And what do you want to bet that the groundlings reveled in biting their thumbs at each other for weeks after they saw the play.
True as that may be, Shakespeare’s portrayal of Richard, Duke of Glouchester was associated with reality only in the most minor tangents. Richard was not “rudely stamp’d” (though he may have been born somewhat prematurely) and by all records was a faithful supporter of Edward IV. Given the turmoil of the time, he was well aware that the child Edward V was not suited to rule, even (or perhaps especially) with the counsel and support of his mother, Elizabeth Woodville. Elizabeth was herself was a commoner not strongly aligned with either of the cadet branches, and Richard may have been rightly concerned that she would transfer her loyalty (back to) the Lancasterian faction and the hated Margaret of Anjou.
The main evidence for Richard III having murdered or ordered the deaths of “The Princes in the Tower” (Edward V and Richard of Shrewbery, both issue of Richard’s predecessor, Edward IV and therefore legitimate claimaints to the throne via primogeniture) comes from Philippe de Commines (a contemporary French author) and Sir Thomas More, counsellor to Henry VIII, both of whom would have their own motivations for incriminating Richard III in the deaths of the princes. Henry Tudor, having made himself Henry VII by killing Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field, then solidified the legitimacy of his claim by marying Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV. However, this claim to succession by lineage would only be valid in the princes (being direct in the male line of inheritance) were dead; hence, he and his successive Tudors, all the way through Shakespeare’s sometime patron Elizabeth I, would have had every reason to accept the claim that Richard III murdered the princes without question.
More to the point, however, was that there was considerable unrest about the future of the English crown with Elizabeth having no issue or clear heir to the Tudor claim, which of course was justified by the tumultuous reign of James I and the buffoonery of Charles I, leading to the English Civil War. The themes of this anticipated unrest can be found in many of Shakespeare’s historical plays, both those set in England (Henry IV, both parts, Henry V) and external (Julius Caeser, Troilus and Cressida).
Shakespeare’s portrayal of Richard III, though, is beyond simply unfavorable; the character is joyfully evil, a manipulator for more than just power or support, but for the thrill of maneuvering and causing pain for pain’s sake. He is comically evil, a classic anti-hero. Shakespeare wasn’t just trying to appeal to the political sensibilities of his audience; he made Richard a manifestation of maniacal villainy for the pleasure of seeing unrestrained evil.
Stranger
Well, he didn’t go to six years of Evil Royal School to be called Mr. Richard.
Well, I never wanted to be King anyway 
I think I feel a song coming on…
That’s not much of an explanation. What does it mean?
I’m no scholar but I believe he’s saying I will bite my thumb in their direction, which is quite an insulting gesture to make, especially if they just roll over and take it.
Shakespeare has quite a high dick joke quota for “high brow” entertainment.
I still get a silly giggle at some of Cleopatra’s lines in Antony & Cleopatra. Happy horse indeed.
No, that would be Iago in Othello, or Aaron the Moor in Titus Andronicus, being evil for evils’ sake. Not Richard of Gloucester. Richard is more like Macbeth – he’s not Pure Evil (he does get a few pet-the-dog moments in Henry VI Part 3), he’s just Completely Obsessed with his goal; it makes for a slightly more complicated, multi-layered character. It also adds to the tragedy, is the tragedy: Richard is so obsessed with reaching the throne that, by the time he gets there, he has carelessly alienated (if not eliminated) everyone who might be his friend and ally – even his own mother – even, before long, Buckingham – making his destruction inevitable.
Well, a good villain can be more interesting than the noblest hero. Who up thread was wishing to see Alan Rickman play the role? Shakespeare had an eye on politics, history & art–but he was also in show biz! BBCamerica doesn’t keep re-running that Robin Hood movie because Kevin Costner was in it…
BTW, I recently read The Sunne in Splendour, by Sharon Kay Penman, which I recommend if you want a Richard-sympathetic take on the story. (The Princes in the Tower are murdered by Buckingham, on his own initiative and for his own reasons, without Richard’s knowledge.)
Yes, he explains that the gesture is insulting, especially if the recipient just takes it. But that still doesn’t explain the manner of the insult. Is it “fuck you”? “You motherfucker”? “I cast aspersions on the parentage of your offspring”? “I will bite your dick off”? “You’re such a pussy”?
