Shakespeare portrays King Richard III as a hunchbacked thoroughly evil man. While based upon the historical Richard III, the play is a dramatization. Although classed as a history, remember that Shakespeare's histories aren't historically accurate biographies. Richard is a power-hungry brother of a king who murders, schemes, marries, and plots to usurp the throne from rightful heirs. Richard gets his due when he meets Henry Tudor on the field of battle and the reign of the Yorkist kings comes to an end. Written under the rule of a Tudor monarch (Elizabeth I), the play paints the brutal Richard in an especially unfavorable light. After all, the rise of the Tudors depended upon the death of Richard III. The treatment of women in the play has been criticized, especially the speed under which Anne accepts Richard III -- with her dead father in law in the scene, no less. The play compresses 14 years or so of real history into 5 acts. It is hard to go wrong with Shakespeare. A good but dark read.

Let's get one thing clear from the start: when I rate Shakespeare, I rate it against other Shakespeare; otherwise, the consistently high ratings would not be very informative. If I was rating this against the general run of literature available, it would unquestionably rate 5 stars.

So what brings it down to 4, as compared to other Shakespeare? Primarily a few places where it demands a bit too much suspension of disbelief; the language is some of Shakespeare's best, and is comparatively easy for a modern reader (I found most of the footnotes to be sufficiently unnecessary to be actually more distraction than help). But for one thing, if Richard is withered, hunchbacked, and deformed, how is it that he has been able to kill so many of his victims in battle? For another thing, is it REALLY plausible that Princess Anne would be persuaded as she was by someone with nothing more going for him than Richard? To paraphrase the scene,

Anne: You killed my husband and his father! I hate you I hate you I hate you!

Richard: But I only did it 'cause I'm hot for you, babe! Wanna marry me?

Anne: Welll...maybe. Let me think about it.

(And, in fact, she marries him. Just like that.)

Also, there are virtually NO characters in this play that are sympathetic, save perhaps for the two murdered children and Richmond, and we really don't see enough of them to feel much connection; it dilutes the effectiveness of the portrayal of Richard's evil when almost all of the other characters are, if not just as bad, certainly bad enough.

Richard III is the most well crafted satanic character in all of Shakespeare's writing. What can get frightening is that you see his evil, and yet you like him. The play is dramatically frightening from one scene to the next. To this day, I never could forget the scene where Hastings is sentenced to death or when Richard is haunted by the 11 ghosts. But the virtuous Henry VII also offers captivating passages (especially his passage that announces the end of the War of the Roses.) It is also interesting to see how carefully Shakespeare had to handle Henry VII, seing his granddaughter Elizabeth was in the audience. To be sure, Richard III is blamed for several things he did not do. The dramatic irony is that whatever he was innocent of, all the circumstancial evidence says he murdered his nephews.(Rumors that he killed them continued to spread like fire. Not only did he start losing England's loyalty, but many of his own followers in a rage abandoned him and joined Henry VII. France began to humiliate Richard by broadcasting official accusations and Richard never so much as denied having done it. If he could have produced the princes, his troubles would have been over.)This one vile deed made it possible for Shakespeare to make Richard this monster from hell and convincingly pile a slew of vile deeds upon him of which he was innocent. But all that aside, women such as Richard's furious mother and the raging former Queen Margaret add to the drama and chills. The gradual unfolding of Margaret's curses adds a charming orginizational bonus to this masterpiece. If you want to enjoy this play all the more, make sure you read "3 Henry VI" first. Richard's demonic nature is heavily prepared in this preceeding play.

Stephens is a bit much as Richard (does he have to yell so often?) but the supporting cast, with Michael York in a multitude of roles, Dame Peggy Ashcroft as Margaret, Glenda Jackson as Lady Anne and Jeremy Brett as the Earl of Clarence (for once, the part is done right--Brett comes off as believable, not as a whiny brat as in many portrayals) is fantastic. Unabridged, as another reviewer noted, and digitally remastered, this recording is the best I've come across so far. Highly recommended!

This is a terrific version of Shakespeare's play, starring Robert Stephens as the wicked King Richard in a deliciously "over the top" performance. Audio book lovers should take heed: this is the *unabridged* play, on three cassettes and clocking in at approximately four hours! And indeed some of the more formal lamentation scenes do tend to grow tiresome (but that is a feature of the play and not the performers' fault); however, the vitality of the Richard scenes amply outweighs this. The supporting cast, including Glenda Jackson, Dame Peggy Ashcroft, and Cyril Cusack, is uniformly excellent, but top honors must go to Stephens. The recorded sound (digitally remastered from a 1967 recording) is very good. Highly recommended.

