Thanks for finding this site!
What we'll do here is discuss issues that arise as we study our texts. Our classroom will thereby become wall-less and clock-less; it will be a VIRTUAL COSMOS from which there is no escape! Muwahahahahaha!
Er, ahem. I mean it will be a great learning tool.
So . . . on to the first blog topic. We've been reading King Lear and at the same time viewing the Masterpiece Theatre adaption of the stage play starring Ian Holm. Please post a comment here identifying an interesting point of dialogue between Shakespeare's original play and the interpretation offered in the Masterpiece Theatre version. Reflect on any of the following elements of the presentation: the imagery (how does it comment on the action and/or the characters?), the set, the costuming, the casting choices (for example, Lear is played by a man who is short of stature, compared to other Lears; what implications arise?), the acting and delivery of certain lines (emotion, facial expressions, body language), the pacing (including pauses), the staging (focussing on who stands/moves where and how), or the omissions (the lines that have been cut). Once you have offered your comment (or shortly thereafter), please offer a couple respectful lines in response to someone else's post. Feel free to comment on any 3U7's post (BB or FF).
Thanks!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I guess I’ll be the first one to get the ball moving, so ahem...
ReplyDeleteSo when comparing the play and the movie, a feature that really stood out for me would be imagery, especially imagery pertaining to the character of Edmund. Right at the get-go as most of us realized, his opening soliloquy was not spoken but rather introspective, saying it all in his mind. This gives us the impression that he is a brooding opportunist – thus having many characteristics that we relate with the Shakespearian evil doer or villain per say (a person that thrives on gaining social rank or some form of power—overstepping his rightful boundary). Also, in many scenes he is portrayed in darkness while all the other characters are in light (from torches for example). This imagery further enforces the imagery as one of the shadowy villains of the play. Also, enforcing that notion of him be an opportunist, he is usually mute in the presence of the other characteristics, as if the director wants us to think he is scheming about how to fulfill his ambition of gaining land/respect which he was denied for being a bastard. Another thing which really made me laugh was the clothing he wore in contrast with his brother Edgar (Gloucester’s legitimate son). Edgar wore a pure white shirt while Edmond wore a black shirt. Is this merely a coincidence? Probably not. Taking into account colour symbolism, white is usually associated with the notion of purity and innocence, while black is ominously associated with death, intelligence (graduation robes are black probably for that reason) and a shroud of mystery. A perfect fit for the character of Edmund wouldn’t you say. Well, those were the things that perked my attention. Any other comments for Edmund and imagery?
I wanted to comment on the costumes. Most of the characters were wearing dark, or black clothes,(for example Lear and Glouster; and Edmonds clothes seemed darker than the rest due to his black hair) however there were a few characters which were dressed differently. In the beginning, Lear's 3 daughters were all wearing gray, the similarities between thier costumes were very obvious, it alluded to symmetry. The director used the similarity of their costumes yo create symmetry (Regan and Goneril were sitting on either side of the grand table and thier husbands stood behind them), this suggested the allience of Lear's two older daughters. I also noticed the Edgar was the only one (if I'm not mistaken)wearing white. Traditionally, white is a symbol of the "pure" and angel-like (that is why brides wear white on thier wedding day), for Edgar to be one of the only characters dressed in this colour suggests his pure and naive personality (which is probably why it was so easy for Edmond to trick him). Overall, I found that the colours of the clothing in this production of King Lear provide various allusions themselves.
ReplyDeleteI feel that Michael Bryant who played the fool in this movie is quite hilarious. I think having a old man play the fool is quite suitable compared to the text. It seems like he's just a man who has been around the court for many years just having fun and telling jokes. It becomes like a political system governed by old men. As well, i think casting Lear as a short man makes the actor use more emotion and makes the strength of words quite powerful. I saw that during the movie. Lear was very intimdating, emotional and quite big eventhough, physically he wasnt. I think that makes him feel like a strong king at the moment. As well, Goneril showed an emotional side when being yelled at by Lear while in the book, she seems to be unaffected by his wors. I think this is used to make her seem more 2-dimentional and a less villainous character. She becomes more of a sympathetic character.
ReplyDeleteThere were a few things I noticed in the intepretation of this play:
ReplyDeleteFrance and Burgundy are played by black actors. I found this rather interesting as we know that France and Burgundy are parts of western Europe. I thought they director might have wanted to portray the two guys as "foreign", so they used a visual difference to portray that.
I also observed a staredown between Lear and Cordelia just as Lear is about to storm off. There were multiple close up shots of both of them, increasing the tension in the room.
