by Cannon Hurst
The Public-Facing Essay (Born Evil)
When it comes to entertainment, more specifically, mainstream movies and novels, we often see distinct lines between the hero characters and the villain characters like in Marvel movies or Station Eleven, a recent novel by Emily St. John Mandel. However, that is not to say either of them is bad or unworthy of being watched/read. No, in fact, I quite enjoy Marvel movies and I also enjoy most mainstream novels as well.
Nonetheless, we must understand that mainstream character distinctions aren’t exactly representative of the human dilemma or the sort of gray area that most people find themselves in, particularly in life. But what if I told you that not all mainstream media was this way? What if I told you that Shakespeare already captured this through his writing? I think most can agree that Shakespeare is quite mainstream, especially in today’s age, even if you haven’t read any of his plays, you still know of him. So, how does he achieve this? What does Shakespeare do differently than more recent mainstream entertainment? And how can we as readers/watchers/writers/directors/artists bring this back to mainstream entertainment?
In order to answer these questions, I will be looking at how Shakespeare represents the character Richard III from the play of the same name and provide anecdotes from my own life as direct examples. I will also investigate different interpretations of Shakespeare’s Richard III, so that we may have a look into other perspectives.
In the end, I hope to bring a sort of awareness to mainstream entertainment, or at least an awareness regarding the depiction of characters and whether they truly represent us as humans.
I remember when I was around eight or nine years old, I had seen one of the biggest collections of movies, mind you—all of which were DVDs—with over 200 movies stacked together on one shelf. I think it was then when I discovered my love for movies and all it took was a weekend at my aunt’s house and several hours of watching Kung Fu Panda and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (CWCM), neither of which are particularly indie in any way, nor were they very revolutionary in the film world. However, that isn’t to say that their stories aren’t as impactful because I think they are and at least Kung Fu Panda gave you the idea that “anyone can achieve their dreams.” With CWCM, I felt like the movie was slightly more complicated than it appeared. I mean the main character Flint Lockwood makes a machine to help feed the people of Swallow Falls, but he lets his ambition cloud—no pun intended—his judgment. Yet we are to believe that he is the hero of that story even though he ends up being the cause of most of the disaster.
Richard III is no saint, in fact, he is described as a tyrant and villain throughout history; we have read about the many crimes that he committed, most of which involved murdering his brothers, his nephews, and his future wife. And yet Shakespeare still chose to write mostly from his perspective. One can assume that he did so—not to put us in the mind of a psychopath but rather—to put us in the mind of someone troubled by their upbringing and lack of normalcy. It was no secret throughout that Richard had been living with scoliosis which affected his spine; a disability that played a big part in the play. But there are points on which Richard himself notes that his villainy is the product of his mistreatment from society’s expectations.
An example of this comes from an article by Siobhan Keenan—a Professor of Shakespeare and Renaissance Literature at De Montfort University—who pulls out the part where Richard says he is “determined to prove a villain” (1.1.30). Keenan writes that it could be interpreted as “willful” and that he is merely stating that he is finally going to become what everyone wants him to be which is a villain but also proves that his evilness isn’t inherent—it was forged.
“At such a moment, Shakespeare’s Richard appears to be a frustrated idealist—a man who chooses evil because he is not allowed to be virtuous and because the world is not virtuous” (Keenan 8).
When my grandpa was a boy, he would receive beatings and verbal abuse from his father on the regular. He told me that his father saw that as the normal thing to do—in terms of teaching your child discipline—and it was something his father’s father did to him as well. When my grandpa became a dad, he tried not to repeat the abuse but because he never had a good father figure in his life, he found that it was hard—no, entirely impossible—to be something that he never experienced himself.
In other words, he didn’t know what to do—only what not to do. And sure, it can appear as an excuse at times, but it also mirrors Shakespeare’s idea that this sort of “evilness” isn’t one of which some is born into but rather the culmination of experiences.
With that said, it’s important to point out that others believe that Shakespeare’s portrayal of Richard is less sympathetic than what Keenan described. In fact, Dr Paulina Kewes—a professor of English Language and Literature at University of Oxford—said an article by the University of Oxford, that “Shakespeare actually paints Richard in an even darker light than the Chronicles, showing the king directly responsible for the killing of the princes in the Tower” (“Source of Shakespeare's inaccurate Richard III portrayal explored”).
Though Shakespeare does include this in the play, it isn’t so true to state that his portrayal is darker than in the Chronicles. It’s important to note that what is mentioned about Richard III in Holinshed’s Chronicles is derived from Saint Thomas More’s The History of King Richard the Third. And it is in there that they describe Richard as being someone who “...was malicious, wrathful, envious, and from before his birth, ever perverse” (More 5). Not to mention, More also served on Henry VIII’s Privy Council, who succeeded Henry VII—the man that inherited the throne after Richard III—both known for their avid hatred towards Richard which could have influenced Thomas More’s portrayal of him. With that said, one of the most notable scenes from Richard III involves Richard seducing Lady Anne after murdering her husband and her father-in-law which he pulls off to most readers’ surprise.
Even Richard points out that he is surprised and that “...he is also implicitly disappointed with the Lancastrian widow, believing that she should not have been wooed by him” (Keenan 7). He also goes on to say: “Hath she forgot already that brave prince Edward her lord, whom I some three months since stabbed in my angry mood at Tewkesbury” (1.2.226-8). From these examples, it’s hard to believe that Shakespeare had the intention of portraying Richard darker than what is mentioned in More’s account and the Chronicles.
Sometime in middle school, we had a new kid join our class and I remember that within the first few seconds of speaking that we were already going to be good friends. Boy was I wrong. In fact, I was extremely wrong. After only being at our school for a couple of weeks, he managed to convince all my friends that I was super mean to him and that I told he didn’t belong at our school. Somehow, everyone believed him and for like a month (or that’s how long it felt in kid time) no one would hang out with me at recess. Until finally, people started to catch on that he was simply a liar, especially after trying to do the same thing to a bunch of other kids.
And then one day he invited me to sleep over at his house and I found that he only lived with his mom, and he never knew his dad. Not to mention, he told me his mom was never home and that her coming home drunk was common occurrence. I wouldn’t have believed it but then his mom actually did come home drunk when I was spending the night. We became close friends after that until one day he switched schools and I never heard from him ever again.
In the end, we found that Shakespeare made a clear effort to display Richard III as a truly human character by demonstrating that he became who he was—not because he was born evil—but because of how he was treated throughout his own life. Such characters provide a closer connection to our own lives and end up having a bigger effect on readers. Not to say that there aren’t already certain forms of mainstream entertainment that achieve this because there are a lot out there. But possibly not enough.
Work Cited:
Keenan, Siobhan. "Re-Reading Shakespeare’S Richard III: Tragic Hero and Villain?". Linguaculture, vol 2017, no. 1, 2017, pp. 23-34. Editura Universitatii
More, Thomas. "The History of King Richard the Third.” [c. 1513]. Thomas More Studies, http://www.thomasmorestudies.org. Accessed 27 Feb. 2022.
Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy Of Richard III. Folger Shakespeare Library, 1996.
"Source Of Shakespeare's Inaccurate Richard III Portrayal Explored | University of Oxford". Ox.Ac.Uk, 2013, https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2013-02-07-source-shakespeares inaccurate-richard-iii-portrayal-explored. Accessed 27 Feb. 2022.
