Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Time Travel is orgasmic bliss in your armchair
Jacques Coulardeau at Academia.edu (21)
H.G. WELLS
THE TIME MACHINE
THE NOVEL AND THE FILM
ADAPTATIONS
Dr Jacques Coulardeau
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
Université Paris Dauphine
Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne
Herbert
Georges Wells (1866-1946) witnessed eighty years of our developing industrial
world during which all basic productive activities bloomed to produce our
present mass consumer society based on mass production and the industrial and
agricultural, financial, services, communications, entertainment and labor mass
markets. He witnessed the growth of the two extreme ideologies produced by this
industrial world, communism (or Stalinism) and Nazism (or fascism). He also
witnessed the development of biology and particularly Darwinism and his
evolution of species, the survival of the fittest, and the birth and
elaboration of the theory of relativity and the physics that emerged
from it or at the same time. Finally, he witnessed, both in Europe and the USA,
the junction of the analysis of society in two antagonistic classes and their class
struggle for domination, even reduced to the American simplified approach of
the rich and the poor, what he calls himself the “haves” and the “have-nots”
(53) on one hand, and Darwinism on the other hand. He died in 1946 after
witnessing the fall of the extreme racist form of this social Darwinism
(Nazism and fascism) but also the seemingly triumphant expansion of the second
form of it, Stalinism.
The Time Machine was published in 1895.We should also consider Wells’ The Invisible Man (1897). Wells first warns
us about the biological-and-social-danger of our social Darwinism in The Time Machine and about the plain
criminal danger of the uncontrolled development of science in The Invisible Man.
I
will concentrate on the ideological message of The Time Machine along with two adaptations of this short novel to
the silver screen. George Pal’s (1960) shows how the book was read before 1968,
the turning point towards mass-consumerism and mass-communication. Simon Wells’
(2002) shows how it is read after the no-return turning point of globalization,
September 11 and the war on terror. These two adaptations deviate from the original
novella in concordance with their times. I will consider these two films in
Marshall McLuhan’s perspective that states the message is the medium, which implies
the meaning of the films can only be considered from the moment the films meet
an audience. The audience gives meaning to the film that is nothing but a hollow
shell otherwise. Note this approach is similar to Kenneth Burke’s dramatist theory.
This implies that a film’s meaning will change through time along with the
audience that builds meaning into the film.
Le Théâtre est le miroir de nos angoisses
Jacques Coulardeau at Academia.edu
(15)
C’est un long voyage au cœur des arts de la scène
que nous allons faire à travers dix siècles d’histoire.
Tous nos arts poussent leurs racines dans un
héritage judéo-chrétien fort ancien, sans parler de la mythologie grecque. L’histoire des dix
derniers siècles d’arts dramatiques est marquée par un long parcours progressif
d’une acceptation de la téléologie judéo-chrétienne à sa négation absolue au
profit d’une téléologie « humaniste » dont la forme ultime est le
scientisme naturaliste ou social de Darwin et Marx (et surtout de leurs
continuateurs). Depuis une dizaine d’années, […] [n]ous vivons aujourd’hui les
prémisses du siècle des religions.
Nous allons ainsi parcourir environ vingt-cinq
siècles d’histoire humaine occidentale. Nous partirons des bases
judéo-chrétiennes de la Bible, Ancien et Nouveau Testament, pour planter
le décor. Puis nous passerons au théâtre (même si certains considèrent que la Bible est une mise en scène, sans jeu de
mot sur ce dernier item lexical). Le Moyen Âge nous offrira des illustrations
de la première phase d’une référence biblique triomphante. Puis les temps
baroques nous montreront comment une distanciation progressivement se construit
avec une référence à la nature et à la psychologie des personnages. Ensuite
nous regarderons de prêt le révélateur « FAUST » de Marlowe à Gounod.
