Richard the Third is one of Shakespeare's most enduring plays.
Richard himself goes down in history as one of fictions' most iconic "baddies". We say "fiction" because there is considerable debate about whether his portrayal in the play is deserved. Was Richard a avaricious, child-murdering monster? This question burns anew with the alleged discovery of Richard's grave in England, long considered lost.
In a way, we must put this historical question aside, and examine what we are presented in the play for its own merit.
But what does Shakespeare present us? And how has this, in turn be interpreted and re-interpreted by actors?
This article will recap some themes we will touch on in class and point you to some good resources we will use to explore just one small fragment of Richard III, the opening speech, of which the first and most famous line is "Now is the winter of our discontent..."
Different adaptations.
We will discover that adaptations made at different times take certain liberties with Shakespeare's original text, perhaps omitting some lines, or transplanting lines from other parts of the play.
This is a BBC production from the 1980s. It remains reasonably faithful to the original, but is fairly bland.
This is the 1995 production starring Sir Ian McKellen (and in my opinion, the best adaptation). The opening speech contains lines from elsewhere in the play, and is cut a little short. Further, the play has been re-set into a kind of "alternate reality", a 1930's fascist England. These kinds of re-interpretations are common. Have you seen Baz Luhrman's "Romeo and Juliet" re-set in a modern gangster Los Angeles?
More information about this particular adaptation can be found on Ian McKellen's website.
This is the famous 1955 production starring Laurence Olivier. In this version, what is supposed to be the opening lines of the play occur over 8 minutes into the play and after some other dialog.
Questions: Is our interpretation of the play changed by these alterations? Would you be a "purist" or be OK with these changes if it made the play more accessible to an audience? Can we help but interpret a play through the lens of our own time? What factors would have contributed to the way the play was understood in Shakespeare's own time (hint, who was on the throne at the time and how could it be interpreted that there might be a 'political message' in the way a previous dynasty is portrayed? Compare Henry V and Richard III. What dynasties did they represent, and what was Elizabeth the First's dynasty?)
Here is an excellent resource we will devote an entire lesson to, where Sir Ian McKellen walks us through the opening speech line by line and helps us understand it.
Here is a 2004 documentary hosted by Tony Robinson (Time Team, Black Adder) titled "Richard III: Fact or Fiction"
Lastly, just for fun, here is an impressionist giving one of the other speeches from the play (Clarence's prison speech) in a range of celebrity voices.
This article contains a brief overview of Robert Menzies. Scroll to the bottom for some other web-based resources to aid your learning.
Robert Menzies remains the most
significant figure in Australia’s political history, and played a lesser role
in international history during a time of world war and its cold-war aftermath.
His significance arises primarily from the extraordinary duration of his tenure
as Prime Minister; eighteen and a half years. This made him Australia’s longest
serving leader by 7 years.
The first of his two periods as Prime
Minister came as Europe was plunged into World War. Menzies immediately
committed Australian troops to Britain’s aid, against the opposition of the
Labor party, who felt that troops should be reserved for Australia’s home
defence. His latter term, from 1949 until his retirement in 1966, spanned the
Cold War, the entrance into the Vietnam conflict, Australia’s re-orientation
away from Britain and towards Asia with the U.S as its chief ally, and the
post-war transformation of Australia’s society through immigration and
urbanisation.
Menzies was a consummate politician, known
for his rhetorical dexterity both in parliament and on the hustings. “The whole
glory of parliamentary debate,” he said, “is its cut and thrust”[1]. He
was lauded for his steady governance and temperament. He attracted the loyalty
of his ministers and upheld the independence of the public service mandarins
who served around him. He was regarded as a man of integrity, even by his
political foes.
Uniquely among all Australian Prime
Ministers, Menzies retired at a time of his own choosing rather than being
defeated in an election or party room coup. In an age where politics now
consists of constantly shifting allegiances and where even sitting Prime
Ministers or Premiers can be deposed by former allies, Menzies longevity sprang
as much from his force of intellect and imperial mien as it came from inhabiting an era of a more civil polity.
We may gauge the impact Menzies would
have on Australian politics by observing his rapid ascent in earlier life. Menzies
was born to a middle class family of Scottish and Cornish heritage, the son of
a shopkeeper. He studied and gained admittance to the Victorian bar, winning a
number of awards and scholarships. He practiced as a lawyer before beginning
his political career at the age of 34 in 1928, where he served in both houses
of the Victorian legislature, soon becoming deputy Premier as a member of the
Nationalist Party. This party merged with other groups to form the United
Australia Party, under whose banner Menzies gained election to the Federal
parliament in 1934 and was appointed Attorney General. Menzies became Prime
Minister in 1939 in a minority government immediately prior to the outbreak of
war.
Menzies' declaration of war against Germany,
made famous by his radio broadcast, flowed from an assumption barely questioned
in either Australia or Britain, that Australia would come to its Mother
Country’s aid. Although Menzies was an ardent monarchist and supporter of
strong ties with Britain, it is not likely any other leader would have failed
to have to have done the same, except that Menzies’ choice of sending
Australian troops abroad at the expense of home defence was criticised. Menzies
narrowly won the 1940 election but his most significant action afterwards was
to undertake a hazardous journey to England in early 1941 to confer with
Winston Churchill to press Australia’s plight. Menzies was exceptionally well
received in England, possibly because of his symbolic status as the leader
within the wider Commonwealth that would not see Britain abandoned in its time
of need. Menzies clashed personally with Churchill, and lamented privately that
Churchill’s autocratic style of government stifled genuine debate and dissent
within cabinet and from advisors. But among the public and press, so well
received was he that there was agitation from some quarters that Menzies should
replace Churchill as British leader. Menzies experienced two crucial failures at
this time. He failed to convince Churchill to defend Britain’s regional
possessions, such as Singapore, at all costs, and his absence of four months
created a crisis for his political leadership at home. He lost the Prime
Ministership shortly after his return.
