Finishing Term Three
Anything you want included in your term three grade must be turned in by pumpkin time tomorrow (April 7). If you have post anything today or tomorrow you must also give me a handwritten note saying what you have posted; otherwise, I probably won't see your work.
(Grades for term three: 1. "What is literature?" blog posts, "Literature Essay" draft and revision, As I Lay Dying microblogging, As I Lay Dying passage discussion, As I Lay Dying group work, As I Lay Dying timed essay, blog posts on a story ("Darkness" "...Grotesque" "Love" "How They..." "Searching..." or "The Dreamer") and two poems (first week here and second week here), and 6. three King Lear blog posts.)
Beginning Term Four (Galileo, King Lear, and poems by Fernando Pessoa)
1. Read Galileo by Bertolt Brecht by class time on Wednesday. (We'll have a quiz on the reading.)
2. By Wednesday pumpkin time comment (in the comment box at the end of this post) on some aspect of staging King Lear. (I asked you to pay special attention to a character whose lines you read during class time, so you might be interested in commenting on the depiction of that character. But then again you might not. You might be more interested in commenting on how a key scene was depicted. Or you might be interested in commenting on lines that were omitted. Etc.
In class we watched scenes from a version directed by and starring Brian Blessed. Some of you watched the Royal Shakespeare Company production shown on PBS. (For more of Sir Ian McKellen look at the video bar on the right. Click to watch excerpts.) You might also be interested in looking at Lawrence Olivier as Lear (in the video bar on the right), James Earl Jones as Lear (in the video bar on the right), or a famous Russian version that was recommended to me by a professor I met at a party last week (in the video bar on the right).
Whatever aspect of the staging of the play you comment on and whatever version (or versions) of the play you comment on make sure you discuss how it is significant in terms of the effect and meaning of the overall work. 300+ words should suffice.
3. Turn in a Galileo permission slip signed by parents and teachers by class time on Thursday.
4. Respond to one of this week's poems (all by the heteronyms of Fernando Pessoa) before you go off for April vacation. (I'll open up a comment box for this on Wednesday.)
5. Begin filling out the "Preparing for Question Three" handout using King Lear and three other works of literary merit that you have read either in class or out of class. (I'll hand this paper out before vacation.)
6. Begin working on the "AP Multiple Choice Questions" packet. (I'll hand this out before vacation.)
7. Choose a novel of literary merit (whatever that means) to read before the AP exam. (More on this before vacation.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
After watching the Blessed version of “King Lear” I noticed a few distinct interpretations that differed from my own. One of the most notable distinctions was the “eye plucking scene” in which we spent some time talking about in class. Here, the director chose to have Cornwall take both of Gloucester’s eyes out at the same time. This was probably implemented for dramatic effect (as stated in class, it would not have the same effect if Cornwall did two running starts).
More interestingly, was Cornwall and Regan’s intense/passionate kiss following the plucking of Gloucester’s eyes. This was a very interesting choice by the director. As Mr. Cook stated this embrace could be highlighting the grotesque nature of this act (the couple being intimate following a malicious act of violence makes the viewer feel queasy, similar to the effect Shakespeare may have intended). As the consensus of the class agreed, the worst part of watching that scene was the embrace proceeding the actual plucking.
In the Blessed version of King Lear that we watched in class, i tried to pay close attention to Edgar, because he's a character i've found very intriguing throughout the play. Most of the scenes with Edgar i was around for were those from Act V. at first i was unimpressed by the actor playing Edgar (Mark Burgess), especially when he approached Albany with the letter explaining Gloucester/Edmund's betrayal. While reading i had imagined this exchange as much more dramatic. I felt more like Edgar was having some kind of redeeming moment where he finally stood up for himself and what he was entitled to, but in this movie it was just a passing. he was sneaking around and practically dismissed by Albany. this scene was so anti-climactic for me, i almost missed it. i was then again disappointed when he emerged as the champion at the herald. in the RSC version, Edgar comes in screaming and weilding a sword, and he and Edmund go at it with fervor for a long time, exchanging blows and faking injuries and all of that glorious stuntsmanship. in this version, edmund hasn't even reached for his weapon when Edgar fatally stabs him in the gut. Again, anti-climactic, and kind of a let-down. He then pulls off his helmet and not-quite-viciously reveals his secrets to Edmund. In the RCS, as i remember, he was a bit more passionate than this. a little more vengeful, a little more angry.
