The Lion King and Richard III While the plot of the movie in general is lifted from Hamlet, I think the character of Scar as wicked uncle was heavily influenced by Shakespeare's Richard III, a connection which seems strengthened in the Broadway show. For one, both Scar and Richard have been plotting their takeover for a very long time behind the back of a popular and charismatic older brother. (Interestingly, Richard's brother Edward IV is often described as "big, golden, and handsome"- words which would do well for Mufasa too.) They are obviously the unattractive runts of the family. Richard is a skinny, dark-haired hunchback who walks with a limp. The connection here may not seem immediately obvious, but Scar is also presented with a limp on Broadway; in the film, the leonine lump between his shoulders is considerably pronounced compared to the other lions. In the show, Scar doesn't seize upon Sarabi as queen. He shows no interest in a mate until he realizes he'll need cubs to continue his bloodline, then abruptly settles on the hostile Nala, a "Mufasa loyalist" who is young enough to be his cub. Richard (a Yorkist) eyes Lady Anne, the beautiful 15-year-old Lancastrian widow of a man Richard himself slew in battle. Both wicked kings lustfully attempt to seduce the young ladies, although Richard succeeds and Scar does not. Also on Broadway, Scar is tormented by the ghost of Mufasa in a sort of schizophrenic fit, and Richard suffers the spirits of his victims the night before his final battle. The reaction from both is that of a coward bereft of any kingly dignity that is then abruptly swallowed for a chance to play the bluff soldier. They both die through the treachery of their underlings (Scar is eaten by hyenas, we presume, and Richard is virtually delivered to the Earl of Richmond by his trusted commander Lord Stanley). Scar attempts to murder Simba, Mufasa's heir, and Richard has his nephews (the famous "Princes in the Tower") smothered to secure his inheritance of the throne. Lastly, Scar and Richard are both just MEAN. Claudius' murder of Hamlet's father is practically a crime of passion. In spite of this great crime, Claudius' court doesn't seem any worse than it should be. We see him in a few flattering lights- he loves the Queen, however misguided their passion may be, he accepts Hamlet as a son, he doesn't let Denmark fall to ruin and he is a frequent churchgoer. Scar and Richard's kingdoms are practically destroyed, and neither of them seems ready to do anything about it. The plan rather shut down once the crown was acheived, setting the stage for a very unpleasant downfall. Of course, this bears no resemblance to the real Richard III, an efficient young ruler, faithful and loving husband to Anne (who was only about four years younger than he was, and very much in love with him), good battle commander, actually fairly handsome if not stunning like his brother (and only mildly crippled, which only increased his push toward excellence) and loyal family man. (Yes, I rather admire him.) But Shakespeare managed to remould the facts into a really satisfying Machiavellian drama, partially because the Earl of Richmond was the grandfather of the reigning Queen Elizabeth I, and who wants to insult the queen's ancestor? I believe it is from Shakespeare's Crouchback Dick that most of Scar's characterization emerged. - Megan the Phantom Girlie megan_phntmgrl@sbcglobal.net