If no one pretends to believe the tyrant’s lies, if no one obeys the tyrant, the tyrant has no power.
Si personne ne fait semblant de croire aux mensonges du tyran, si personne n’obéit au tyran, le tyran n’a pas de pouvoir.
Comment la servitude peut-elle être volontaire ? – Le Gai Savoir – France Culture: https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceculture/podcasts/le-gai-savoir/comment-la-servitude-peut-elle-etre-volontaire-6093202
“Ce tyran seul, il n’est pas besoin de le combattre, ni de l’abattre. Il est défait de lui-même, pourvu que le pays ne consente point à sa servitude.”
Discours de la servitude volontaire – Etienne de La Boétie – https://www.singulier.eu/textes/reference/texte/pdf/servitude.pdf
“Obviously, there is no need to fight to overcome this single tyrant, for he is automatically defeated if the country refuses to consent to its own enslavement”.
Discourse on Voluntary Servitude – Etienne de La Boétie: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/etienne-de-la-boetie-discourse-on-voluntary-servitude
According to Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. in The Imperial Presidency, if nobody obeys him, the dictator is just a guy in a room.
Looking for Richard (1996): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looking_for_Richard
“The film is Pacino’s directorial debut. It is both a performance of selected scenes of William Shakespeare’s Richard III and a broader examination of Shakespeare’s continuing role and relevance in popular culture. The film was featured at the Sundance Film Festival in January 1996 and it was screened in the Un Certain Regard section at the 1996 Cannes Film Festival”.
In the documentary film by Al Pacino, Looking for Richard, American actors try to understand the main character of Richard the third and thus all the other characters he seems to manipulate and control. But any company of actors would have to discuss and make research about the play, because it is a very intricate one.
I like the expression “Looking for Richard” because it could also mean that the tyrant hides himself, and that would, for sure, be behind other people. He does not do the evil deeds himself. And, of course, those who do act, doing the mischief Richard wants, also hide themselves behind Richard’s back… How should we look at Richard? He’s just using words in a clever way, like an actor. Playing roles, pretending is essential to his accession to the crown. The more he comes closer to the crown, the more he begs for other people to act for him, and consequently it is easier for him to become king. Of course, a few deeds have to be executed by himself like, for example, the humiliation he inflicts on Lady Ann.
Looking for Richard is also very meaningful to me because the statement urges us to pay attention to this specific character in this specific play. Richard Gloucester defines himself as a discontent villain, not really the character you want to identify with. He opens up to the audience to tell his plan: he will play parts; the other characters he interacts with will not know he is performing and lying but the audience will. So, it is an actor on stage defining his role as a villain who will play parts in front of the other characters, who will be performed by actors. He is very conscious that being a king is a role to be performed. Richard II, in the Shakespeare’s play Richard II, on the contrary, thinks he is really appointed by God and because he doesn’t know it is just a part to perform, he looses his power. Coriolanus in Coriolanus and Cordelia in King Lear, want to be true to themselves and consequently loose power. It seems that to gain power, one must accept performing a role and know it is just a role.
But maybe, you should have a look at the fact that the play was written in around 1593 and the real Richard the third lived from 1452-1485. So why are we still interested in that? Why do we still produce films, plays and books about this? Why should we look at it?
Is it because of its wonderful depiction of his rise to power and his short reign as a tyrant. “A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse” means the king cannot even get a horse; he has absolutely no power when nobody obeys him. Unfortunately, these kind of tyrants have existed in the past and still exists nowadays. This play helps us understand tyrants are just beggars, seeking other people’s actions. It is a reminder that tyranny is never the act of one person alone.
And also because: “Even though the audience is likely to be repulsed by Richard’s actions, his gleeful, brilliant, revealing monologues cause most viewers to like him and even hope that he will succeed despite his obvious malice.” (http://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/richardiii/themes) There will always be people attracted to malice, or obeying it because they are scared or because of their greed or whatever their reason might be and these people are those who make tyranny possible. If you just confront the tyrant directly, these people will protect him and will not raise an eyebrow. In the play, Queen Elizabeth’s characters shows that. She does not bother Richard Gloucester at all.
However, he is powerless when he is left alone on the battlefield. (The dream before the battle helps to underline his weakness).
There is a recurrent message in Shakespeare’s plays: Never underestimate the power of words.
Richard III (1995): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114279/
Richard III (2016): https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8680254/?ref_=fn_t_3
The story of a man obsessed with power.