Nous y verrons Dieu en train de mourir avant même la notice nécrologique de
Hegel écrite en lettres d’or à la cheminée de la philosophie, sans parler de
celle de Marx gravée dans le marbre de la stèle funéraire et mortifère de la
lutte des classes comme explication finale et absolue du monde. Puis nous
suivrons cette mort de Dieu chez le Juif (et cela est capital) Gustav Mahler et
le Slave Igor Stravinsky (associé à Jean Cocteau). Nous déboucherons alors sur
l’ère du cinéma et sur un monde qui n’a plus de Dieu, mais qui pourtant
recherche une téléologie qu’il construit de toutes pièces, avec parfois le
vieux modèle de
la Genèse au fond des yeux. Et ce cinéma est le livre sacré
des auditoires les plus larges qui sont formés, informés et même déformés ou
conformés par ces images colorées et animées qu’on leur projette à longueur de
journée, et de nuit, sur toutes sortes d’écran.
Nous finirons ce voyage avec deux métaphores
dramatiques. D’une part Good Bye Lenin,
la métaphore de la disparition de la téléologie communiste, marxiste ou
stalinienne, comme on veut. D’autre part La
Passion du Christ de Mel Gibson, la métaphore du retour en force du modèle
téléologique christique. […]
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
The end of the world according to Saint Dolan
XAVIER DOLAN – IT’S ONLY THE END OF THE WORLD – JUSTE LA FIN
DU MONDE – 2016
That’s a film I would recommend
to neurotic people who are slightly paranoid and consider they are
misunderstood and unable to communicate with anyone. And when they try it’s the
end of the world because they can’t speak more than three words and because
they dare address people directly and personally. Add to this Asperger syndrome
the fact that we are in a family with a compulsive speaker, the mother who
tells always and over and over again the same stories that everyone knows but
that everyone is supposed to listen to and appreciate. Add to that we have an
elder brother, Antoine, and a younger brother, Louis. And one more re-visit to
Cain and Abel. The elder brother is the one who works in a factory, like Cain
after his crime. Louis is apparently writing plays in a big distant city and he
is successful, just like Abel was with God for his well grown vegetables, these
things that you have to sweat to grow, whereas Cain, before his crime was just
looking after herds of animals, no sweat or not too much anyway. Bad boy! And
the symbols are crossed, mixed and we have lost the light of the divine curse
in the meantime and replaced it with a simple human curse.
Add to those a sister, Suzanne,
who is apparently completely locked up in her room, doing nothing, living on
her mother and with her mother, sketching nice little drawings that she will
never bring out to any fame. She is a recluse of sorts. Antoine is married and
his wife, Catherine, is a mother of several children. If I have understood
properly there is a son who is called Louis, not like the younger brother but
like the father who is cruelly absent from the present situation, and one or
two girls. The relation between Antoine and Catherine is explosive all the time
because Antoine does not like to speak and he does not like to listen, so he
does not like people who speak, particularly about things that may concern him.
Louis has come to say something
but in the end he will say something that is not what has any importance, and
is probably not what he wanted to say and he will not say what is so important
for him at this moment and why he has come back “home.” In some short sentences
here and there and not more than here and there, we learn he was living in the
gay area of his city, but he has moved out though he has kept the address. He
gets a phone call some time in the afternoon but we cannot know who it is from.
He has a flashback about a love scene in the old place of his family, when he
was a teenager, and we assume that we are dealing with a man by the body
language more than anything else, and Antoine will tell him at the end of a car
ride that was difficult that Pierre Jolicoeur just died of cancer, “Your Pierre!”
That’s all we know.
Louis’ departure is very
difficult because Antoine wants to drive him to the airport but everyone finds
this departure slightly too fast and Antoine becomes violent with Louis, so the
mother takes Antoine out, the sister disappears and Catherine goes out to
rejoin Antoine and the mother on the back terrace.
Typical film by Xavier Nolan who
is just, with age, getting more discreet about gayness and gay life but it all
turns around the same thing: two brothers or two young men who are related in a
way or another and a third one that becomes the lover of one of the two,
causing the jealousy of the other and some kind of death falls onto the third
one, the lover who is here called with the nice name of Jolicoeur, or
Fair-heart. The style is very slow moments entirely centered on one or two
close-up shots of faces and their facial language that is telling more than the
words which are limited. With now and then one very short sequence of violence
in words or in body language or in physical gestures. And yes in such families
the end of the world could be happening outside they would not be able to see
it. And in this case we will never know what important thing Louis wanted to
tell, except that he had an episode of vomiting in the bathroom implying what
he wanted to tell was serious, had to do with his health, but we will be
frustrated for ever, and it can’t be morning sickness since we were told he
can’t have children.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
Ce film est tellement typique de Xavier Dolan que j’ai envie d’en finir
comme Louis en deux fois trois mots comme: “C’est plutôt moche ! » ou
« Pourrait faire mieux ! » Mais après tout je peux délayer ces
pépites tri-morphiques et vous en donner un peu plus.