It was veary dramatic book

My only complaint about this play is that Shakespeare should have had some dialogues where the characters discussed crucial history before the play opens. Gloucester (murdered or dead before the play but mentioned several times) had tried to usurp Richard's crown too many times. History itself is not sure if Gloucester died or was murdered. Bolingbroke for a while conspired with Gloucester and now sees another oppurtunity to usurp the crown.The virtuous John of Gaunt served Richard with honor and integrity and eventually moved parliament into arresting Gloucester for treason. This would of made John of Gaunt's rages all the more valid. Otherwise this play is outstanding! Richard shows himself to be capable of ruling at times, but gains our contempt when he seizes his the honorable John of Gaunt's wealth. John of Gaunt's final rage in 2.1 is a passage of immense rageful beauty. Also, Shakespeare moves us into strongly suspecting that Richard had Gloucester murdered. However, despite Richard's crime, Shakespeare masterfully reverses our feelings and moves us into having deep pity for Richard when he is deposed. The Bishop of Carlisle (Richard's true friend) provides some powerful passages of his own. I can not overestimate the grace in which Shakespeare increases our new won pity for Richard when Bolingbroke (Gaunt's rightful heir) regains his wealth and the death of Gloucester is left ambiguous. 5.1, when Richard sadly leaves his queen and can see that Henry IV and his followers will eventually divide is a scene of sorrowful beauty. 5.4 is chilling when Exton plots Richard's murder. 5.5 is chilling and captivating when Richard dies but manages to take two of the thugs down with him. The icing on the cake is that Bolingbroke (Henry IV) can only regret his actions and realize that he has gotten himself into a troublesome situation. But that will be covered in "1 Henry IV" and "2 Henry IV." We can easily argue that it is in "Richard II" where we see Shakespeare's mastery of the language at its finest.

Richard II was incompetent, wastefully extravagant, overtaxed his nobles and peasants, ignored his senior advisors, and lavished dukedoms on his favorites. His rival, Henry of Bolingbroke (later Henry IV), was popular with the common man and undeservingly suffered banishment and loss of all his property. And yet two centuries later Elizabethans viewed the overthrow of Richard II as fundamentally wrong and ultimately responsible for 100 years of crisis and civil war. Queen Elizabeth's government even censored Shakespeare's play.

Shakespeare masterfully manipulates our feelings and attitude toward Richard II and Bolingbroke. We initially watch Richard II try to reconcile differences between two apparently loyal subjects each challenging the other's loyalty to the king. He seemingly reluctantly approves a trial by combat. But a month later, only minutes before combat begins, he banishes both form England. We begin to question Richard's motivation.

Richard's subsequent behavior, especially his illegal seizure of Bolingbroke's land and title, persuades us that his overthrow is justified. But as King Richard's position declines, a more kingly, more contemplative ruler emerges. He faces overthrow and eventual death with dignity and courage. Meanwhile we see Bolingbroke, now Henry IV, beset with unease, uncertainty, and eventually guilt for his action.

Shakespeare also leaves us in in a state of uncertainty. What is the role of a subject? What are the limits of passive obedience? How do we reconcile the overthrow of an incompetent ruler with the divine right of kings? Will Henry IV, his children, or England itself suffer retribution?

Richard II has elements of a tragedy, but is fundamentally a historical play. I was late coming to Shakespeare's English histories and despite my familiarity with many of his works I found myself somewhat disoriented. I did not appreciate the complex relationships between the aristocratic families, nor what had happened before. Fortunately I was rescued by Peter Saccio, the author of "Shakespeare's English Kings". Saccio's delightful book explores how Shakespeare's imagination and actual history are intertwined.

I hope you enjoy Richard II as much as I have. It is the gateway to Henry IV (Parts 1 and 2) and Henry V, all exceptional plays.

The thing with Shakespeare histories is that almost no one reads them, as opposed to his tragedies and comedies. I don't know why that is. The histories that are read are either Henry V (largely due to Branagh's movie), Richard III (because the hunchback king is so over-the-top evil), or the gargantuan trilogy of Henry VI, with the nearly saintly king (at least by Part III) who much prefers contemplating religion and ethics to ruling and dealing with the cabals among his nobles.

So why read a relatively obscure history about a relatively obscure king? Aside from the obvious (it's Shakespeare, stupid), it is a wonderful piece of writing - intense, lyrical, and subtle. Richard II is morally ambiguous, initially an arrogant, callous figure who heeds no warnings against his behavior. Of course, his behavior, which includes seizing the property of nobles without regard for their heirs, leads to his downfall. Nothing in his character or behavior inspires his subjects so he has no passionate defenders when one of the wronged heirs leads a rebellion to depose Richard II. But Richard now becomes a much more sympathetic figure -especially in the scene where he confronts the usurper, Richard acknowledges his mistakes, but eloquently wonders what happens when the wronged subjects can depose the leader when they are wronged. What then of the monarchy, what then of England?

On top of the profound political musings, you get some extraordinarily lyrical Shakespeare (and that is truly extraordinary). Most well known may be the description of England that was used in the airline commercial a few years back... "This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle, ..."

If you like Shakespeare and haven't read this play, you've missed a gem.