Richard III - A critism

[YankeyMCC]

Not mine, but something I read online while watching Laurence Olivier's 1955 film version...apparently some critics claim that the character Shakespeare created is too "one dimensional"

I suppose he certainly is obsessively focused on one thing but "one dimensional"? More like tragic for letting one aspect of his character drive him to do harm and ultimately destroy himself, much like Hamlet's indecision. Obviously the real person Richard III would have a more human and therefore more complex personality but to call the play's character as "one dimensional" seems absurd to me.

[supernova]

1. Same can be said of King Lear

He's got a one track mind about what constitutes a loyal loving daughter.

Seems to me that critic doesn't know much about The Bard. ;-)

[Orsino]

2. Two-dimensional, at least.

He's not just a villain cackling over his victims. He's cackling at a world full of fools who let him get away with the shit he pulls.

[Aristus]

3. Hmm. I smell a comparison of B*sh coming up. To forstall such an event, please remember:

The real Richard III was a capable administrator, a loving husband and father, a brilliant general and a warrior of astonishing courage.

And not bad-looking, no matter what Shakespeare (whom I revere as a dramatist, not an historian) says:

[triguy46]

4. It is not a biography, rather, it was written for an audience of...

Elizabeth to give a moral reason for Henry VII to take the throne, to make the Tudor's look good and the Plantangent's to look bad. So in that case, one dimensional may actually capture the true essence of the play, rather than the parsing and opinion that we have.

[Aristus]

5. Yeah, insinuating that Elizabeth's grandfather had a shaky claim to the throne

could have meant the headsman's axe for The Bard...