence, the individual conscience examined in each text is reflective of their relative time period, allowing audiences to emerge themselves in Shakespeare’s work.

Through the various textual qualities, we are able to better understand the parallels of moral conscience and power in Shakespeare’s history play “King Richard III” and Pacino’s documentary “Looking for Richard”. It is evident how the central values within Shakespeare’s KRIII re-emerge in Pacino’s LFR which holds more secularized and postmodern values. The universality of conscience and power allows modern audiences to gain further interest and insight into Shakespeare’s works emphasising the timelessness of his literature. This transcending of context therefore demonstrates how both Shakespeare and Pacino skilfully use their respective textual forms to enhance our understanding of universal values.