thinking about this, i've realized that Edgar can be seen in many more ways than the one in my head (shocker, i know). Just because he's betrayed and has been living in disguise as a beggar, seen his father's eyes plucked out under the order of his half-brother, and had to fool his father into thinking he'd actually attempted suicide, doesn't mean that Edgar is crazed. He's not necessarily a maniac, running around and swinging swords all over the place. He can be calm, collective and purposeful. In the RCS, it was like Edgar was trying to kill the whole world for vengeance, and Edmund was just a target, almost a scapegoat. In the Blessed version, Edgar is really going after Edmund BECAUSE of what Edmund has done, not what has happened to Edgar. I find that this difference has changed my view on Edgar. I like the Edgar of Blessed's version better. I like thinking of Edgar as purposeful and capable, not a wild, uncontrolled beast, like the anamalistic people he works against. I appreciate Burgess' portrayal of Edgar more fully now that i've seen the play acted out, and can better understand the motives behind Edgar's actions.
I would have preferred the book over the movie any day, and usually with Shakespeare the movie is always very helpful and makes things more clear. I didn’t feel like this movie did that for me. The only scene I somewhat enjoyed was when Lear was over Cornelia’s bed as she lay there dead. Here is where, like I talked about last night, Lear’s human reaction to pain and sense of insanity combined together and were made into the noises he let out in response to the loss of his daughter. As far as characters go, Poor Tom and the fool were probably my favorite in the film. Poor Tom was depicted exactly how I pictured him, or at least close to it so I enjoyed that. Liking his character already in the play made it even better once I liked him as an actor in the film. The fool was different. I liked her voice. She was not what I pictured but in this case it seemed to work out…I enjoyed watching her act, along with Poor Tom, the most. Something interesting to me was at the beginning of the film when I wasn’t sure which actor was playing each daughter…I thought that Regan was going to be Cordelia. I put a face to the purity Cordelia was suppose to have and thought for sure it would turn out to be the girl playing Regan. Though that’s kind of random and insignificant I thought I’d mention it.
Lucy Fox
End of Lear blogging
From the Blessed version of KL:
I noticed that towards the end of the movie, certain people's lines were given to different characters. The lines themselves were the same, but the person speaking the line had changed. For example:
in the play
ALBANY
Most monstrous! oh!
Know'st thou this paper?
GONERIL
Ask me not what I know.
In the movie, Edmund said Goneril's line. I know this probably isn't astronomical to the plot, but it definitely makes a choice to not emphasize Goneril's role in the scheme, but instead Edmund's sneaky role. I know there were more, but I don't remember them.
Also: even after reading the play AND watching the movie, I'm unclear as to where/when Gloucester dies? It wasn't until watching the movie that I realized a whole battle went on between France and England in Act 5. I also didn't really understand the whole painting Poor Tom blue thing. I didn't ever get the impression he was supposed to be a spirit (which is what I think they were trying to maybe suggest?). Other than the blueness, I think he played his role well, and definitely became Poor Tom. King Lear wasn't bad either, although sometimes he seemed like he was overacting. I was disappointed in some of the casting of the movie, as well as makeup and wardrobe. It left something to be desired.
I have mixed feeling about the movie version of Act 4 Scene 6 of King Lear. While reading the play, I had the impression of a sentimental moment between Gloucester and Edgar. It is a very strong scene: a father led to what he thinks as his death by a son that he does not recognize. I thought that the way the director showed Gloucester flopping on his face was both expected and juvenile. The moment that Gloucester fell to his knees, I knew what was going to happen, and I felt that the slapstickishness of the scene was incongruent with the rest of the movie as well as the mood of the moment. The scene mocked Gloucester in his lowest moment, and undermined Edgar's tender acts by soaking them in crude humor.
I don't mean to completely annihilate this scene though. The comic relief was a refreshing break from the otherwise somber and doomed mood of the rest of the play. Probably watching the entire movie would make it even more welcome. I just disagree with the scene choice for the comedy. I found this scene to be one of the best in the play because it shows the goodness of humankind. In the movie, Edgar's selfless and "sonly" acts are turned into a mockery of Gloucester’s pitiful state. I think that this interaction between Edgar and Gloucester should have been more compelling because it is so important to the play’s focus on parent-offspring relationships. Besides Cordelia and Lear, the relationship between Edgar and Gloucester is the only one that ultimately shows that selfishness is not an overwhelming characteristic in all people. That this scene seemed to undermine Edgar’s actions to make them seem more selfish, as if he was only doing it for amusement, left out a crucial part of their relationship and the play as a whole.