And finally, the fool was portrayed as different. He had a more "rural" accent and was less concerned with the way he presented himself (ragged clothes, skipping and singing).
While reading “King Lear”, I did not realise that Edmund was a villain. I felt sympathetic towards him because I had the impression that Gloucester’s behaviour towards his son was not just. Edmund was called a “bastard”. However, the adaption of the play by “Masterpiece Theatre” changed my mind and feelings towards this character. The addition of an aside by Edmund during the conversation between the Earl of Kent and Gloucester gave an insight into his psyche. Edmund usually stands in the shadows of torches, which give him a sense of mystery and darkness. His tendency to spy on various people emphasizes the fact that he is looking for opportunities to create rifts in the lives of others.
ReplyDeleteThe omissions of asides by Cordelia during the professions of love by the three daughters to King Lear in the movie gave her a different personality. In the play, she seems to be unsure of what she should say to her father. She wonders if her speech should match the ones given by her sisters. However, “Masterpiece Theatre” presents a more confident Cordelia who knows herself. She apprehends her feelings towards others around her quite well.
An interesting point presented in the Masterpiece Theatre adaption of King Lear is in Act II Scene I, when Edmund tricks his brother Edmund to running away from the castle. In this scene, the costumes worn by the two actors playing the two brothers reflect their personalities. Edmund is wearing all black clothing and looks very conservative. His hair is combed back very tight and his entire costume seems to be fit for him. However, Edgar’s costume consists of a very loose white shirt that isn’t tucked in and his hair is let loose as well. The colours of the two costumes worn are symbols of good and evil. The fact that Edmund is wearing black symbolizes that he is a dark character. In contrast, the white shirt worn by Edgar symbolizes that he is pure and innocent. His shirt is not tucked in, which could represent his characteristic of being carefree and unaware of surrounding events throughout the start of the play. However, Edmund’s conservative clothing could represent his solid state of mind and clear intentions. This costume decision adapts Shakespeare’s characters by further bringing forth their personalities and identifying their roles in the play. During their acted duel to fool their father (even though each brother has a different intention), their quick movements show the interaction between black and white, good and evil. This interaction shows that when evil enters something pure, problems are soon to arise, which is true in this play as Edmund’s hidden agenda establishes conflicts throughout the play among the relationships between characters. Thus, in this adaptation of King Lear, the delivered lines and actions are reflected by the character’s appearances, especially with the colours of their costumes.
ReplyDeleteWhen watching the film adaptation of the play, I realized that the settings were quite simple and dull. This might have been used to emphasize the words and actions of the actor rather than the scenery. It also might have helped the audience focus on several key items in each scene (e.g. the fire in the first scene). Furthermore, the dull setting was usually dark and gloomy. This might have been used to emphasize the dark nature of the play.
ReplyDeleteI also noticed that the setting was very rigid and felt like the characters were boxed-in. This could apply to the limitations of each character especially when King Lear is present. For example, Kent was banished for speaking his mind.
So... Anyone get past the first level of Pac-Man?
ReplyDeleteAnyways, I also would like to contribute to the literary discussion. Specifically, my perspective was drawn towards Shakespeare's representation of the fool. Instead of portraying the fool as a manifestation of stupidity, Shakespeare instead made him appear cultured, intelligent, and wise. Therefore, it's evident that the jester is assigned a positive connotation as opposed to King Lear.
It is evident that this is one of Shakespeare's many literary idiosyncrasies. Not only does he express his admiration for hardship and peasantry, he also assigns very positive attributes to poor folk. For example, in "A Midsummer Night's Dream," Mr. Nick Bottom is a clumsy, ignorant, and swashbuckling character. However, after Puck's malicious spell, Bottom is transformed and altered by magic. Although I'm pretty sure noone wants a donkey's head, I'm also certain noone would complain if a beautiful, divine being fell in love with them. I am of course referring to Titania's blinded devotion towards Puck.
I find it interesting that King Lear is played by an actor of short stature whereas conventionally he is always played by someone who is tall and has a large stature. I believe this was done to show how much influence and power he has despite his short height. He has to stand on the table several times to express his power, as when he was telling Kent to genuflect. He is also constantly running around the set, and yelling at people like a stubborn child. It was as if the director wanted to show the audience that Lear is in fact a child at heart. It is also noteworthy that the fool who comes to Lear's court to entertain the knights is of very similar appearance to the King. He is short and has a white beard and white hair. It is almost to say the director wanted the audience to think that Lear is no different than that fool, wittily calling him a foolish man.