Loin de la grande ville d’où Louis vient on découvre une famille Québécoise
plus que dérangeante. Une mère trône au centre et est une parlante compulsive
qui aime à raconter toujours les mêmes histoires que tout le monde connait mais
que tout le monde doit apprécier. Ce qui n’est pas le cas du fils aîné Antoine
qui travaille dans une petite usine locale à faire des outils. Le père est
absolument absent, probablement mort, mais qu’importe. La seule chose que l’on
apprend de lui est qu’il s’appelait Louis.
Le fils aîné Antoine est marié à Catherine et ils ont plusieurs enfants
dont un fils nommé Louis du prénom de son grand-père (tradition oblige) et pas
de son oncle. Il n’aime pas parler et il n’aime pas écouter si bien qu’il
devient vociférant et linguistiquement violent quand les autres parlent,
particulièrement son épouse. Ambiance de luxe. Le fils cadet a quitté la
famille il y a longtemps. Il a 34 ans et est revenu pour dire quelque chose
d’important. Il s’appelle Louis, montrant ainsi que le père était un personnage
secondaire puisque la tradition du nom du père au fils aîné n’a pas été
respectée. Ce fils Louis est allé à la grande ville et il écrit des pièces de
théâtre. Il vivait dans le quartier gay mais il dit qu’il l’a quitté tout en
gardant son adresse là. Il a un coup de téléphone dans la salle de bain dans
l’après-midi avec une personne qu’on ne peut pas identifier. Mais à la fin
d’une ballade en voiture Antoine dit à Louis que Pierre, Pierre Jolicoeur, est
mort. Cancer. « Ton Pierre ! » On avait déjà eu un flashback peu
avant d’une scène d’amour entre Louis jeune et un homme qu’l’on ne peut
identifier comme tel que par le langage corporel. Il venait dans la chambre de
Louis en passant par la fenêtre et en partant dès que c’était fini.
Ce flash back était venu après un épisode de vomissement de Louis dans la
salle de bain, ce qui laissait entendre qu’il avait à révéler un état de santé
délicat, et ce ne pouvait pas être une grossesse et sa maladie du matin. Quand
il finira par dire quelque chose cela tournera si mal qu’il ne dira que des
incongruités et n’aura pas le temps d’arriver aux choses sérieuses et comme il
doit partir rapidement Antoine le brusque un peu pour le voiturer jusqu’à
l’aéroport. La scène d’adieux devient violente car la sœur Suzanne, un être
renfermé sur elle-même ,et sur sa chambre, devient véhémente. La mère s’en
même, et même Catherine y va d’un mot ou deux. Antoine devient alors violent à
l’égard de Louis et c’est la mère qui calme le jeu et entraîne Antoine dans le
patio derrière la maison, suivie de Catherine, et Suzanne descend dans sa
chambre de recluse. Louis partira seul sans avoir dit ce qu’il avait à dire.
On a là comme une matrice féconde pour Xavier Dolan. Deux jeunes hommes et
un troisième qui se glisse entre eux, le troisième étant clairement gay. Le
frère aîné dans ce cas devient jaloux et cela explique le départ précipité du
cadet. Mais la mort punira Louis, Pierre Jolicoeur est mort. Autre matrice
féconde mais routinière : la mère seule avec le père absent et deux jeunes
hommes, frères ou pas, sur les bras et des frustrations hormonales multiples
qu’elle ne sait pas guérir. Le film est techniquement très beau du fait des
longues scènes lentes centrées sur un ou deux gros plans de visages avec des
expressions faciales riches, mais ces longs moments lents qui sanglotent comme
des violons dans un arrière plan invisible sont entrecoupés de moments brefs
mais rares de violence verbale ou corporelle et même physique qui hache
l’impossibilité de communiquer.