Michael McGovern
In Brian Blessed’s version of King Lear, there were a few scenes that I found particularly interesting. One of these scenes is the scene in which Edmund and Edgar have a fake fight and Edgar is forced to run away. There are aspects of this scene that I like, and that I disagree with. One of the better aspects of the scene was how the actor who played Edgar reacted to Edmund’s plan to have a fake fight. The actor presented a character that was completely inept and unable to comprehend what was going on. He seemed completely naïve and unable to deal with the stress of being on the run. The actor also did a good job during the fight scene, not even picking up his sword to fight Edmund. (He even threw in a couple high pitched screams which always helps a person appear brave…) I thought that this was a very good representation of Edgar and it is very close to how I imagined him being while reading the play. The actor continued his portrayal by acting terrified, uncoordinated, and down right scared in the chase scene. Edgar was barely able to cross a pond without struggling, and while that part was a funny and a little corny, I could see Edgar tripping and stumbling in an effort to get away from the guards chasing him.
While I did like the actor portraying Edgar, I didn’t care for the actor playing Edmund. Throughout the scene, Edmund didn’t seem as ruthless as I imagined him. The actor never gave me the feeling that he was trying to convince everyone of his plan. The actor seemed not as committed as I saw Edmund in my mind. The actor never seemed to act urgent or concerned, something that I though Edmund would be. I thought Edmund would seem overly concerned as a part of his act to convince people of his story, while this actor seem calm and collected throughout the scene, and in no real hurry to have people believe him.
Hannah B.
So I though that making a King Lear Movie was a good idea, until I had to watch it. Basically, every character besides Lear and Gloucester are about forty years old. That's whatever. But I guess I'm really superficial in noticing such things but as a female I believe it is my right to comment on the hideous hair situation going on. I already talked about Kent's bald patch flying in the wind in class, but I would like to talk about the females hair motif. Regan and Goneril both had very curly hair while Cordelia was blessed with the more tamable straight hair that could be placed on top of her head like a cinnamon bun. This is something I though the director or cast person could have done on purpose but maybe it is just a coincidence. The two evil sisters with curly hair, the good one with straight hair? Coincidence, I think not.
On the more serious note however, I was Kent in class and I chose to focus on him a lot. I was very displeased with Kent's disguise for I wanted his transition to be really noticeable to the audience but I felt like Edgar's were all better even though he was catering to a blind man. Also, in particular I remember one scene where Kent goes off and yells all sorts of obscenities which I took to be an all out frustration release for him. However, in the Blessed version it does not seem like he is enraged as much as immature. I feel like when he acts out the lines he is saying, "nanananaaaanahhh I'm better because you smell so there." But in the play it just seems like his word choices, while a little immature are also passionate. They mean something because he has been hurt by Lear and feels let down a little. It would make more sense for him to be outraged as an actor than think of it as a comical thing where it's a game of "I know you are but what am I?" But, all this being said, it could be that I interpreted wrong when I was reading the lines from the play and Shakespeare really was meaning it to be comical because maybe Kent in trying to save Lear's sanity lost a little of his own on the way. I don't knowwwwwwwwwwwwww!
Brian Hand
The scene/production I'm interested in is the RSC's improvisational (?) scene where the fool is hanged. This scene is riddled with inexplicable stupidness, and doesn't work for many reasons. In the production, it occurs right after Lear and Cordelia are sent to prison by Edmund. That scene to me was a powerful depiction of Lear's apparent madness and was a step toward his ultimate collapse. And yet the RSC is stopping during one of the most crucial times to create a scene that doesn't exist and at best is very faintly implied. But that is not the extent of the scene's stupidity. When the Fool is hoisted up, his arms and legs awkwardly jerking around and dangling. Below him are the grunts and noises of a hoard of unknown men. It was a badly performed scene that took me out of the play for a moment and made me think "wow, this is comical yet really annoying." It is really difficult to become absorbed by a play again after having an out of play experience.
What really baffles me about this scene is why the RSC felt the need to include a scene that isn't even in the play (or at least the version I have). The only evidence of a fool hanging i can find is in Act 5 Scene 3 when Lear says "And my poor fool is hanged." In that context I took fool to mean Cordelia, because the notes on the opposite page say he is referring to Cordelia. But whether he means his Fool or Cordelia does not matter because either way there is no place for a scene of such arbitrary nonsense in King Lear.
