Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2002 :: January ::
Re: Movie Question
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0270  Wednesday, 30 January 2002

From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 29 Jan 2002 20:31:33 -0800
Subject: 13.0223 Re: Movie Question
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0223 Re: Movie Question

Martin is rather gracious in accepting correction, so allow me to have
the temerity to quibble with his interpretation of Jones's response
about Lady Anne.

>Nevertheless, the contribution of Emrys Jones
>is even more vapid than I remembered. The point at which he struggles to
>think of a reason why Richard should want to marry Lady Anne reveals a
>simple lack of common sense, and a failure to look forward to Henry
>VII's marriage with Elizabeth of York as an example of the same dynamic.
>They both needed to be King of England, not just "first among
>Yorkists/Lancastrians".

If memory serves, he says that he doesn't know why Richard had to marry
Lady Anne "historically".  When reading or watching the play, of course,
the reasons more or less leap out at one, including the fact that
Pacino's Richard clearly enjoys manipulating people.  Historically,
though, we don't know that Richard was seeking the throne as early as
his marriage with Anne, or that he really killed her husband and his
father, for that matter.  The wording of Jones's reply might suggest
that he was responding to a more specific question than we heard in the
movie.  The whole episode, in fact, seems to be edited to show how
scholars have no exclusive claim on the text.  It's followed, if memory
serves, by the scene in question, introduced by Pacino's disembodied
narration.

Glancing through Holinshed (or, rather, Holinshed's Chronicle as Used in
Shakespeare's Plays, an old Everyman edition), I don't find a mention of
Anne, though I suppose that I could be missing it, or it might have been
left out by the editors of this edition.  Anyone know if Tudor
historians held to the explanations which Shakespeare seems to suggest?

Cheers,
Se

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.