He
is “incomplete,” and by his own admission, “deformed.”
A believer in democracy, he is not! Brother to King
Edward, and to George, Duke of Clarence, Richard,
the Duke of Gloucester, is ambitious. He
wants to be king!
The
“winter of discontent” is his winter of discontent,
with very political and public implications. The
war between the Yorks and the Lancasters
[1] is over, and King Edward is attempting
to broker a “peace!” Peace, mind you! The Duke of
Gloucester is not content with the prospect of peace.
“I am determined to prove a villain/And hate the
idle pleasures of these days.”
[2]
The
Duke of Gloucester is at war! He is at war among
those members of his family; he is at war with fellow
citizens of the world. “-instead of mounting barbed
steeds/To fright the souls of fearful adversaries,”
the King and the state of England are silent on the
world stage.
The
Duke wants no part of peace! How could “peace” possibly
profit him who wants power?
American
actors, in Al Pacino’s 1996 docu-drama, Looking
for Richard, ask themselves how they as Americans
produce a Shakespearian drama for an American audience.
How do they make this Shakespearian drama relevant
for today’s America?
Interestingly
British actor Derek Jacoby assures them that Shakespeare,
and particular The Life and Death of King Richard
III, would resonate with an American audience.
And,
he is right.
The
American actors struggle to make sense of the play.
Among themselves they discuss and argue; they ask
advice and opinions from British and U.S. citizens;
they confer with academic and Shakespearian “experts”
all the while the Duke of Gloucester, scheming with
an imaginary audience, decides to have King Edward
imprison their brother, George, and in due time,
he dispatches killers, hit men, to kill the imprisoned
brother.
Soon
after, King Edward dies. The rightful heir to the
throne is the older of Edward’s two sons, both children.
Richard will see to it that they never reach the
castle where their mother awaits them. He has Buckingham
kidnap them, and they are imprisoned in a tower
on route to the castle where Richard plans to execute
them after his coronation but not before turning
the lords and dukes against King Edward’s closest
friend and the most respected of the King’s court,
Lord Hastings. Like the King’s widow, dismissed
as a hysterical woman, Hastings knows proper court procedure. So he must
be executed.
What
principles motivate this man Richard? But before
Hastings can answer his own question for the benefit of the lords and
dukes, Richard charges him with disloyalty.
Follow
me, if you love me! Or be an enemy to the state!
As
for the obvious reality of two sons of King Edward
- a solution! They are bastards - not true inheritors.
Lucky for England and the people, Richard discovered this
treachery and potential corruption in time! And
Richard’s sidekick, Lord Buckingham winks and relays
this narrative to “the people.” Let’s thank the
Duke of Gloucester - and better yet, crown him King!
This
production is a documentary, the production of a
play on film, and so Pacino, the actor says: “The
path is clear for Buckingham and Richard… All that
is left is to win the people.”
What
say the citizens, asks Richard, the Duke of Gloucester,
played by actor Al Pacino.
Did
you tell the citizens of Richard’s bastard children?
“…
[W]hen my oratory drew toward end/I bid them that
did love their country’s good/Cry, God save Richard, England’s
royal king!”
And
did they, the impatient Duke wants to know. The
actor Kevin Spacey says to Pacino as they rehearse
the scene: You would expect “boisterous” outburst
and “rallies” but no!
Buckingham:
The citizens “spake not a word/But, like dumb statues
or breathing stones,/Star’d each on other, and look’d
deadly pale.”
“Whatever
their reaction, it didn’t matter. We had this plan,”
says the actor Spacey. He continues: “So they are
told right before your very eyes that here is the
man who will make it better.” Then we see, Spacey’s
Buckingham on the balcony of the castle shouting
to the people below. Your man is Richard, the
royal Duke, and out comes Richard, humbly agreeing
to take on “the burden” of King!
And
so with good conscious, the newly crowned
King, Richard III orders the execution of the former
King’s sons - by Buckingham’s hands! But the latter
dares to tell King Richard that he needs to think
on it! When he returns to the King and receives
a chilling response, he knows he needs to escape
the kingdom with his head still on his body. The
deed will get done, by another “hit man.” There
is always someone willing to sell their soul.
“I
am so far in blood that sin will pluck on sin,”
says the King, speaking into the camera.
But
to war! He instigates conflict with Richmond
(Lancaster), deploying lies in the mouths of his
emissaries. And, of course, it works. All is
well in the world, once again! Men will fight and
more blood will spill.
Citizens,
particularly some in the U.S.
would think it tragic that these folks did not have
access to cable news or to the Internet! There are
no landlines, cell phones or telegraphs or modern-day
postal service; nonetheless, the people received
news from their government - directly from their
government! In this case, news is disseminated
by Buckingham, a “Secretary of State.” And the two
“thugs” Gloucester and Buckingham, as one of the actors acknowledges, create
a narrative of lies that needs the silence of easily
influenced lords and dukes as well as the people.