Alison R.
You really have to watch any version of King Lear with an extremely open mind and one of those little bags that you get on airplanes. I did not get the opportunity to watch the final acts or scenes of the Blessed version of King Lear but from reading everyone’s posts about it so far I take it to be no different in value than the rest of the film.
Alex T mentioned the “vile jelly” scene with the umm.. passionate (?) kiss shared between Regan and Cornwall after he forces Gloucester’s eyes following his strange running start. In contrast to the Royal Shakespeare Company’s (RSC) version this scene was much more dramatic (of course with film you do have more options.) Everything about the scene was disgusting and made the viewer reach for their airplane bag. And that is EXACTLY what Shakespeare was aiming for.
I read Oswald’s parts in class and from watching both the RSC’s version and the Blessed version I found Oswald to be like breakfast. It is realllllllly hard to mess up breakfast unless you have a storm in your head. He was exactly (in both versions) as I had imagined him being when reading -- stern but slightly timid.
I have always enjoyed reading the book (in this case play) more than watching any film version -- I feel you always get more out of it. Though here, by both reading and watching King Lear at the same time, I found myself noticing more and more of the motifs that I hadn’t noticed the first time around, which really helped when I went to post here on the blog.
Anyway, I really think that both versions that I watched deserve a “thumbs up” ….er maybe some clapping. After the “vile jelly” scene “thumbs up” has a whole new meaning.
The final blog for the King Lear saga has finally approached us, and it is nice to end this adventure with this blog. While watching both the RSC and Blessed portrayals of King Lear I found myself watching how the Fool was shown in both shows, mainly due to the fact that I played the Fool during the class reading and due to my attachment to the Fool character from my experience with Feste in Twelfth Night. From what I saw in both versions I did not like how the Fool was played to be just a Fool and have no real value. Caitlin and I talked to Mr. Cook about how the Fool should be the voice of reason in the play and not just played as someone who just wants to get a laugh. From what I got from the Fool in the plays that I have read it seems that in the comedy the Fool is more the voice of reason but in the tragedy the Fool seems to just want to entertain. I don’t really know how I could have helped an actor to change this so that the Fool doesn’t come on as a joke but I think that both the RSC and Blessed could have done a better job with that aspect of the play.
Another topic of heated discussion was the infamous eye plucking scene. This is another thing Caitlin and I talked about after class, being theater kids how we as a program would stage this scene. Well one thing we would do is the two thumb dramatic build up to the actually event. That seemed to be a bit of overkill and didn’t really follow the text. So, if I where to direct that scene I would probably have them pluck one eye maybe as the other is about to be plucked out you cut the lights and just hear the actor screaming and move onto the next scene. This also eliminated the possibility of an inappropriate kissing scene between Cornwall and Regan. The fact that Cornwall dies at the end of this scene could just be an event that happens off stage that you don’t need to see. Maybe that would work maybe not but I think that it would probably be better than the two thumb charge.
I was absent during a few showings of the Blessed version of "King Lear", so the three scenes I saw were the eye plucking, the suicide attempt, and the final act. I can't think of a single thing that I did like in the movie, I was mostly indifferent. There were parts that made me laugh when they were supposed to be serious. In the Act V Scene III, when Lear is lamenting Cordelia's death, he says (371-372) "Thou'lt come no more, never, never, never, never, never." When Brian Blessed said this line though, it thought it sounded kind of squeaky and wheezy, and very comical, so I laughed. Yes, I laughed at the most heartbreaking part of the play. (I think a huge part of this though, besides the way Blessed pronounced these lines, was the hair and makeup. Like Hannah, I had many issues with physical appearances. Seconds before, Emily whispered to me "Wow. He looks like Chewbacca!" and I couldn't get the friendly Wookie out of my mind.)
The special effects were awesome! Great blood! And gore! So so real!
I did like the way Act 4 Scene 6 was done. I had trouble imagining just how Edgar fooled Gloucester. I thought the camera angle made it very dramatic before Gloucester jumped, but also gave way to the humor of the trick. Besides the change in camera angle, and Gloucester lying flat on the ground (Everyone loves when people fall on their faces!) I thought it was a perfectly serious and emotional scene. The little comedy made it better.