Dans une famille comme celle-là la fin du monde pourrait être en train
d’arriver dehors ils ne s’en apercevraient même pas. Et Louis repartira sans
avoir dit ce qu’il était venu dire. Merci maman, mais pas merci papa. Notons
bien la réincarnation et l’inversion de Cain (qui a été banni par Dieu) et Abel
(qui a été tué par Cain) avec Antoine qui reste dans son trou à rats, se marie
et a des enfants et Louis qui est exilé, revient mais repart encore plus vite
et il n’aura pas d’enfants, nous dit-on. Tiens donc et son vomissement alors … ?
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
Monday, November 28, 2016
Monsieur - A part of history
Crime sans châtiment dans les Pyrénées
Deux sœurs.
Une maison de rêve.
Un petit coin de
campagne paisible.
Paisible? Si au début de
leur installation, les sœurs Brausch pensent retrouver le domaine familial et
renouer avec leurs souvenirs d'enfance, le rêve pour elles va vite tourner au
cauchemar.
Le Mal se cache parfois
dans la douceur d'un paysage, le long d'une rivière qui vient frapper les pales
d'un moulin endormi dans la plaine. Mais le Mal peut prendre plusieurs visages
et n'est jamais celui auquel on s'attend.
Product
Details
·
File Size: 978 KB
·
Print Length: 514 pages
·
Simultaneous
Device Usage: Unlimited
·
Publisher: Editions La Dondaine; 1st edition (July
2, 2015)
·
Publication Date: July 2, 2015
·
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services, Inc.
·
Language: French
·
ASIN: B010VYPOWI
·
Amazon.co.uk Pricing
information not available. This title is available to UK
·
Amazon.fr: EUR
6,71 TTC
 |
Abonnez-vous à
Kindle Unlimited pour obtenir un accès illimité à plus de
700 000 titres, dont plus de 20 000 en français. Seulement
9,99€ par mois.
|
SUSPENSE ET TERRITORIALITÉ
Quel bonheur de pouvoir lire un premier roman ! Et celui-ci ne
dépareille pas à ce plaisir. Il y a une certaine naïveté dans ces personnages,
deux femmes essentiellement, et un père de toute façon qui vient juste de
mourir et que les deux sœurs enterrent ensemble et ainsi se retrouvent, l’une
s’installant dans le moulin du père mais elle était restée pas très loin,
l’autre venant la rejoindre et laissant Paris derrière elle, faisant de Paris
ce qu’il est profondément, un décor temporaire pour visiteurs toujours éclairs.
Y a-t-il des Parisiens de souche, surtout quand ils sont nés là par une sorte
d’accident de parcours dans une pérégrination sans fin ?
Mais le roman devient rapidement dans le petit village où nous sommes,
presqu’une petite ville de canton provincial écarté, le cadre d’une sinistre
querelle territoriale. C’est à toi, je le veux, tu me le donnes où je te tue.
Et tout va balancer entre un moulin ancien et un pigeonnier tout aussi ancien, entre
une cleptomane pie voleuse et un vautour médical mangeur de chairs. Un peu
d’amour pour ces deux sœurs, mais si peu et toujours frustré par une mort
soudaine. Le suspense sentimental se double et s’enfle d’un suspense criminel.
Et le meurtrier, si ce n’est pas une meurtrière, fera feu de tout bois,
n’hésitera sur aucun investissement sanguinaire, ne reculera devant aucun
obstacle charnel. Qu’on s’en débarrasse et laissons au charnier le soin de
trier avec un peu d’aide de la gendarmerie. Ce cynisme assassin est pire encore
que l’envie criminelle.
Le pire étant que justice sera faite de facto mais pas de jure. Comme on
faisait au Moyen Age. Nos villages de la France profonde n’ont toujours pas
changé.