Menzies’ chief contribution in the
interregnum between this loss and his return in 1949 was addressing the
moribund state of the conservative parties. The United Australia party lost its
mandate in 1940 and both the following two elections. In 1943, the UAP gained
only 16.1% of the vote, and Menzies felt it no longer suited the times. Right-of-centre
parties were fragmented and disorganised; no match for the solidarity and
resources of the Labor movement. It was Menzies who convened a summit of eleven
conservative groups in October 1944. The result was the founding of the Liberal
party which (in coalition with the Country [later, National] party), has
dominated Australian conservative politics for nearly 70 years. Menzies was
advocate, catalyst, midwife and leader to this change.
The defining
global factor that proved pivotal to Menzies’ second, fifteen year stretch as
leader from 1949 to 1966 was the Cold War. Menzies trenchant opposition to
communism was typical of the time, and the persistent fear of “reds under the
bed” delivered Menzies more advantages than defeats. It was Menzies who pushed
hard for the Communist Party to be declared illegal, and it was a significant
loss for him have lost the 1951 referendum he proposed to this end. However,
Menzies skilfully manipulated the “Petrov Affair” in 1954 (where a Soviet
functionary defected, revealing purported Communist sympathisers within Australia)
to his advantage. Menzies instituted a Royal Commission which implicated members
of the Labor opposition, which exploited deep divisions between H.V Evatt, the
Labor leader (whose behaviour began to descend into paranoia), and Catholic
members of the Labor movement who were themselves opposed to Communism. This
famous schism, which created the Democratic
Labor Party, was very effectively used by Menzies to keep the Liberals in power
for years. This was no doubt assisted by Menzies’ historic decision to directly
support non-government schools (including Catholic schools) with Federal money.
This further encouraged a break in the historic nexus between Catholics and the
Labor movement. Menzies also implemented a visionary master plan for the
development of Canberra into a fitting capital, initiating the construction of
iconic places such as the National Library and Lake Burley Griffin, and
actively relocating bureaucracies from Melbourne and Sydney to Canberra.
Menzies
mastery of domestic politics contrasted with what is perhaps a mixed record on
the international stage. Menzies authorised the British atomic tests at
Maralinga, and opposed Britain joining the E.E.Cor its ceding of the Suez. He also opposed
the isolation of South Africa arguing a principle of sovereignty, although this
view was lost in the debate over apartheid. He cemented regional alliances by negotiating
a Australia-Japan Trade agreement, by approving a U.S communications base at
North West Cape, and joining Australia in the Columbo plan, the ANZUS and SEATO
pacts. Menzies also threw Australia’s support behind the U.S in the escalating
Vietnam conflict, even though this meant the unpopular conscription of
Australians to the war. Despite this, he failed to convince the United States
to intervene in the Indonesian annexation of West New Guinea. Despite the
stereotype of Menzies as an Anglophile, history should judge him a leader who
was aware and active in Australia’s concerns in the region; our need for the
U.S as a key ally, and in Australia’s slow reorientation toward Asia as the key
to our future. Finding himself alternately on the right and the wrong side of
history leaves Menzies’ ledger in foreign affairs merely balanced.
Despite
many successes, Menzies was not without flaws. His friend Lionel Lindsay summed
Menzies up as “a fascinating, generous, affectionate man who yet found time for
a certain amount of hearty intolerance and well selected hatreds”[2].
One colleague, referred to him as “Banyan Tree Bob” because “in his shade,
nothing will grow.” Another noted he treated his backbenchers with
ill-concealed condescension. Such characterisations perhaps sting more than
those bestowed by opponents (epithets like “Ming the Merciless” or “Pig-Iron
Bob”) because they reflect on the reality of the man without the bias of malice.
Both complex and expansive, Menzies’ presence as a crucial figure in
Australia’s history cannot be doubted.
------------
[1]Quoted in Wallace Brown’s Ten Prime Ministers, p15
[2]Quoted in Wallace Brown’s Ten Prime Ministers, p9
Here are some books containing information about Menzies:
Brown, Wallace. (2002). Ten
Prime Ministers: Life among the politicians.The first chapter is very readable and is written by a long time political journalist with first hand anecdotes about Menzies, and about how politics was "done" in the 50s and 60s.
Henderson, Gerard. (1998). Menzies
Child: The Liberal Party of Australia. This book is a history of the Liberal Party that Menzies' founded. The first half of the book is more relevant as it deals with how Menzies' time in the political wilderness gave rise to the Liberal Party as a new conservative force in Australian politics
Howard, John. (2010). Lazarus
Rising: A personal and political biography.This is the memoir written by John Howard, Prime Minister from 1996-2007; the second longest serving Prime Minister, and from the same party as Menzies. Check the index, as Menzies is referred to many times as Howard contextualises his story.
And here are some on-line resources you can use:
Menzies' entry in The
Australian Dictionary of Biography,
Robert Menzies' 1941 Diary:
An exhibition put on by the Museum of Australian Democracy (in Old Parliament House in Canberra) detailing Menzies' overseas trip where he pressed Australia's plight directly to Winston Churchill and the British War Government. This is an excellent resource for our lesson covering these events. http://moadoph.gov.au/exhibitions/online/menzies/default.htm
Richard the Third is one of Shakespeare's most enduring plays.