* Brian said that in the RSC version, which I didn't watch, the makers added a scene for the fool's hanging. I wish in the Blessed version, they would add/imagine Gloucester's death. I didn't really understand what Edgar was saying happened. If any scene was to be creatively done without the lines, I'd like that one. Just saying...
After reading "King Lear" and watching the Blessed version of the play and comparing the two, what I was most hung up on was the scene in which Cornwall gouges out both of Gloucester's eyes.
There were two main differences between how the scene was written, and how it was portrayed. First of all, in the written play, Cornwall plucks out one eye at a time. While I understand that it may be exceedingly difficult to stage the individual gouging of each eye, I also feel that having Cornwall remove both of his eyes at the same time detracts from the accuracy of Cornwall's devilish nature. If both of my eyes were to be gouged out, I would prefer simultaneous gouging, because experiencing the pain and horror of having one eye plucked out of my head and knowing that the other eye would meet the same fate would be far worse than getting the whole ordeal other with in one fell swoop. I think Shakespeare wrote the scene the way he did because he wanted to emphasize Cornwall's cruelty, and he did so by having him inflict as much suffering upon Gloucester as possible.
Also, the kiss at the end of the scene in the Blessed version of the play is different in that it altogether does not happen in the written version. I feel that alteration in the eye-gouging scene detracts from the idea of the scene, I think the cannibalistically erotic kiss adds to the scene. As we discussed in class, the audience is supposed to be deeply disturbed by the behavior exhibited by both Cornwall and Regan, and the kiss most certainly disturbing. Not only do Cornwall and Regan feel absolutely no remorse for their actions, but they aroused by them, and the though of an individual being aroused by blood and gore is, in my estimation, one the creepiest things ever.
So overall, I think the individual plucking out of the eyes was a mistake, but the passionately savage kiss makes up for it.
I am going to explore the stage directions for Goneril when Edmund dies. This scene in which Goneril puts her face in Edmund’s wound was very shocking and portrayed her character to an extreme. I like their choice to do this. Throughout the play I don’t think they gave enough depth to Goneril and instead she was just crazy the whole time. However, I think that making her last scene dramatic was a good decision. I think it emphasizes the inversion of her manliness. The other women die passively while she takes her own life. By Goneril going to Edmund and putting her face in his blood I think it emphasizes this assertiveness she has, which would not be portrayed fully if she were only weeping. The Blessed version did a good job stressing her aggressiveness and in this scene the extent to which she was flaunting her affair with Edmund in front of Albany.
A couple of scenes in the Blessed version just seemed warped to me. The most memorable scenes left much up to interpretation. The eye-plucking scene followed by the kissing, and the suicide scene interested me most. They were most appealing to me because I didn't really know what to think after I watched them. I had to hear what other people thought to really form an opinion of my own, because so many things were running through my head that I didn't know what the director wanted us to think. When we clarified that this was probably the director's and possibly Shakespear's intention (specifically talking about the eye-plucking/kissing), it sort of made more sense to me. I had trouble following at times with this play. I agreed with what Ali O said when she mentioned in her post above how a lot of the time with Shakespeare, it's helpful to see the many film versions of his productions. One of them is usually bound to make things click for you. Anything left unsaid in the book can almost always be easily cleared up by watching a movie in class. In the case of King Lear, things stayed a little blury for me even after watching movie scenes. I think this is probably because the director took different angles (in the Blessed version) which caused my own weak opinions to be unsure of what way to go.
Possibly out of nervousness, I haven't been able to really form an opinion about the fool in Blessed's version of King Lear, but after reading Abigail's post a decision occurred to me. Something about Hildegarde Neil's (I looked it up) portrayal of the Fool has haunted me, but I have decided that it is not because it was poorly done. In fact, I think the opposite. I agree with Abigail that in Blessed's take the Fool is presented as silliness instead of reason. However, I think that the Fool is called the fool for a reason. Shakespeare's work focuses on the truths and downfalls of human nature. The Fool's role is to provide sense in the midst of that senselessness. The title 'fool' is a clear paradox that reveals something about how Shakespeare views the condition of human nature. Therefore, I think it would be wrong to portray the Fool as the voice of reason because the paradox would be lost. I feel strongly now that Blessed's interpretation of the Fool is correct because it adheres to Shakespeare's intention.