Ce qui est le plus troublant, mais aussi fascinant reste le fait que on
passe du point de vue d’une sœur à celui de l’autre sœur et qu’entre deux
l’auteure se fait redresseuse de récit pour lui donner la direction nécessaire
pour aller sinon droit au but, du moins dans la bonne direction. Et ici et là une
vue en plongée dans les profondeurs troublantes et obscures du psychisme de ces
gens biens sous tous rapports, comme ils disent après le drame qui a surpris
tout le monde tellement ces gens-là étaient normaux. Et le pire c’est qu’ils
étaient et sont toujours pour les survivants encore plus normaux que normaux,
banals comme les fours et les moulins d’autrefois.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
Jean de Patmos, Jésus Christ et bientôt la Nativité
Atelier de Grec Biblique du Diocèse de Poitiers
Traduction :
Ingrid Auriol, Katy Breuil,
Michel Caubet,
Jean Couprie, Jacques Lefebvre, Odile de Loynes.
L’Apocalypse enfin révélée !
Ecrite à la fin du premier siècle de notre ère, cette œuvre prophétique, un des
piliers de la littérature chrétienne et du Nouveau Testament, n’existait pas
encore en langue française dans une traduction fiable, fidèle, et qui respecte
le style et les intentions de l’auteur, Jean de Patmos, « le disciple que
Jésus aimait ».
La signification profonde de ce livre,
perdue vers le VIIIe siècle, quand l’Église dut rechercher la
protection des rois francs pour assurer sa survie, est enfin restituée par une
équipe de spécialistes du grec biblique. Soucieux d’offrir au public le plus
large les secrets de cette œuvre majeure,
ils ont fait appel aux commentateurs antiques, qui en détenaient encore
les clés, mais aussi aux ressources les plus modernes de la linguistique et de
l’exégèse biblique.
Sceau après sceau, le livre se révèle
enfin pour éclairer le lecteur de sa lumière éclatante sur les destinées du
monde.
La couverture a été
réalisée par le graphiste Jean-Paul
Chabrier.
Remerciements à Véronique Ragagnon, gemmologue, pour ses précieuses remarques
concernant les pierres.
Edition KDP Amazon
Kindle
Gestion Editions : La Dondaine, 8 rue de la Chaussée, 63880 Olliergues
(Puy de Dôme)
ISBN – 2-905831-28-4
ASIN: B014Y4BE0C EUR 5,20 $5.83
Publisher: Editions La Dondaine; 1 edition (September 4, 2015)
Publication Date: September 4, 2015
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services, Inc.
Sunday, November 27, 2016
Let's celebrate Elizabeth I, dead ten years before
37 –
WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE – HENRY VIII – BBC - 1979
This is certainly not a
great play by Shakespeare. The objective is to celebrate the birth and
christening of Elizabeth
and to position this birth in a context which is difficult. So it shows the
conflicts with the Catholic Church, in fact with some top people in the Catholic
Church, particularly Cardinal Wolsey who served, as the main minister of the
King, his own purposes as the cardinal of York in his position and even some rivalry
inherited from the past, for example in his plot to have Buckingham executed, the
son of the Buckingham who helped Richard III to ascend to the throne and then
got executed by decision of the same Richard III, of the House of York. At
least that’s how it appears in the play.
In fact there is a
second stake which is the divorce with Catherine of Aragon. The conflict is a
conflict with the Pope and it is evoked but not really explored and the main consequence
is not even mentioned, the fact that the Catholic Church is disbanded in
England and replaced by the Church of England governed by a special Council
appointed by the King but the logic in this Council is the same as in the Catholic
Church: the fight against the Reformation and Protestantism, in one word
heresies. The King supports the Archbishop of Canterbury who is leaning towards
some moderate reformation, though nothing is made that clear in the play, and
this Archbishop is going to be entrusted with the leading role in the Church of
England. But the play is totally silent on the main reform that is going to
disband the congregations and take over the churches.
So it is entertaining
but not really good. There is not even some kind of deeper political wisdom
with a King that is often angry and authoritarian, when he is not parading and showing
off. At the same time the final christening “sermon” is not exactly possible,
credible, believable and simply modest.
“CRANMER, Archbishop of Canterbury
For heaven now bids me; and the words I utter
Let none think flattery, for they'll find 'em truth.
