Al Pacino’s “Looking for Richard” is an unusual film. It is a documentary about the complexities of Shakespeare, the performing of the play Richard III, and the ignorance of the average American regarding Shakespeare. The unusual nature of the film – it’s similar to a filmed Cliff-notes version of the text – provokes wildly different reactions from film buffs, critics, and Shakespeare purists. A perusal of five different reviews of the film show such variant descriptors that range from Mary Brennan’s comment that the documentary is “decidedly narcissistic” to Edwin Jahiel’s comment that the film is an “original, mesmerizing exploration.” The rather wide incongruity between the reviews leads to an interesting juxtaposition of its critiques, as we examine the reasons “Looking for Richard” incites such strong responses from its proponents and detractors.
A summarized look at each of the reviews reveals the wide range among the criticisms. The first review, by Mary Brennan and posted on the Film.Com web site, is generally positive, despite the aforementioned quotation that the documentary is “decidedly narcissistic.” Brennan found herself enjoying the film despite herself, enjoying the “extraordinarily riveting” way the film dissected Shakespeare. However, every endorsement of the film is subsequently balanced by a disparaging remark about it. Brennan calls some of the rehearsals “thoroughly entertaining,” then says that the endless scenes of Pacino “mugging into the camera… rapidly lose their charm.” Still, she seems to enjoy the film despite its perceived weaknesses. Al Pacino’s posturing is “exasperating but likable,” and the whole package is enjoyable. Brennan seems to…
… middle of paper …
…r those like me, however, who enjoy Shakespeare but perhaps do not grasp it as well as we hope to on the first couple of readings, it worked ideally.
Works Cited
Brennan, Mary. Film.com. Internet. On Line. 1996. URL: http://www.film.com/reviews/index.jhtml?review_url=/film-review/1996/9006/15/default-review.html
Dre. Girls on Film. Internet. On-line. 1996. URL: http://www.girlson.com/film/navigation/index.html
Jahiel, Edwin. Rec.arts.movies.review. Internet. On-line. 1996. URL: http://reviews.imdb.com/Reviews/65/6541
Renshaw, Scott. Rec.arts.movies.review. Internet. On-line. 1996. URL: http://reviews.imdb.com/Reviews/61/6195
Schwartzbaum, Lisa. “Great Shakes.” Entertainment Weekly. 1 November 1996. http://www.ew.com
Zimmer, A. Syracuse Times Online. Internet. On-line. 1996. URL: http://newtimes.rway.com/films/richard.htm
Comparing Machiavelli’s The Prince and Plato’s The Republic
Comparing Machiavelli’s The Prince and Plato’s The Republic
Many people in history have written about ideal rulers and states and how to maintain them. Perhaps the most talked about and compared are Machiavelli’s, The Prince and Plato’s, The Republic. Machiavelli lived at a time when Italy was suffering from its political destruction. The Prince, was written to describe the ways by which a leader may gain and maintain power. In Plato?s The Republic, he unravels the definition of justice. Plato believed that a ruler could not be wholly just unless one was in a society that was also just. His state and ruler was made up to better understand the meaning of justice. It was not intended to be practiced like that of Machiavelli’s. Machiavelli, acknowledging this, explains that it is his intention to write something that is true and real and useful to whoever might read it and not something imaginary,”?for many have pictured republics and principalities which in fact have never been known or seen?(Machiavelli 375).” Therefore, because one ruler is realistic and the other imaginary, the characteristics of Machiavelli’s ruler versus Plato’s ruler are distinctly different.
Machiavelli?s model for his ideal prince was Cesare Borgia, also known as Duke Valentino and son of Pope Alexander VI. He believed Cesare Borgia possessed all the qualities of a prince destined to rule and maintain power in his state. He believed that politics has a morality of its own. There is no regard of justness or unjustness, of cruelty or mercy, of approval or humiliation, which should interfere with the decision of defending the state and preserving its freedom. Therefore, the ruler/prince’s single responsibilit…
… middle of paper …
…ddle with each other (Plato 99).?
In The Prince, Machiavelli was addressing a monarchical ruler and offering advice designed to keep that ruler in power. He felt that Cesare Borgia was model for the perfect prince. He was able to give actual examples of how princes during his time ruled and how they failed or succeeded in doing so. Plato, in contrast was perhaps unrealistic. His ruler and state could only be used to better understand the meaning of justice. It could never be practiced in real life because he neglects the fact that everyone sins and fails to mention this in his ideal ruler and state.
Works Cited
1) Marra, James L., Zelnick, Stephen C., and Mattson, Mark T. IH 51 Source Book: Plato, The Republic, pp. 77-106
2) Nicole Machiavelli, The Prince, pp. 359-386. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa, 1998.