Even when people have access to news other than
the State, they seem to prefer the State
news disseminated on cable television or at “public”
television and radio.
Kevin
Spacey’s response to his character Buckingham is
insightful: “Every time there’s an election in this
country, whether it’s for mayor, president, or city
council, it is always that the people are sick and
tired of the way it’s been and they just want change.”
But,
as Pacino observes, “the politicians offer complete
lies and innuendos. It’s an act these people buy
it. It’s a complete lie.”
The
British actress Vanessa Redgraves captures what
the American actors have come to learn in their
journey: The “truth beneath all this is also the
opposite” of whatever those in power say or do.
“The Truth is that those in power have total contempt
for everything they promise, everything they pledge…That’s
really what Shakespeare is all about.”
The
American, Fred Kimball, one of the writers and producers
along with Pacino, speaking to Pacino, sums up:
I
heard you talking about Richard as a man who cannot
find love. A person in the final scene knows that
he does not have his own humanity. That he’s lost
it. That he has let the pursuit of power totally
corrupt him and that he’s alienated from his own
body and his own self.
King
Richard is killed in battle. The war is over and
“peace lives again.”
We
hear at the beginning of Looking for Richard
and here again, while the closing credits roll:
Our revels, now are ended. These our actors/As I
foretold you, were all spirits, and/Are melted into
air…”
[3]
…Except
we in the U.S.,
in the Empire, are left with a vision that is not
limited to a fictional kingdom, king, or politicians.
For the U.S. is nothing if not an imperialist state,
“so far in blood that sin will pluck on sin,” and
the idea of “peace” is akin to the Duke of Gloucester’s
“winter of discontent.”
What
do people do with the contempt hurled against them?
It
is here when a fellow citizens offers a soliloquy.
My younger cat let me know someone was standing
outside my door. I leave the computer to see through
the peephole a man, a white man, not a tenant but
with a clipboard and he is writing as he looks at
my door. I open it, and he begins his soliloquy
as if speaking to a camera just to the side of my
face. “Gov. Walker…” Then “registered to vote…”
and see here “Barrett…” And he pauses. He offers
me a flyer with Tim Barrett, the alternative!
The
poster quickly returns to the clipboard when I do
not reach out for the flyer. What’s the problem
here? But he cannot say this and looks around, starts
to move away. Not the electoral process,
again! Come or go? And me: Do I close my
door?
He does not want to know.
As
an American, it is a good chance he believes in
the narrative, weaned, as most American citizens
are, on patriotic, flag-waving loyalty to an image
of democracy, and produced 24/7 by corporate-owned
media.
But
as a liberal, he will not want war either.
He is a die-hard Democrat, his work, saving democracy
against the treachery of the Republicans - and never
mind that I feel, at this moment, in this democracy,
that the Gestapo has appeared at my door, and the
surveillance apparatus enhanced by the current president
at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington D.C.,
prevents me from declaring my determination to see
true democracy rise from the grassroots citizenry
in America.
He
will not want drones flying over Afghanistan
or Pakistan
or the Midwest, deployed by local police working with Homeland Security and
the CIA, but he supports the Democrats, who along
with the Republicans, support the private towers
that house to profit from discarded humanity.
He
will recognize the unquenchable greed of the corporate-capitalist
rulers, but believe there are good guys and gals
in blue who can work the system for him and his
fellow “little people.” While all the while ignoring
how blue hats and red hats crisscross the congressional
aisle and that only the greenbacks in the hats matter
and those greenbacks are not for the “little people.”
He
will believe that the alternative to the domestic
and international “economic” crisis is to seat more
blue hats in positions of power because he and his
fellow citizens are powerless against the blue and
red hats’ batons, tasers, tear gas, bullets.
“What
is the alternative?”
And
his representatives in power wine and dine.
Hearty laughs around the table.
“Mitchell
is Black!” And now he offers a flyer with the face
of a Black candidate running for Lieutenant Governor.
So
much contempt!
Buckinghams
dispatched to spew a narrative of harmonious contempt.
The unions, outraged, organize the citizens over
the threat of cuts to union dues while Mayor Tim
Barrett, (D. Milwaukee), runs against Walker,
with the centerpiece of his campaign crime prevention!
Even the neighborhood lawns are organized to
provide news of the battle, with signs labeled
“Tim Barrett” now out-numbering those initial cardboard
“troops” labeled “Recall Gov. Walker.”
The
lesser of the two evils is winning!
What
say the citizens of this business as usual narrative
of
change?