This royal infant--heaven still move about her!--
Though in her cradle, yet now promises
Upon this land a thousand thousand blessings,
Which time shall bring to ripeness: she shall be--
But few now living can behold that goodness--
A pattern to all princes living with her,
And all that shall succeed: Saba was never
More covetous of wisdom and fair virtue
Than this pure soul shall be: all princely graces,
That mould up such a mighty piece as this is,
With all the virtues that attend the good,
Shall still be doubled on her: truth shall nurse her,
Holy and heavenly thoughts still counsel her:
She shall be loved and fear'd: her own shall bless her;
Her foes shake like a field of beaten corn,
And hang their heads with sorrow: good grows with her:
In her days every man shall eat in safety,
Under his own vine, what he plants; and sing
The merry songs of peace to all his neighbours:
God shall be truly known; and those about her
From her shall read the perfect ways of honour,
And by those claim their greatness, not by blood.
Nor shall this peace sleep with her: but as when
The bird of wonder dies, the maiden phoenix,
Her ashes new create another heir,
As great in admiration as herself;
So shall she leave her blessedness to one,
When heaven shall call her from this cloud of darkness,
Who from the sacred ashes of her honour
Shall star-like rise, as great in fame as she was,
And so stand fix'd: peace, plenty, love, truth, terror,
That were the servants to this chosen infant,
Shall then be his, and like a vine grow to him:
Wherever the bright sun of heaven shall shine,
His honour and the greatness of his name
Shall be, and make new nations: he shall flourish,
And, like a mountain cedar, reach his branches
To all the plains about him: our children's children
Shall see this, and bless heaven. […]
For heaven now bids me; and the words I utter
Let none think flattery, for they'll find 'em truth.
This royal infant--heaven still move about her!--
Though in her cradle, yet now promises
Upon this land a thousand thousand blessings,
Which time shall bring to ripeness: she shall be--
But few now living can behold that goodness--
A pattern to all princes living with her,
And all that shall succeed: Saba was never
More covetous of wisdom and fair virtue
Than this pure soul shall be: all princely graces,
That mould up such a mighty piece as this is,
With all the virtues that attend the good,
Shall still be doubled on her: truth shall nurse her,
Holy and heavenly thoughts still counsel her:
She shall be loved and fear'd: her own shall bless her;
Her foes shake like a field of beaten corn,
And hang their heads with sorrow: good grows with her:
In her days every man shall eat in safety,
Under his own vine, what he plants; and sing
The merry songs of peace to all his neighbours:
God shall be truly known; and those about her
From her shall read the perfect ways of honour,
And by those claim their greatness, not by blood.
Nor shall this peace sleep with her: but as when
The bird of wonder dies, the maiden phoenix,
Her ashes new create another heir,
As great in admiration as herself;
So shall she leave her blessedness to one,
When heaven shall call her from this cloud of darkness,
Who from the sacred ashes of her honour
Shall star-like rise, as great in fame as she was,
And so stand fix'd: peace, plenty, love, truth, terror,
That were the servants to this chosen infant,
Shall then be his, and like a vine grow to him:
Wherever the bright sun of heaven shall shine,
His honour and the greatness of his name
Shall be, and make new nations: he shall flourish,
And, like a mountain cedar, reach his branches
To all the plains about him: our children's children
Shall see this, and bless heaven. […]
She shall be, to the happiness of England
An aged princess; many days shall see her,
And yet no day without a deed to crown it.
Would I had known no more! but she must die,
She must, the saints must have her; yet a virgin,
A most unspotted lily shall she pass
To the ground, and all the world shall mourn her.” (Act V Scene v)
An aged princess; many days shall see her,
And yet no day without a deed to crown it.
Would I had known no more! but she must die,
She must, the saints must have her; yet a virgin,
A most unspotted lily shall she pass
To the ground, and all the world shall mourn her.” (Act V Scene v)
And we have to keep in
mind the play was written in 1612-1613, that is to say ten years after
Elizabeth I’s death and under James I. Is it only to mark the anniversary of
this death, or is it because under James I some things started very fast to
turn sour? We cannot know.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
Encrypted Biblilcal symbolism
36 –
WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE – RICHARD III – BBC - 1983
It is one of the best
known and most produced play by Shakespeare and certainly the best known and
most produced history. What’s surprising about this play is that it can stand
all by itself though knowing the three Henry the Sixth plays help understand
the stake of this one. True enough it only helps because this history is very
self sufficient, in a way.
