Richard’s role in the story can easily classify him as a hero. As I mentioned before, in my definition of the word hero, Richard is the principal male character in this story. Nearly every other character has a supporting role, & Buckingham is the next biggest character, who would definitely not be classified as a hero due to the fact he is Richard’s right hand man. Again, as I have already mentioned, the other obvious choice for the role of the hero in this story could have gone to Richmond, but as his role is too small in the story the audience doesn’t have a chance to empathise with him. If he had told the story from his perspective, there is no doubt whatsoever that he would have been the flawless hero & Richard would be the dastardly villain. The play would probably not be a black comedy in this case. But as it is, Richmond is almost portrayed as a villain due to the fact that the audience has not had a chance to build a relationship with him, & so does not know him, & he brings the downfall of the male lead, the audiences’ friend.
In many stories & plays, the world may be peaceful, with no faults whatsoever; until the villain starts causing chaos. In these stories the people are happy, but there is one jealous & bitter villain who is determined to spoil their fun. Richard perfectly fits the bill of this villain. Not only is he bitter & jealous, but instead of isolating himself from society, he chooses to spoil everyone else’s lives “I – that am rudely stamped & want loves majesty…since I cannot prove a lover…I am determined to prove a villain and hate the idle pleasures of these days” (lines 16-31, act 1 scene 1). This language shows his jealousy “want loves majesty”, his deep resentment “rudely stamped”, & how instead of living & letting live, he is determined to spoil the lives of others enjoy himself in the process “since I cannot prove a lover…I am determined to prove a villain”, showing how he is vindictive, certainly a villainous quality. I think it is important that he uses the word determined, showing it is his true intent, & more importantly, all this language shows his actions were not spur of the moment, but pre-meditated, & well thought through. I know it is off the subject but Ian Mckellen gave this impression on screen- intelligent, not insane, & thinking very clearly, showing his true intent. This is the way I perceive Richard, & these qualities are villainous.
In his pleading (& twisting) conversation with Anne, Richard shows he is manipulative & audacious. He says to her “Your beauty was the cause of that effect; your beauty: which did haunt me in my sleep” he has the audacity to turn his heinous crimes around on her, when a real hero would show remorse, & be pleading for forgiveness, having told the truth. This language is manipulative because not only does he blame the crimes on her “your beauty” but this is also a huge compliment, and thus an advance on Anne, achieving one of his aims. He even calls her bluff, when a real hero would be true “Lo, here I lend thee with this sharp pointed sword”. He is saying “Here, kill me, if you don’t love me”. Richard knows she is not heartless enough to commit the crime, and knows that she loves him, and gains evidence of this through his calling her bluff. I don’t think this calling her bluff is particularly villainous. It certainly shows him to be intelligent, as it shows he can read her emotions, but I think it does show a certain amount of risk, and therefore courage, on his part. There is every chance in the adrenaline of the scene that she could cut him, and his plan would have failed. However, he does have the courage to take risks, which could be perceived as a heroic or villainous quality. However, the main attribute he shows in this conversation is his manipulation, which most certainly is villainous.
Richard is a war hero. He fought for his house in the war of the roses, and would not surrender his kingdom lightly to Richmond, even though he was eventually killed by him. This courage is a heroic quality, but perhaps an essential quality in a worthy villain. The courage in this case could prove to be of a worthy villain, rather than a valiant hero.
An important factor, I feel, is the view of Niccolo Machiavelli, whose book of 1513, “The Prince” met much controversy. It stated that an ideal ruler should be ruthless & controlling rather than religious and moral. Richard certainly does fit the bill of Machiavelli’s ideal ruler. So does that make him a hero? Perhaps it does, but perhaps Machiavelli acknowledged that a good king shouldn’t be a hero, but a tyrant instead. It seems likely that Shakespeare will have based his play on Machiavelli’s work, thus making Richard suitable for the role of an ideal ruler in Machiavelli’s terms. Since this is most probably the case, this would count against Richard being a hero, since I’m sure Machiavelli would not state that the ideal ruler is a hero.
Over the course of the play, & perhaps the main reason why Richard is a villain, he is directly responsible for the deaths of many people. He even betrayed his brother Clarence into having his confidence, then having him imprisoned & then killed. All this time, he didn’t even have the courage to admit what he was doing. He made him defenceless, by locking him in the Tower of London, and then had him killed; all the while leading him to believe Richard was his closest friend. He was also responsible for arranging the murders of: King Henry VI, Prince Edward, Rivers, Grey, Vaughn, Hastings, Lady Anne; although there was no evidence of this Richard implies it “Rumor it abroad That Anne, my wife, is very grievous sick” Anne, at this time of the play is his wife. This language I’m sure is delivered in a very brazen fashion, with sarcastic emphasis on the word “very”. It shows how he is too lazy to even say goodbye to his wife before he has her killed, she is no more use to him, just an obstacle in his way, & therefore one that must be removed. This shows his determined & ruthless side once more. He is prepared to have his wife murdered at the drop of an eyelid, in one quick request, no sweat, no regrets. I’m sure he does not pause to think as he delivers this request, showing it does not take him long to decide other people’s fates, he is ruthless, decisive, with no remorse. It is merely another human being he has killed.
Perhaps most importantly, he has Buckingham murdered. Up until Richard tells Buckingham he plans to murder Edward (a child) Buckingham had been his advisor, & partner in crime, but as soon as he found out about this plot, Richard suspected him, outcast him, & eventually had him killed. After Buckingham questioned Richard’s plot, Richard responds with a cold “High reaching Buckingham grows circumspect” which is saying “You want the power yet this is a problem for you?” Richard questions Buckingham’s manhood & from this point on suspects him up until he kills him. This is perhaps a main factor in whether Richard is a hero or a villain. Because he is so ungrateful, ruthless & backstabbing to kill the person who did a lot of work in getting him where he is, it could classify him as a real villain. However, Buckingham could have been perceived by the audience as a sly, greedy character who had no relationship with the audience, & so deserved his death for being ambitious, yet not completely unflinching. The audience may take Buckingham’s murder as a sign of Richard’s ruthlessness, or slight cheekiness, & so does not classify him as an outright hero or villain in itself.
Overall, my personal verdict is that Richard III is a villain. His evil actions & two-faced character contribute to his being a villain. His brazen evil & his relentless back stabbing cannot possibly classify him as a hero. Granted, he can be an endearing character to the audience, but Elizabethan audiences would have regarded his deformity as a curse, & would have ridiculed him for this. I believe Shakespeare wrote the character of Richard as a villain, someone who the audience hate to love, & it does portray the Tudors as the rightful heirs to the throne.