After reading King Lear and watching Blessed's version in class, there were numerous similarities and differences among both. I did not read too often during class, but my very first role that I did take on was that of the Fool. I particularly enjoyed the fact that the Fool was played by a female in the movie because it was just a personal gain in that I am also a female, so I guess you could say we could relate more. While reading the play, it was difficult at times to distinguish between Shakespeare's approach to seriousness and humor. In the movie version, it was quite more apparent when jokes were being made by the characters, or when "comic relief", per say, was in effect, particularly when Lear was acting insane. The scene on the beach when Lear was playing with the sand castles depicted him as more of a childish character, which in turn relayed to me a sense of innocence and naivety on his part. This was not attainable in the written version because this scene in particular was different in multiple ways, including the fact that, if I’m recalling correctly, the Gentleman who comes to assist Lear is played by Kent in Blessed’s version. When reading Kind Lear, I envisioned dreary, dark scenery and had a continuous sense of impending doom throughout each scene. The movie version did a nice job in using lighting techniques and variations in both scenery and costume designs which allowed for the viewer (well, at least for me) to see certain situations in a different way (and also was key in helping me distinguish humorous moments). This was an attribute to the tone/mood of different scenes throughout the play. I also found that the way in which the actors and actresses performed motions and such (i.e. the kiss between Regan and Cornwall) was drastically emphasized, giving me even more reason to find the movie version more humorous than the written play itself. I think that watching the movie after reading the play gave me a better understanding.
I found the Russian version of Act 4 Scene 6 to be surprisingly good. Grigori Kozintsev creates a really ominous atmosphere that emphasizes the desperateness of Lear’s situation. The landscape is extremely desolate – it appears to be mostly just dirt. And his juxtaposition of peasants in the background adds a social aspect to the scene. These people seem to be literally picking through the dirt – it is absurdly tragic. Throughout the scene they are silent and follow Lear mindlessly. Kozintsev seems to be trying to connect desperation and madness: the condition of these people (as well as Lear’s condition) forces them to question any logic in life or any sense of constancy and they go mad by necessity. Kozintsev also seems to suggest a responsibility of leaders like Lear to help people like this. In a chaotic world, like the one Shakespeare presents, people wander aimlessly barely able to support themselves; a king must be responsible for creating some provisionary sense of order and support.
I think Kozintsev does a great job portraying Lear’s madness. Throughout the scene he is eating grass, rolling in the dirt, gesturing to imaginary things, drinking stagnant water, etc. Lear does not merely tolerate his madness or poverty, he embraces them. There is some humor when Gloucester asks, “Is ‘t not the King?” and Lear replies “Ay, every inch a king.” In Kozintsev’s version Lear is putting some found object in his mouth and eating it while he says this. Kozintsev really emphasizes the irony of Lear’s statements in lines 127-146. He brings out the subtle mockery of the idea of kingship in Shakespeare’s lines. Lear is making fantastical gestures of power as he rolls in the dirt. Kozintsev and Shakespeare seem to suggest that kings have no real power. Their power is arbitrary and fleeting. They seem to suggest that this power is nothing more than an absurd illusion - this is further emphasized by some of Lear’s more humorous statements (“Let copulation thrive…”).
Kozintsev jumps around a lot with Shakespeare’s text and actually changes the progression of the scene a little bit. He cuts out a lot of the dialogue from lines 159 to 191 to give Lear a short, straightforward monologue on the theme of justice. It encompasses the connection between justice and position that is embodied throughout the scene (“Plate sin with gold and the strong lance of justice hurtles breaks. Arm it in rags, a pygmy’s straw doth pierce it”). This technique made it hard to follow the scene reading it along with the book, but also condensed a lot of the ideas of the scene into a more direct, dramatic dialogue.
Kosintsev also emphasizes the absurdity of Lear’s meeting with a “gentleman” later on in the scene. He has a group of knights greet Lear and bow down to him. Lear is, of course, still wearing rags and still completely crazy (at one point he starts making weird noises and lays down on a rock). And this brings me to my thesis on the scene: Kosintsev illustrates the theme of chaos in King Lear. The world is, in reality, unjust, random, desolate, and our senses of order and hierarchy are, in reality, illusionary. When we fall away from those structures that provide order, we must confront disorder head-on.