We have to clear the
plate of a question that is today no longer debated. Shakespeare proposes here
the vision of Richard III promoted by the Tudors, that is to say those who
vanquished and destroyed him, in order to stabilize and justify their taking
over te throne of England .
Richard III was not the physical monster they described.
Richard III was no 'bunch-backed
toad', research suggests
Paper published in Lancet says
king's scoliosis probably caused him to be shorter but did not cause major
physical deformity...
Severe scoliosis in the skeleton
found under a Leicester car park less than two years ago – and
DNA matches with a distant relative of the Plantagenet king – helped to confirm
"beyond reasonable doubt" the identity of the remains.
... Research funded by Leicester University
Although the king's torso would have
been short relative to the length of his arms and legs, and his right shoulder
a little higher than his left, a good tailor and custom-made armour could have
minimised the "visual impact" of his condition, according to the
paper.
There was no evidence that Richard
would have walked with an obvious limp; his leg bones were symmetric and
well-formed. Neither would the disease, which probably developed when Richard
was an adolescent, have reduced his ability to exercise.
The researchers have already
established that Richard would have been about 5ft 8in (1.7m) tall without his
scoliosis, about average for a medieval man, although his condition meant he
would have appeared several inches shorter. Tudor propagandists, especially
Shakespeare, ensured Richard has been seen as hunchbacked for centuries...
Phil Stone, chairman of the Richard III Society, which helped fund
the dig which found the king's remains, said the research confirmed "the
Shakespearean description of a 'bunch-backed toad' is a complete
fabrication"... (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/30/richard-iii-no-bunch-backed-toad-hunchback-research-lancet, accessed
November 27, 2016)
This being said this
play is a real thriller. Richard has to eliminate everyone on his path to climb
(really climb) to the throne. I would say that sounds plain normal but he
declares himself to be evil and to enjoy killing, particularly innocent people.
And when he has finally finished the elimination of those who have a blood
claim to the throne, except Richmond who has
fled to Brittany ,
he starts killing those who have helped him in his ascent, which is politically
absurd and plain suicidal. Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, comes back with an
army and defeats Richard III at Bosworth in 1485 and thus becomes Henry VII
known as the first Tudor king, though he is a Lancaster, which means the House
of Lancaster in the end wins but they change the dynastic reference, probably
to ensure the past be the past, which might explain why Richard III after
proper examination was buried in a small church with no indication on his grave,
which explains why in modern times when the church was pull down to open some
space for a parking lot no archaeological search was started and Richard III
remained under the parking lot for a long time before new excavations to build
some new structure finally discovered him, or at least his remains.
The victor is always
right and history hates the past and disguises it to the colors of the present,
which means the color of the past changes from one present to the next. In this
case Shakespeare took part in the disguising campaign some 110 years after the
events. Richard III only lived 33 years and reigned two. He had no descent but
the House of York had of course and represented the Plantagenet line, though
the Lancaster are also connected to the Plantagenet since Henry the Seventh’s
great-great-great-grandfather was the Plantagenet king Edward III (1307-1327).
Once again we have to keep in mind that the British kings, and it is probably
true of many other noble families in the Middle Ages, were severely inbreeding
in medieval times. And when they were not inbreeding in England they
went on inbreeding with the French side of the family. They were all cousins
and at times not that far removed.
That means the claim
that could arise from the York
branch of the Plantagenet blood line could have been strong enough to be
considered as a real threat. When you want to kill your dog you just pretend he
is rabid. And that’s what they did with Richard III.
This production is
superb in many ways, once again by the physical acting of pain, sorrow and
death, particularly with body language, facial language and tonal language. A
triplet of queens is essential: Margaret the old widow of Henry the Sixth; Lady
Anne, widow to Edward Prince of Wales, son of Henry the Sixth, later married to
the Duke of Gloster who later became Richard the Third; and Elizabeth, queen to
Edward the Fourth and then his widow. Of these three queens Lady Anne is the
most discreet though fundamental because of her marrying Gloster, the future
Richard the Third and the killer of both her husband and her father in law, but
another triplet is composed with the Duchess of York, mother to King Edward the
Fourth, Clarence and Gloster, the latter to become Richard the Third. The
oldest of them, Margaret is a real warmonger against Richard the Third and this
production makes her triumphant at the very end, after the concluding words
from Henry the Seventh, sitting, laughing hysterically, at the top of a pile of
half denuded dead bodies, and holding the corpse of Richard the Third. The full
and final step of this purification cycle typical of Shakespeare: she takes, or
rather is granted, the victory she is provided with by history or fate.