No
challenge!
The
citizens “spake not a word/But, like dumb statues
or breathing stones,/Star’d each on other, and look’d
deadly pale.”
In
just under a minute, my fellow citizen’s voice has
snapped, and he sees me now and those eyes no longer
colorblind, see, for a moment, no longer the “fanatic”
but the runaway, the escaped, and his feet move
backward. 1964 has come and gone, but it’s been
replaced with the anger. He has opinions!
And a right to them! “Don’t I? Don’t I?”
Just read this! I am not the bowing “Black”
Buckingham, honored to be recognized by the Kingdom.
Corporate ruler, you have been granted personhood!
I have no soliloquy for your representative at my
door, but your soliloquy seems to have faltered,
however briefly and unprepared I am at the moment.
Contempt!
Our
corporate rulers today are as cunning as the Duke
of Gloucester. “All ruling classes,” writes Rosa
Luxemburg, “fought to the end, with tenacious energy,
to preserve their privileges” (“What Does the Spartacus
League Want?”).
[4] As “a theoretician, journalist,
teacher, politician, and revolutionary,”
[5] the Marxist scholar traced the
evolution of historical ruling classes. Luxemburg
continues:
The
Roman patricians and the medieval feudal barons
alike, the English cavaliers and the American slaveholders,
the Walachian boyars and the Lyonnais silk manufactures
- they all shed streams of blood, they all marched
over corpses, murder, and arson, instigated civil
war and treason, in order to defend their privileges
and their power.
As
a class, the capitalist are imperialists, “offspring
of the caste of exploiters,” in fact, Luxemburg
argues, this class “outdoes all its predecessors
in brutality, in open cynicism and treachery.”
We
are not now talking about the old days of the Duke
of Gloucester, Richard III, or monarchies, but so-called
democratic, modern-era civilizations in which the
capitalist regime will defend “its profits and its
privileges” to exploit anywhere in the world “with
methods of cold evil” demonstrated by its “colonial
politics” and “in the recent World War.” Here she
means WWI, but we have witnessed the war to end
all wars, the Korean and Vietnam
wars, invasions of so-called “un-democratic” countries
in Latin America and in Arab
and Muslim lands, as well as CIA-backed regime overthrows
of uncooperative CIA-puppet-overseers.
Of
course, Luxemburg writes, such a determined, “cold
evil,” contempt, will “mobilize” populations
of “peasants against the cities, the backward strata
of the working class against the socialist vanguard.”
It will use whatever means necessary, including
the “use of officers to instigate atrocities.” It
will try to “paralyze” resistance no matter how
“peaceful,” until it “turns the country into a smoking
heap of rubble rather than voluntarily give up wage
slavery.”
A
challenge to imperialism must be done “step by step,”
with an “iron fist and ruthless energy.”
The
imperialists’ emissaries, modern-day Buckinghams,
what Luxemburg calls the obstructionists “maneuvers”
the bourgeoisie, but the masses of citizens and
soldiers must unite.
In
this battle is the fight for humanity! For
Mother Earth! Therefore, the “the fight for socialism
is the mightiest civil war in world history, and
the proletarian revolution must procure the necessary
tools for this civil war; it must learn to use them
- to struggle and to win.”
In
this battle, citizens must not remain as
silent as “dumb statues” or “breathing stones,”
while the anointed Kings of today in “democratic”
states, call for wars and more wars.
In
this battle, citizens cannot allow the further
abuse of their bodies and labor to become the mouthpiece
and plastered billboards, rattling off state news
as if it were the narrative of their liberation.
In
this battle, the “wage slave” does not “sit
next to the capitalist,” nor does the “rural proletarian”
next to the Junker… in fraudulent equality to engage
in parliamentary debate over questions of life and
death.”
In
this battle, the goal of citizens, poor and
working class, is to seize “the entire power of
the state in its calloused fist... using it to smash
the head of the ruling classes.”“That alone,” Luxemburg
writes,” is democracy”!
“That
alone is not a betrayal of the people.”
The
business of these rulers cannot become a distraction,
but let them serve as a jolt to return us to our
work!
Leave
“parlimentarism,” as Rosa Luxemburg would say, to
the bourgeois class. It is their game - supporting
“the well-known illusions of current opportunism
as we have come to know it” (“Organizational Question
of Russian Social Democracy”).
Let
us not be fooled by “the ambitious castaways from
the bourgeoisie” who offer to lead the people to
a new and better world!
What
do people do with the contempt hurled against them?
Occupy!
BlackCommentator.com Editorial Board member, Lenore Jean Daniels,
PhD, has a Doctorate in Modern American Literature/Cultural
Theory. Click here
to contact Dr. Daniels.