Before examining the two versions of Richard III in greater detail, it will be helpful to introduce some extant interpretations of the play's supernatural elements. To begin, one may examine the use of dreams in Richard III, because Clarence's dream in particular represents something divergent from the traditional role of dreams as simple foreshadowers (Arnold 51-52)
However, in the 1995 film adaptation of Richard III, these supernatural elements are largely removed due to the fact that the fascist Britain in which the story is set has no room for the supernatural; by definition, under fascism the state itself takes on the status of an ultimate, divine power. While this is a necessary consequence of the "transposition and cutting of entire scenes" that is required when adapting Shakespeare to film, the change actually manages to reveal the importance of certain narrative elements (Jackson 17)
Finally, because the curse targets the individual, it manages to separate the individual from the larger power structure that supports him. This is especially important in a fascist state and the story of Richard III in general, because "Richard's manipulation of the masses" in the story is a perfect analogy for the leader-worship that is central to the fascism represented in the film's "twentieth-century recasting of the play" (Johnson 49)
That Clarence's dream is an example of a peaceful, supernatural, Christian authority being interjected into the play and thus disrupting Richard's secular, violence-based authority is supported by other examinations of the play as well. For example, Anthony Narkin notes how the first portion of Clarence's dream includes "day-residue" from his earlier interactions with Richard, and by way of psychoanalytic analysis, connects the particular way in which Clarence's unconscious mind has translated his earlier experiences with his Christian repentance (Narkin 148)
218). Margaret's curse is notable because it engages in a long tradition of performative supernatural horror in Elizabethan drama without making its engagement with this tradition too explicit (Rozett 127)
Interestingly, the power of curses seems linked to women not only in the play itself, but also historically, and it is reasonable to presume that this link is a direct result of women's relative powerlessness in a patriarchal society. In fact, in a 2003 essay, Mary Steible actually makes a connection between Margaret's cursing of Richard and an actual real-life curse directed at Richard by Jane Shore, one of Edward IV's mistresses whom Richard persecuted (Steible 1)
iv.; though the mayor was generally independent of the Crown, as was the City of London, Richard is able to uses and manipulate everyone around him in any way he sees fit (Barton 117)
Bradley also notes that the witches "no longer need to go and meet him; he seeks them out. He has committed himself to his course of evil" (Bradley 286)
82-3). Stephen Greenblatt notes that the vice is "wickedness personified" (Greenblatt 34)
He admits that he has laid plots against the king and Richard justifies his deformity as a reason for his bad behavior. We know this early in the play when he says that he is "deformed, unfinish'd, sent before my time" (Shakespeare Richard III I
For example, in all of his plays he seems to be against the morality and displays. This, in turn, is represented by some twist in physical appearance, such as 'Richard III's hunchback, Edmund's illegitimacy, or Macbeth's dwarfish appearance' (Moore, 1995)