"Actor Ian McKellen (Lord of the Rings, X-Men) returns to the Royal Shakespeare Company after a 17-year hiatus to perform the title role in this production of William Shakespeare's King Lear, widely considered one of the playwright's most enduring and haunting works. The tragedy begins with Lear proposing to split his kingdom among his three daughters (Frances Barber, Monica Dolan, and Romola Garai) according to how much each can profess her love for him, and spirals forward to dramatize the king's deception, betrayal, and eventual descent into madness."
- Wed Mar 25 8pm, 2/HD (That's tonight!)
- Thu Mar 26 1am, 44 (These other times are a bit absurd, no?)
- Thu Mar 26 1am, 2/HD
- Fri Mar 27 3am, 44
- Mon Mar 30 1am, 2/HD
- Mon Mar 30 3am, 44
12 comments:
Mrs. Saunders the Librarian just informed me that apparently PBS does those times so people can record them...and watch them later as not to conflict with other regularly scheduled programs you are interested in religiously..or at least that's what I got out of it.
it's true. when i suggested that maybe they put it on at wierd times because it's being used as a filler, she brushed it off as nonsense. she's convinced.
King Lear Review
Caitlin Hugel
Ian McKellen is a god. I could end my post there. King Lear is a notoriously hard part to play; there is a ridiculous line load and the actor has to perfectly time Lear’s descent into madness. There is a reason King Lear is titled “King Lear”--Lear is very clearly the lead and without a strong, emotionally conscious actor the whole part is lost. Sir Ian, who is in my opinion the British male version of Meryl Streep, delivered a stunning performance (which was to be expected) and played Lear as though Lear had a degenerative mental illness, which is how I always envisioned Lear—a real man coping with an illness.
While reading any play, I immediately focus on the plot and the stage action. I actually found it easier to pick up on motifs when I wasn’t trying to visualize the action. Rose and I have had a few discussions about how difficult it is for us to focus on motifs because we read the play like a play—for plots and characters.
Did anyone else feel like the costumes and set were very Russian in design? (Particularly Lear’s red hunting coat and his knight’s uniforms)
Also, does anyone know if this was a film of a RSC production, or a production cast for television? Some things seemed very stage like, however IMDB lists it as a movie and the costumes seem made for film.
The last thing I noticed, was the difference between the fool in the Laurence Olivier version of King Lear and the fool in this production. I was bothered by this fool. I thought that he threw away a lot of philosophical lines and played to the audience as opposed to the part. There is a certain way I think the fool needs to be played, and it isn’t foolishly. The most important part of acting is to create “real moments” and a lot of the fool’s moments felt overdone and fake.
All in all, it was a terrific production. I just really wish there had been more commercial breaks.
King Lear Review
Meghan Ciaramitaro
I always find the best part about seeing a movie based off of a book or play is the imagery. It is truly something that can make or break a production. In my opinion, PBS’s version of King Leer was more terrifying than terrific, sorry Caitlin. From the start, each character seemed to be 30 years older than expected. The actress playing Goneril looked almost as old at Leer. The set was so simple, that it was boring and during more than one occasion hard to pay attention to.
One aspect of the movie I did like was the correct emphasis on lines. Not everyone in class is an expert at reading Shakespeare, me included, so it was nice to listen to real actors play these roles. I agree with Caitlin that Ian McKellen did a fantastic job as Leer. He definitely had the crazy down packed. Seeing McKellen portray Leer perfectly was also sadly disappointing and excruciating due to his constant eye rolling, grunting, and loud grumbles of his lines. I couldn’t understand most of what Leer was saying making him certifiably insane.
In the movie, it seemed the Fool was more of an old buddy to the King rather than just a Fool. They were always side-by-side and embraced each other on many occasions, which was really just uncomfortable for me.
I didn’t watch the entire movie due to an awful 4 am wake up this morning, but there is one part in particular that has been driving me crazy. Now, I’m not sure if this particular seen happened in the book and I missed it or if it happens later on in Acts 4 or 5 or if it was just made for the movie. Before everyone’s favorite scene filled with “vile jelly,” I am pretty sure the fool was beat up and then hanged. I tried rereading that scene, but I couldn’t find anything that indicated it. Also, the “eye gouging” scene was completely unrealistic and just another reason for me to dislike the movie. Gloucester’s eyes were scooped within seconds and he let out only a mere squeal. It made me feel like it wasn’t a big deal, not an issue at all. Personally watching that movie was a really bad decision.