Kyle Smith
As we discussed in class, I was particularly interested in the depiction of Gloucester’s suicide scene in the Blessed version. There were several humorous elements, which the director clearly capitalizes on but still maintains the strength of Shakespeare words. It is interesting that in the text there are several jokes just prior to and just after the solemn nature of Gloucester’s “goodbye.” I like that the director played up on the humor, especially when Poor Tom asks Gloucester if he can hear the ocean, and when he cannot, insists that his blindness has weakened his other senses which is contrary to popular opinion. However, Shakespeare and Blessed still manage to capture Gloucester’s farewell speech in a solemn and powerful light. The play quickly returns from its playful nature though as Gloucester faints as he hits the ground under the “cliffs” really just a regular fall. Overall I was impressed with how this version captured both the seriousness and the humor that is contained within this scene without compromising the integrity of either emotion.
The decisions made about the characterization of Goneril and Regan stuck out to me particularly in the Brian Blessed version of King Lear. While from reading the script, there were parts of their characters that were interesting and sometimes shocking, the actions of the movie that were very clearly choices made by the director strengthened the idea of the characters they were trying to create -
I watched the beginning of the RSC version of King Lear and at least got to catch the first scene, and I remember Regan's character being under the manipulation of her husband - him whispering in her ear, etc - and while that's another distinct choie about a character, and I would have been interested in seeing the way that dynamic would take them (particularly in the eye-plucking scene) I think I prefer what has been done with the two sisters in the Blessed version. For instance - when Regan kisses Edmund in front of her husband just before the eye-plucking scene, and that strange moment between husband and wife... Moments like these don't rely solely on the text, and I appreciate the attempt to breathe independent life and interesting dynamics into characters. And the anger, jealousy, bickering between the sisters became something so much easier to feel and relate to when seen it acted. Another strange choice by the director was the moment that Goneril flings herself on Edmund's body and comes up with her mouth and nose covered with blood - truly animalistic. As a whole, I see that the two sisters could have been played in a number of different and probably compelling ways, but their relationship in this version was satisfyingly disturbing.
M. Leach
Like Alex T, I found the Eye Plucking scene in the movie version of King Lear to be of my own personal fascination. We can obviously tell that it was dramatically enhanced, not just because there was the simple, gorey act of removing two eyes at once, but mainly the running start. This builds up great suspense in the story and is something we see in movies quite often. Pursuits spur anxiety in the audience that makes us nervous and really in on the action. As an audience member, we can contemplate how this gives us a different feel, than if there was simply a scene where Cornwall…nonchalantly forks out a couple of eyes. One is a lot more disturbing because it isn’t quite the…proper setting. To slowly remove one eye at a time without a big pursuit scene (running start) makes it seem like almost a regular thing. When, in our own minds, gouging out a couple of eyes is a little more irregular than sipping coffee, waiting for a train.
However, even with the pursuit, we still have the kiss scene, which is meant to be unsettling. It breaks a taboo on sexual attraction and the outlines of where passion should come from. These choices make me wonder why Blessed actually made a monument of the eye plucking scene. For me, to have something a lot more nonchalant, without the running start would be all the more chilling. To have Cornwall simply turn towards Gloucester and pluck out his eyes, one by one, would show more insanity than need for a running start. For me, the running start is a symbol of hesitation on the part of Cornwall. We can guess that it was maybe a pep talk featured in his internal monologue. If I were a director, I would have staged this as simple. Something pre-meditated and with a more ‘taking care of business’ mood, rather than an epic punishing one
Goneril and Regan
Age vs. Youth
Caitlin Hugel
In total, I have seen 3 productions of King Lear. Only one of these productions cast Goneril and Regan as young women (in class movie production); these were, by far, the most disturbing portrayals. Goneril and Regan need a touch of age to make their plotting more desperate, more human. When Goneril and Regan are portrayed as young women, their actions seem sociopathic and uncalled for. It is easier to relate to the characters when the characters have sympathetic traits. In the RSC production, Goneril broke into tears during Act 1, Scene 4 (where she forces Lear out of her home). Shakespeare intentionally wrote in excuses (unruly knights, crazy father, etc) for Goneril and Regan to seem good, thus forcing the audience to doubt Lear. Obviously, they are not good (Goneril does kill her sister…), but there should be a sense of ambiguity for the first few acts.
I don’t think that Goneril and Regan should be made hideous or outrageously old. They shouldn’t completely contrast Cordelia (although, Cordelia should immediately come off as the ingénue). However, Goneril and Regan have to possess a certain quality that could come off as innocence or extreme desperation and when they are too youthful, innocence is unbelievable (because of their actions and astuteness) and desperation hasn’t had enough time to stew. It is too easy to play a villain sans motives. The real trick is making the villain seem human until that fifth act.
