Richard III

by Rev. Ralph Allan Smith (1999)

One of the things that makes Richard III so much fun to study is the controversy about the true Richard. What kind of a man was he in fact? Did Shakespeare knowingly participate in dishonest political propaganda against a good man or did he really believe Richard was a Satanic monster from whom England was saved by the courage of Elizabeth's grandfather, Henry VII? The whole discussion and debate surrounding the character of Richard himself make for fascinating study and there is a fine page on the net devoted to the subject.

Laurence Olivier's Richard III

Olivier does a predictably superb job at depicting Richard. This, too, is a classic. There are, however, serious defects in the editing of the play that really take away from the development of the plot [see comments below]. Too many segments are rearranged, too many lines are cut. Anyone studying Richard III must see this one, but no one really interested in Richard III will be wholly satisfied with it.

Ron Cook's [BBC's] Richard III

The BBC version of Richard III is as near to perfect as one could expect. Every one of the actors and actresses put in outstanding performances, especially Ron Cook himself, whose depiction of Richard cannot, it seems to me, be improved upon. This is one video that I do not at all hesitate to recommend that students purchase and view repeatedly in their study of Shakespeare. For serious study of one of the most demonic of Shakespeare's characters, this is the version to get.

Ian McKellen's Richard III

In this version, Richard III is turned into a 20th century Nazi-like tyrant. It includes the obligatory -- for Hollywood -- sex scene (rated R). On the whole it is a brilliant example of playing with a Shakespearean play. For those who have studied the real Richard III (Ron Cook's version), viewing this video is plain entertainment. For adults, a fun and funny version, though some may be offended at the violence and sex.

Comments on Richard III

King Lear is said to be the most profoundly Christian of Shakespeare's plays, but the Christian truth is wrapped in pagan clothing, hidden from those who cannot see the symbolism. By contrast, Richard III is quite blatantly Christian and the Elizabethan audience would have clearly understood its message. Ironically, Christians in our day are likely to miss something of the Christian perspective of this play because we do not understand prayer so deeply -- especially not imprecatory prayer, which provides the key for this entire play. Curses, eloquent, terrifying curses, are thundered to heaven, mostly by Queen Margaret, but by others, too. Imprecatory prayers abound and they determine the direction of the play and the history it portrays.

For those modern Christians who think curses are superstition, rather than seeing them as prayers for God's intervention to judge evil, the play may seem irrational. It is, in fact, a play that proclaims loudly -- perhaps too loudly -- that God is Lord of English affairs. I say perhaps too loudly because the one who comes to answer the prayers of the anguished queen Margaret and the suffering English is none other than the grandfather of good Queen Elizabeth, under whose reign Shakespeare wrote this. What we may have here, then, is a Christian view of history being used for purposes that are not altogether Christian. But it seems also possible that Shakespeare believed that Henry VII saved England from a wicked tyrant.

At any rate, the Christian paradigm is clear:

There is a king whose gross iniquity is summed up especially in lying and murder, who is called a beast and Satan, who uses false religious piety to deceive people, who murders his own brother and calls for the death of children. He is thus associated with Cain, Herod, false prophets, the beast of Revelation, and Satan himself.

There is another king who comes to kill the monster, a pious and godly king who prays humbly before battle and casts himself upon God. In every way, Henry VII is a messianic figure.

England is punished for her sins through being given a king that oppresses her, as Pharaoh oppressed the children of Israel. When England through her representatives -- the aristocrats who are to be feared because God hears their prayers -- cries unto God, He saves her.

The distortions of Biblical Christianity evident in the play do not detract from its overal merit or from its theological message that history is governed by God. Whether or not this play is fair and honest either with respect to Richard III or Henry VII, it makes great viewing as a parable.

Using the play with students, I have found it an excellent way of explaining the wars of the Roses and getting the students interested in English history. (I started with Richard III, and have not yet gone through the other plays that actually deal with the war.)

I was especially impressed with the scene in which Richard persuades Lady Anne to marry him. Ron Cook and Zoe Wanamaker perform this scene with such great power I have found myself viewing it over and over.

Finally, a note about Laurence Olivier's interpretation must be added. Just as he contradicted the Christian approach to Hamlet, Olivier alters the Christian content of Richard III, altogether removing the earnestly praying Margaret. Olivier's Richard is a Machiavellian monster, a purely human sort of pervert; not Satanic, not a Biblical figure who calls forth a Messiah to kill him. The contrast between the BBC version and Oliver's version is profound and viewing them both is an excellent means of studying the difference between the Elizabethan and the modern mentality.