Direction in Three Versions of Richard III

In class we screened THREE film versions of the opening scene of Richard III: Laurence Olivier's version from 1955, Ian McKellen's from 1995, and Al Pacino's from 1996.  The director of each film made distinct choices of costume, lighting, casting, make-up, stage direction, gesture, diction and other elements to help shape his vision of the characters and the meaning of the play.  Focus on ONE directorial decision that you liked from one or two of the film versions.  Describe the element in some detail and analyze how it shapes the meaning of the play.

O Coward Conscience

The night before the Battle of Bosworth Field, Richard has a dream in which he is tormented by all the people he had killed to achieve and secure his throne.  Upon awaking he exclaims: "O coward conscience, how dost thou afflict me!"(5.3.191).  In the rest of the speech Richard argues with himself over his guilt in the murders -- and whether he should be pitied.  Consider as well the speech of the Second Murderer about conscience in Act 1, Scene 4.  When the Second Murderer feels a spasm of conscience and hesitates to carry out the murder of Clarence he complains about it;
      I'll not meddle with it.  It makes a man a
     coward: a man cannot steal but it accuseth
     him; a man cannot swear but it checks him; a man
     cannot lie with his neighbor's wife but it detects
     him (1. 4. 139-42).
In fact that Murderer does not participate in the murder or even the rewards of the deed. Given the many acts of treachery, deceit and murder in this play, what is the play saying about conscience and morality?  Is it an impediment to success?  A necessary bulwark against immorality?  Important but ineffective?  Effective but problematic?  Are these two speeches in agreement -- or this a debate across the acts of the play and social classes of the characters?  What the point of "coward conscience"?

Spiders and Tigers and Boars -- Oh My!!

The enemies of Richard III -- and there are many of them in this play -- often compare him to an animal.  Anne, a widow by Richard's hand (and later his wife) taunts him by saying "Never hung poison on a fouler toad"(1.2.161). Queen Margaret, widow of Henry VI who was also killed by Richard, warns her replacement about him: "Why strew'st thou sugar on that bottled spider, / Whose deadly web ensnareth thee about?" (1.3.256-7).  Later she warns Buckingham: "O Buckingham, take heed of yonder dog!/Look when he fawns, he bites; and when he bites, / His venom tooth will rankle to the death." (1.3. 308-10).  Queen Elizabeth, on hearing that her brother and son have been imprisoned by Glouster, exclaims, "Ah me! I see the ruin of my house. /  The tiger now hath seized the gentle hind"(2.4.54-55).  What is going on with all these animal metaphors?  Is there a pattern?  A deeper significance? Is it telling us something important about Richard's character?  Or is there an irony her (since it is the language of his enemies)?  What is the purpose of animal imagery?

And Now the Star of the Show: Second Murderer

One characteristic of Shakespeare's histories is the inclusion of characters from lowly social positions who rub elbows with the high and mighty.  In Richard III the most prominent scene in which this happens is the murder of Clarence (Act 1, Scene 4). In this scene the murderers engage in a dialogue with themselves as well as with the Duke of Clarence about the nature of conscience and the moral correctness of their errand of murder.  Indeed, one of the prospective murders (Second Murderer) proves his name to be a misnomer as he refuses to participate in the slaughter or even in the rewards of the deed.  What is the point of this scene?  How do the murderers compare with the noble characters, their "superiors"?  Also, what is the point of using prose for the murderers and ultimately switched to blank verse?

Politics, Privilege, Power

In Richard III various characters claim and discuss various rights and privileges that they do or should possess.  Queen Margaret, the widow of Henry VI, tells the current queen,"
This sorrow that I have by rights is yours, / And all the pleasures you usurp are mind"(1.3.178-9).  Richard complains (before becoming king) that

      . . . The world is grown so bad
     That wrens make prey where eagles dare not perch.
     Since every Jack became a gentleman,
     There's many a gentle person made a Jack (1.3.71-4).

Each of these characters asserts a world in which each possesses a right to rule. Yet, the various characters who profess and utilize these rights and privilege acquire them through treachery, deceit and often murder.  Consider how Edward the current king, obtained the throne.  His brother Richard, acting on his behalf, murdered the previous king and his son.  His other brother, Clarence, is also implicated in the death of Edward, despite taking a vow to defend the king and his family.  What is this play saying about political power?  How is it related to justice or morality?  Does might make right?