Hannah B. POEMMMS!
Fernando Pessoa AKA Ricardo Reis
-I Placidly Wait for What I Don’t Know
So Reis was one of the more elusive of Pessoa’s “people” but he seemed to adapt the role of elusiveness of life and faith/fate. Reis was apparently taught by Jesuits, accepted God as his own but was still a thinker about his faith. In the poem “I Placidly…” it seems that there is a lot of uncertainty. Just by the title itself alludes to a calm wait, but also a wait for one that is not known. That is religion and faith all in one I believe. People go to church for something to believe in. The bible answers questions that could not be explained naturally without the technology we have today. I think that finding your own religion is the waiting for what you don’t know. God and higher faith is the largest mystery in the World. Who is to say it exists and who is to say that it does not. The last two lines, “In the end there will only be silence except/Where the waves of the sea bathe nothing.” The end, meaning death is peaceful and silent and it is my perspective that the waves bathing nothing alludes to heaven, not Earth. A lot of times I think of the waves washing away the dirt (sand) and is full of live and dead fish, all sorts of different species aka controversy. So when the waves wash away nothing there are no differences or death, but also no life. I don’t necessarily know what I am getting at but it seems like he waits patiently for during life for the unanswered faith of his, and when death comes it is answered. As an unpracticed doctor, it is saying that he has goals to help others, but cannot practice until he helps himself. Really he is just confused.
MCiaramitaro
I’m really glad that I watched the Royal Shakespeare Company’s version of King Lear because it’s given me the chance to really compare the two. Blessed’s version, in my opinion, is much better. Because RSC was filming an actual performance they had more limitations then of a real film. I completely agree with Alison in that, we need to have open minds when watching any King Lear film. The story itself is so crazy that it’s hard to watch seriously. A scene that sticks out the most is everyone’s favorite “eye plucking scene.” As I said in class, “this scene was actually good compared to the RSC’s version.” It was good in the way that it was well depicted. The only problem with this scene is when Cornwall runs into another room, splits a perfectly good table in half, and then runs with his thumbs up towards Gloucester. It was more humorous then threatening. However, poking out his eyes with his thumbs was definitely terrifying and I saw most people in D block hiding during that moment. I think the true craziness shown by Regan and Cornwall in this scene adds to the effect of madness in the plot. In this scene, an important choice the director made was having Regan get up close and personal with Gloucester. This shows the audience it is a combined effort between the two.
Another comparison I noticed was the better choice of characters in the Blessed version of the play. Above someone mentioned that they hated the fact the characters all looked old, but I think they were close to what I was picturing while reading. I think the choice for Cordelia was completely precise. I also really liked Lear, although he was no Ian McKellen, it was still a good choice of actor.
Even though this version was the better of the two I have seen, it still wasn’t spectacular. Hopefully someday someone somewhere will create a version of King Lear that won’t be painful to sit through.
One of the things that really stood out to me about the Blessed production Act 5, Scene 3 when Goneril poisons Regan. In this version, Regan begins to look sickly and sway and eventually dies. It is later announced that Goneril poisoned her. In the RSC production, the audiences sees Goneril put poison in Regan's glass before she, Regan, and Edmund toast. It may seem like a small thing but I think with all the confusion in this scene, visually seeing Goneril poison Regan really adds to the production and keeps the momentum of the play going.
In the Blessed production, light and white are used as motifs for goodness and purity. In Act 1, Scene 1, when Lear introduces Edmund, he is almost completely in the dark, physically demonstrating his “dark” intent. In Act 4 Scene 7 when Lear wakes up from fainting, he is dressed in white and surrounded by candles. This lends him a Christ like appearance, especially with his long hair and flowing beard. Which makes sense because he has in a way purified himself and has repented for his “sins” or cruelty to Cordelia. I really didn’t like the Blessed production. I thought that Blessed’s acting was overdramatic and synthetic. I also didn’t like most of the lighting. I think that the use of light and dark could have worked but it was far too heavy handed. In the scene with Edmund, he was practically in the dark and his face had a weird reddish glow. The scene with the candles also didn’t work for me. It was just too bright. I think that if Blessed had made the light changes more subtle, it would have really added to the production but as it is, it just looked crude.
The only thing I liked about the Blessed production was the scene showing Cordelia hanging. That was absolutely chilling. In this scene, Blessed used the natural light beautifully and Cordelia being dressed in all white just made it even more haunting.
Post a Comment