A drama by William Shakespeare is titled Richard III. It was likely written between 1592 and 1594.It is listed as history in the first folio, and is usually considered a history, but occasionally, as in the quarto, it is called a tragedy. Shakespeare’s first tetralogy, which also includes Henry VI, Parts 1, 2, and 3, and Richard III, chronicles King Richard III of England’s Machiavellian ascent to power and his brief rule.
Arthur Hughes, who played Richard, stressed that the role was much more than his disability: “Richard was very charismatic, manipulative and intelligent. He had a lot of abilities, and he was disabled.” Shakespeare created for him All these things. “That got Spiller’s response: “He’s not doing these horrible things because he’s disabled and therefore evil. He is a dictator who happens to be disabled.
Does the fact that Richard “happens” to be disabled excuse hiring non-disabled performers in the role? He is one of literature’s most endearing villains, and big-name, non-disabled performers like Sir Ian McKellen, Mark Rylance, Kevin Spacey, and Denzel Washington have all played him, frequently with dubious props.
However, is Richard III deserving of the notoriety that Shakespeare has given him? As opposed to the historical Richard, who is more debatable, Shakespeare’s Richard is unquestionably a ygvillain. The end of the Plantagenet dynasty was marked by the fall of Richard III in the Battle of Bosworth in 1485 to the man who would become Henry VII.
For modern audiences, the play’s portrayal of disability as an obvious indicator of inner evil is extremely problematic. Richard is portrayed in his introductory monologue as desiring authority because his infirmity keeps him out of his brother’s peacetime court because he is “not formed for sportive tactics.” The other characters continuously make fun of his appearance, with everyone from his mother to his future bride hinting that he is a “lump of hideous ugliness,” and hence bad.
Arthur Hughes, who played Richard, stressed that the role was much more than his disability: “Richard was very charismatic, manipulative and intelligent. He had a lot of abilities, and he was disabled.” Shakespeare created for him All these things. “That got Spiller’s response: “He’s not doing these horrible things because he’s disabled and therefore evil. He is a dictator who happens to be disabled.
Does the fact that Richard “happens” to be disabled excuse hiring non-disabled performers in the role? He is one of literature’s most endearing villains, and big-name, non-disabled performers like Sir Ian McKellen, Mark Rylance, Kevin Spacey, and Denzel Washington have all played him, frequently with dubious props.
However, is Richard III deserving of the notoriety that Shakespeare has given him? As opposed to the historical Richard, who is more debatable, Shakespeare’s Richard is unquestionably a ygvillain. The end of the Plantagenet dynasty was marked by the fall of Richard III in the Battle of Bosworth in 1485 to the man who would become Henry VII.
For modern audiences, the play’s portrayal of disability as an obvious indicator of inner evil is extremely problematic. Richard is portrayed in his introductory monologue as desiring authority because his infirmity keeps him out of his brother’s peacetime court because he is “not formed for sportive tactics.” The other characters continuously make fun of his appearance, with everyone from his mother to his future bride hinting that he is a “lump of hideous ugliness,” and hence bad.