Alison Randazza
King Lear Review
After watching three full hours of horrific descents into madness, the outing of vile jelly and strange “make out” sessions, I did not quite know what to think. So here we goooo…
On the characters:
When I read King Lear I think of King Lear himself to be a larger man, (though Sir Ian McKellen was a god in his role, basically) — due to the fact that in the beginning King Lear is so pompous and arrogant and due to the other fact that my stereotype of kings involves a little extra meat on the bones.
I did not like how they portrayed Edgar as some clumsy, foolish and gullible-looking man… I also felt he looked younger than his brother Edmund, and he is supposed to be older. Now that I think about it, maybe it was just the actor I didn’t like…
The Fool bothered me as well. Maybe it was because the actors were picking up the small hints that there is a relation between the Fool and King Lear. The Fool and Lear were always side by side, holding each other and even kissing each other (cheeks and once or twice a peck on the lips).
Other than that, I found each of the actors/actresses to play their parts very well.
On the stage/set/whatever:
The play itself ended at 10:45, and the last 15 minutes was Sir Ian McKellen talking about the play and why things were set up the way they were. He said something along the lines that on stage you have all this extra space that you need to fill with something(s), and that sometimes those something(s) actually distract the viewers from what is really important — the actors/actresses. I completely agree. Obviously plays are not so tasteful to the eye when you have constant close-ups of raving mad med and muddy faced beggars, but you are certainly forced to look at the actors…because well…there is nothing else to look at.
On everything/anything else:
I wish the characters did not mumble so much, it's hard enough trying to translate what they are saying into modern talk without the mumbles.
I laughed at the “vile jelly scene.” It did NOT have the effect it should have on me… Gloucester didn’t seem to be in too much pain when his eyes were ripped from their sockets. He was sort of just like “oh…ow…”
I had to block my ears when Goneril screamed when E**** died (I don’t want to give anything away to anyone who reads this who has not read/seen everything). That actress definitely has a good set of lungs.
King Lear Review
Sarah Johnson
well to be very honest, i only tuned in for about a 1/2 hour after lost last night. It was nice to see the words brought to life, and instead of trying to analyze them, try to understand what the actor was making the character say about them. The poetry was clearly emphasized, and no aspect of shakspeare's brilliance wasw lost in line delivery. This isn't to say it felt like a poetry reading. it was just that the director was less concerned with making the words match the characters, than making the characters match the words.
i found the sets quite lacking, but i'm sure it wasn't their fault they had no technology and a limited budget. (im not hatin', i'm just saying i really love my special effects.)I was also pleased with Regan, because she was just as annoying and sly as the impression i've gotten from her so far in the play. i also,as we discussed in class, thought the actor playing Edmund did a great job, and not just because of his dashing good looks, but because of the regal and concieted manner with which he portrayed Edmund, the (literal and figurative) bastard.
Like Caitlin, i felt that Lear was played exceptionally well. Of all the characters, i felt that he was most true to his role. He was the only one, while watching, that didn't make me say "Hmm, i wonder why that actor chose to do that?", because it was natural and just seemed right. I was impressed with his portrayal of true madness.
Considering cintematography, i was, again, not that impressed. But i also think King Lear is so loaded, that you don't need impressive shots and angles to get a message across, although it might have enhanced it if dealt with properly. (but theatre of the mind works for me!)
all in all, i enjoyed the short-lived experience, and i'm considering finding a way to watch the rest of this little series (without, of course, staying up until 4 in the morning).
As many others have said, Ian McKellen did not fail to impress. He was absolutely brilliant. I've been thinking a lot about how and why McKellen portrayed Lear so perfectly. Even though I am an actress, I'm still trying to figure out the answer to this question. I think that one of the reasons that McKellen's performance was spot on was his emphasis on Lear's age. Although the whole production emphasizes the relationships in age between the cast (evidenced as Mr. Cook said in Goneril and Regan) McKellen shows in every movement and expression the difficulty of being an aging ruler struggling for respect and authority. McKellen also demonstrated Lear's firey rage without it being melodramatic. I was really impressed how he gave a powerful angry outburst in the beginning against Cordelia and then against Goneril and after he had yelled and screamed, looked old and weak and worn out with his anger. This to me is really true to Lear's character. Also, I like that he added just a dash of good humor to Lear. This really made Lear more likeable and human. But there’s just something about McKellen’s performance that I can’t just put my finger on.
As Sarah said, the man who played Edmund was also superb. I think one of the things that made him so good was his sharp and keen use of the text. He used his eyes very well to show Edmund’s intelligence and calculatingness. The man who played Kent was also amazing. He did a very good job of being noble and honest but not too self righteous which is the kind of personality I imagined Kent having. He also did wonderfully playing Kent in disguise because of the way he held himself. I found that very entertaining.