There is at least one
happy person in that play, and it is Margaret, though true enough it is added
to Shakespeare’s play that ends with a full pardon
“RICHMOND
That
she may long live here, God say Amen!” (Act V, Scene v)
But to show how strong
Shakespeare’s music can be, I will make a final remark on the famous ghost
scene. In his last night living on earth before the battle of Bosworth he has a
dream that brings up EIGHT apparitions of ghosts, eleven ghosts all together:
1- Prince Edward, son to
Henry the Sixth;
2- King Henry the Sixth;
3- Clarence;
4- Rivers, Grey and
Vaughan;
5- Hastings ;
6- the two young
princes, sons of Edward the Fourth;
7- Queen Anne (Princess
of Wales, then Duchess of Gloster, then Queen to Richard the Third. DShe dies
mysteriously before Bosworth, hence her apparition as a ghost);
8- Buckingham.
EIGHT is the symbol of
the Second Coming, and here we have eleven second comings. The Second Coming is
the triggering event of the Apocalypse in the Book of Revelation.
ELEVEN is the number of
apostles after the elimination of Judas, the eleven apostles who retire away
from the Crucifixion (except John) and who deny Jesus, like Peter, and who hide
away from the crucifixion and post crucifixion scene out of fear. These eleven
apostles announce the resurrection too, even if in a negative way, the way they
announce the end of Richard III but they also appear to Richmond and they
announce the resurrection of the English monarchy with Henry the Seventh, known
as Richmond in this play.
Finally NINE is
necessary to complete the prophecy, the prediction, by identifying the beast,
in this case Richard the Third. And sure enough the ghosts are going to curse
Richard III with a simple formula: “despair and die.” And in that ghost scene
this mantra is repeated NINE times.
1- Prince Edward, son to
Henry the Sixth: “despair, therefore,
and die”;
2 & 3- King Henry
the Sixth: “despair and die” “despair and die”;
4- Clarence: “despair and die”;
5 & 6- Rivers, Grey
and Vaughan: “despair and die”
“despair and die”;
7- Hastings : “despair and die”;
8- the two young
princes, sons of Edward IV: “despair
and die”;
9- Queen Anne: “despair and die”;
Ø- Buckingham: Ø.
We must understand that
in Elizabethan times, after the Reformation and in the ascending phase of
chapels and Puritanism, such biblical references (in this case the Passion of
Jesus and the Book of Revelation) were
unavoidable elements that everyone understood and appreciated. What’s more it
is very effective in the “propaganda” (rather self-justification) of the Tudors:
the killing of the crucifixion is prophesied, the Second Coming is announced
and the Beast is identified. We are in the midst of medieval numerical
symbolism. This makes me say NINE is the numerical symbol of this king, and as
I have already said in my review of Henry the Sixth, Part Three: 1 + 8 = 9; 4 +
5 = 9; 1 + 4 + 8 + 5 = 18 = 9 x 2. The beast is killed on the diabolical date
that is also the resurrection date of Bosworth, the final battle. After this
last battle the prophecy of the New Messianic Jerusalem becomes possible.
That powerful symbolism
runs through the whole play and had been announced at the end of the previous
history. Going to the Globe Theater was a treat for the people of London and they went
there regularly to enjoy the theater and to learn about their past history.
Here the grossest goriest taste of the audience is satisfied along with the numerical
symbolism that cannot be “cabalistic” since it is not Jewish, but is in a way
metaphysical and even alchemical, though definitely Biblical, in this medieval
and post medieval time, and the extra “knowledge” it provides on English
history. Shakespeare’s theater was pedagogical, entertaining and slightly though
at times enormously mysterious or poetic.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