I mean, if you bite your thumb at me and then laugh at me for taking it, well, I’m not exactly in on the joke, so it’s not like I’m really being insulted, am I?
It doesn’t matter. All the audience needs to know – and what is here explained – is that Thibault knows that thumb-biting is an insult you don’t take lying down.
What distinguishes Richard of Gloucester, or Macbeth, from Iago or Aaron, is that he is a valiant warrior. We see it in the way he dies, doing more than a man can do, staking his life on a final throw and bearing the hazard of the die. That makes him in some sense an admirable, tragic figure. In the value-system of Shakespeare’s time and place, no valiant warrior can be all bad.
I’m sure Richard (and maybe Shakespeare) would appreciate this, but I think you are off-base in finding this much depth or any admirable qualities in Gloucester- he has none. Richard does not have the depth of character that Iago does, which isn’t surprising since Othello was written a decade after Richard III. From his first lines, Richard brags about his evil and his motive isn’t getting to the throne: “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.” Iago says from the beginning that he’s going to ruin Othello, but he’s not being evil for evil’s sake- he tells the audience he’s getting back at Othello for perhaps having an affair with Iago’s wife, but I think it makes more sense if you believe Iago feels betrayed that Othello has passed him over and promoted pretty-boy Cassio instead. Aaron is more like Richard, but he does show love for his newborn son. Richard has no friends and never wants any; he only woos his wife to show off his skill at manipulating other people. He does seem wounded when his mother reproaches him.
And he’s not like Macbeth at all. Macbeth has serious qualms about what he’s doing and makes that clear throughout the play that he regrets killing Duncan. He has to continue to kill to consolidate his hold on the throne but it’s not until relatively late that he gives up completely (“I am in blood stepped in so far that should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o’er.”) Richard III never says anything like this: And that which should accompany old age/As honor, love, obedience, troops of friends/I must not look to have; but, in their stead/Curses, not loud but deep, mouth-honor, breath/Which the poor heart would fain deny and dare not." Richard never wanted those things. Macbeth recognizes that he had them and gave them up, and he sees that he went wrong. The closest thing to a pathetic moment for Richard is after a bad dream. He concludes that nobody loves him, but it’s a less convincing moment.
It really is a societal thing. Shakespeare takes acclimatizing. Even modern British humor is an acquired taste for most Americans but, like Shakespeare, once you start to “get it” it can be very rewarding.
We raised our daughter on Shakespeare, to the point that she was reading it for bedtime reading by the time she was 10 or so. She loved Tennet’s Hamlet. I think it was her third production.
She’s also seen Midsummer’s, Much Ado, Comedy of Errors, Love’s Labors Lost, As You Like It, and Macbeth. This last summer she had a small role in Midsummer’s.
I will say you are going about it right in watching the plays and not trying to read them. The nuances are much easier to pick up with the actor’s help.
I would also concur with other who suggested starting with a comedy. Brannagh’s Much Ado is a very easy first play to watch because of the quality of the acting.
I suppose any HS English teacher will consider it cheating for a student to rent a DVD of a film adaptation of the book as a substitute for reading it . . . But, that’s probably a defensible practice if the book is a play, and especially a Shakespeare play. Just so long as you make sure you’ve what you’ve got is not a “loosely based” adaptation of the plotline, but one that uses the original words. Shakespeare’s words are everything, here.
Also, the teacher might expect you to know a scene this adaptation left out. Like the witty banter between the two gravediggers in Hamlet – included in the Branagh version, omitted from the Mel Gibson version; included, IIRC, in the Laurence Olivier version.
Funny thing…the only time I’ve ever had trouble understanding Shakespeare was a movie. The 2006 Australian version of MacBeth - it had nothing to do with Shakespeare’s language (I’ve read MacBeth and seen it performed several other times, none of which gave me problems)…it was the ACCENTS.
I think that renting a DVD* instead of* reading the play is cheating. But actually seeing a play–preferably live, but DVD will do–is the best way to bring it alive.
Then the students can read the play. The teacher can give historical background, point out Will’s language tricks &–one hopes–answer questions.
I’ve always interpreted Iago as deciding first that he’s going to be Othello’s antagonist, and then looking for some excuse to justify it. Which is pretty close to “evil for evil’s sake”.