There were some great moments in the staging that I thought were worth mentioning. The first was that in one of Edmund’s early scenes with Gloucester, Edmund is wearing all white and holding a candle. This is the scene where Gloucester calls Edmund “my lamb.” I thought this was a great way of showing Edmund’s seeming innocence and inner beauty to Gloucester. The other moment that I thought was great was in the first act when Lear takes his crown and holds it vertically and yells through it, “You get nothing!!!” to Cordelia. I thought that the crown almost looked like a zero. Zeros are mentioned along with nothingness later in the play. Lear holds his crown like this again and yells through it in the scene where he goes completely mad and is dancing around with a flower crown.
I disagree with others that said the production was too long and there wasn’t enough to look at. I agree with McKellen when he said in his interview that in Shakespeare, the audience should be looking at the actors not the scenery. The cast was talented enough and the play was captivating enough that I didn’t get bored at all. I was enraptured. And I didn’t think I’d be because I honestly didn’t think it would be because King Lear is so long. Sorry this wound up being so long. I just got really into the film.
Brian Hand
King Lear Review
3/30 8:00
Only a few minutes into RSC's King Lear I realized that there is a huge difference between watching the play acted out versus listening to our class read the parts. The main advantage to seeing the words through images is that you can make sense of each line as a scene and not simply as words.
However, I was bothered many times by how the RSC dealt with Shakespeare's language. The Fool, who I like for his insight and wordplay, was way too loud and annoying. His lines were masked by spoon playing, laughing, singing, grunting; it seemed like they were trying to prevent me from actually hearing what he was saying. Also, I had a problem with how they portrayed Edgar. Soemtimes in King Lear, he speaks ignorantly, but in RSC, they limit his character to nonsense and ignorance and I think there is still something to be learned from Edgar's assumed madness and identity transformation. I remember watching the scene where Edgar as a peasant tricks a blind Gloucester into thinking he has committed suicide, and thinking it was funny and I felt no sympathy for either character.
I am not so sure of Ian McKellan's greatness. At first, I really liked his presence and his line delivery. But after a while, I became tired of his gesticulation and grunting. What I thought he did well was slowly toe the line between sanity and madness. It was as if every seen he became closer and closer to snapping.
In the end, I enjoyed seeing King Lear being acted out, but I couldn't help but feel the actors were convinced there was no point to the words they were speaking.
King Lear Review
Abigail Lechleiter
Maybe it is just me but I could read a play in one sitting granted if it is a Shakespearean play it might take a couple rereading but usually I can accomplish the task. With the stage production done by The Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) I had to watch this production over the span of a weekend. Many reasons could be seen for this, the fact it was a three hour play with no commercial interruptions, I had other homework that I had to do because I leave everything till last minute or maybe I found it to stale and not the way I had envisioned the play being preformed.
One of the first things I noticed is that the sisters had a little bit of an age difference, both Goneril and Regan seem to be in their late 50s while Cordelia seems to be in mid to late 20s. While I guess that doesn’t mean anything really, King Lear could have just been a lively husband most likely I as a young reader just visualize the characters to be portrayed younger. Also I must tip my hate off to Ian McKellen who just played the part of King Lear beautifully but I wouldn’t expect less from the actor, both his decent into madness and the way he reacts to the treachery from his older daughters was genus.
One of the things I wasn’t a fan of was the fool, which is sad because I find the fool in most Shakespearean plays to be the voice of reason. I was the voice of the fool during most of the reading of the play in class and it felt like the RSC played too much on the fact that the fool should be a fool and not someone who usually knows what is going on most of the time. Also I must mention the suicide scene which has been a topic of discussion in this blog and during class. I just can’t seem to see how anyone could do this scene and make it serious mostly because I have yet to see it be portrayed serious, mostly it comes off a silly conversation and a silly delivery.
All in all I did enjoy how the RSC put on King Lear I am just saying that I couldn’t or wouldn’t watch it a second time. Maybe in a couple of years after not reading the play and I happen to come across it on PBS I might tune in for a while but until that day I will take a break from the RSC King Lear.
Kyle Smith
I saw just enough of the Royal Shakespeare performance to realize that I was not going to enjoy it nearly as much as I did the book. My first glimpse of the show had me witness the King in all of his madness going out into “the storm” which mirrored his current mental state. I am not a fan of any filmed stage production, I would much rather watch simply a film or go to a theater to see a stage version. Although I think they did a great job expressing the rhythm and tone behind Shakespeare’s words, the show as a whole was not what I enjoy about Shakespeare
Post a Comment