Shakespeare Explains the 2016 Election
Sunday Review / New York Times | 8 October 2016
[excerpts]
As the play conceives it,
Richard’s villainy was readily apparent to everyone. There was no secret about
his fathomless cynicism, cruelty and treacherousness, no glimpse of anything
redeemable in him and no reason to believe that he could govern the country
effectively.
His
success in obtaining the crown depended on a fatal conjunction of diverse but
equally self-destructive responses from those around him. The play locates
these responses in particular characters — Lady Anne, Lord Hastings, the Earl
of Buckingham and so forth — but it also manages to suggest that these
characters sketch a whole country’s collective failure. Taken together, they
itemize a nation of enablers.
First, there are those who
trust that everything will continue in a normal way, that promises will be
kept, alliances honored and core institutions respected. Richard is so
obviously and grotesquely unqualified for the supreme position of power that
they dismiss him from their minds. Their focus is always on someone else, until
it is too late. They do not realize quickly enough that what seemed impossible
is actually happening. They have relied on a structure that proves unexpectedly
fragile.
Second, there are those who cannot keep in focus that Richard is as
bad as he seems to be. They see perfectly well that he has done this or that ghastly
thing, but they have a strange penchant for forgetting, as if it were hard work
to remember just how awful he is. They are drawn irresistibly to normalize what
is not normal.
Third, there are those who feel frightened or impotent in the face
of bullying and the menace of violence. “I’ll make a corpse of him that disobeys,” Richard
threatens, and the opposition to his outrageous commands somehow shrivels away.
It helps that he is an immensely wealthy and privileged man, accustomed to having his way,
even when his way is in violation of every moral norm.
Fourth, there are those who persuade themselves that they can take
advantage of Richard’s rise to power. They see perfectly well how destructive he is, but
they are confident that they will stay safely ahead of the tide of evil or
manage to seize some profit
from it. These allies and
followers help him ascend from step to step, collaborating in his dirty work
and watching the casualties mount with cool indifference. They are, as Shakespeare imagines it,
among the first to go under, once Richard has used them to obtain his end.
Fourth...They are we, the audience, charmed again and again by the villain’s jaunty outrageousness, by his indifference to the ordinary norms of human decency, by the lies that seem to be effective even though no one believes them...
Fourth...They are we, the audience, charmed again and again by the villain’s jaunty outrageousness, by his indifference to the ordinary norms of human decency, by the lies that seem to be effective even though no one believes them...
Shakespeare brilliantly shows
all of these types of enablers working together in the climactic scene of this
ascent.
Unlike “Macbeth”
(which introduced into the English language the word “assassination”), “Richard
III” does not depict a violent seizure of power. Instead there is the
soliciting of popular votes, complete with a fraudulent display of religious
piety, the slandering of opponents and a grossly exaggerated threat to national
security.
...the others assembled in the
crowd, whether from indifference or from fear or from the catastrophically
mistaken belief that there is no real difference between Richard and the
alternatives, are silent, “like dumb statues or breathing stones.” Not speaking
out — simply not voting — is enough to bring the monster to power.
Shakespeare’s
words have an uncanny ability to reach out beyond their original time and place
and to speak directly to us. We have long looked to him, in times of perplexity
and risk, for the most fundamental human truths. So it is now. Do not think it
cannot happen, and do not stay silent or waste your vote.
***
Richard III (1946) - Radio drama starring Laurence Olivier and Ralph Richardson
This historical play by William Shakespeare depicts the Machiavellian
rise to power and subsequent short reign of King Richard III of England
Characters
- King Edward IV – King of England
- Richard, Duke of Gloucester – brother to Edward IV; later King Richard III
- George, Duke of Clarence – Edward IV's brother
- Duchess of York – Edward, Richard and George's mother
- Edward, Prince of Wales – Edward IV's eldest son; later King Edward V (never crowned)
- Richard, Duke of York – Edward IV's younger son
- Boy – George's son
- Girl – George's daughter
- Queen Margaret – widow of King Henry VI
- Ghost of King Henry VI
- Ghost of Edward of Westminster, Prince of Wales – Henry VI's son
- Lady Anne Neville – widow of Edward of Westminster; later Queen to King Richard III
- Tressel and Berkeley – Lady Anne's attendants (non-speaking roles)
Woodville family
- Queen Elizabeth – Queen to King Edward IV
- Earl Rivers – Elizabeth's brother
- Marquis of Dorset – Elizabeth's son (from a previous marriage)
- Lord Richard Grey – Elizabeth's son (from a previous marriage)
- Sir Thomas Vaughan – ally of Rivers and Grey
ACT I
SCENE I. London. A street.
Enter GLOUCESTER, solusGLOUCESTER
Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York;
And all the clouds that lour'd upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths;
Our bruised arms hung up for monuments;
Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings,
Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.
Grim-visaged war hath smooth'd his wrinkled front;
And now, instead of mounting barded steeds
To fright the souls of fearful adversaries,
He capers nimbly in a lady's chamber
To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.
But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;
I, that am rudely stamp'd, and want love's majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
I, that am curtail'd of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfinish'd, sent before my time
Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them;
Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to spy my shadow in the sun
And descant on mine own deformity:
And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days.
Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous,
By drunken prophecies, libels and dreams,
To set my brother Clarence and the king
In deadly hate the one against the other:
And if King Edward be as true and just
As I am subtle, false and treacherous,
This day should Clarence closely be mew'd up,
About a prophecy, which says that 'G'
Of Edward's heirs the murderer shall be.
Dive, thoughts, down to my soul: here
Clarence comes.
Actually Kem Sokha is worse than Macbeth and/or Richard III. He did not usurp the power by his own doing, he enlisted the outside enemy to do it for him.
ReplyDeleteThat's lowest of the lows. He is a coward traitor.