ReplyDeleteOne scene that really stood out to me in the King Lear movie was the scene where Lear held up his hands and the fire in one of the torches was directly above his hands. I found this interesting because I believe the director was sending the message across that Lear has 'god-like' powers and that he is in a sense the centre of attention. He was evidently upset at Cordelia because she did not please him with her speech...apparently Lear was looking for a more lucrative approach to her speech. However, Cordelia was honest of her feelings towards him which ultimately prevented her from getting Lear's savings. That was just a quick thought on my part....plz leave any comments regarding this scene.
ReplyDeleteI would also like to comment on the use of colour for the film adaption. When King Lear and his knights entered Goneril's palace, what really struck me was the contrast between all the knights' black clothing and the bright white tablecloth covering the table. When all the knights left, I noticed black dust tarnishing the white tablecloth, which can be metaphorically related to Lear's hateful thoughts towards Goneril. In addition i want to note that there where 4 distinct black circles of black dust on the table where Lear struck his head on the table 4 times, perhaps suggesting that Lear is, or is becoming like the despisable knights.
ReplyDeleteAlso, regarding the scene with the dark red background and Goneril by herself, the colour of the background and Goneril's clothing matched, bringing forth am ominous feeling (due to the dark red backround) of such a degree that one may not experience through the literary version of King Lear.
Well in the movie, there was an evident use of symbollism through fire. In my opinion, it was used to represent emotion and the characteristics of some characters. For example when King Lear was angry, the fire was over his head, representing his "hot" temper. Also when he was addressing Cordellia, he held his hand out as to show that there was fire in his hand. This could represent his might or his power.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that was somewhat interesting was the short stature of King Lear, even though as a King he should taller. This could represent his immaturity. This characteristic is later exemplified when Cordellia is adressing Lear about whom she will marry, and he merely puts his head down and covers his ears like a child.
I agree with Shifa’s comment that the omitted asides by Cordelia showed her having a more confident persona in the Masterpiece Theatre production. In the play, Cordelia does not know what to say to her father, which first introduces her as a weak character, as she needs to contemplate in order to please. However, the fact that Cordelia speaks the truth without the need for contemplation in this adaptation of the play suggests her to be a stronger character. Perhaps the director’s intent is to voice her character more strongly in order to better view the central conflict between King Lear and Cordelia as a father-daughter relationship rather than one between a King and a subject.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most interesting aspects to this adaption of King Lear by director Richard Eyre is that the set that is used for the play is extremely simple, empty and stark. At first it is disappointing to see such an overly simplistic set, especially for a great tragedy like Shakespeare’s King Lear, however the set serves an important purpose. Through this simple set, the director is able to bring forth his interpretation of the play with subtlety and without dramatically changing Shakespeare’s work.
ReplyDeleteFor example, in the first scene, we see a monochromatic set that is empty apart from one table that is placed in the middle of the room. Once the characters enter the scene, we see that the set also includes torches placed across the room. The director uses the torches, along with placement and movement of actors, in this scene in various ways. He uses the torches to display Lear’s outrage; he uses them as a representation of the love between Cordelia and France, etc. This would not have been a noticeable feature in a lavish, ornate set, however, as the viewer would be much too distracted by the objects in the background to notice the subtlety.
Also, the stark and monochromatic set allows the director to use light and shading in very subtle but effective ways. The simplicity and emptiness of the set creates a wonderful contrast between light and dark areas. The director then uses these light and dark areas for each character according to their personality. For example, we often see Edmund concealed in darkness, hidden in the shadows. The director expertly places Edmund in the darker areas of the set in order to portray his ‘opportunist’ personality, to show that he is a man that lurks and waits for the perfect opportunity before revealing himself. Also, it shows that Edmund is a dark, sinister character. Viewers are able to see these qualities clearly because of the contrast between light and dark mentioned earlier. There is no ‘gray’ area.
Lastly, the set in this play also allows for viewers to concentrate on the expressions on the actors faces, again, because there is no ornate background which distracts them. The viewers are forced to concentrate and truly look at the faces of the actors because there is nothing else to see in the background. Again, this allows the director to subtlety show the personality and traits of each character through the expression on their faces. The director also does many close-up shots of the characters to emphasize this. An example of this would be King Lear. The director often does many close-ups on Lear, and viewers are able to clearly see the frequent shifts in his expression, which helps to portray his emotionally unstable state.
Although the set of this play might not be very appealing, it is definitely effective in bringing forth the director’s interpretation of the play, while maintaining most of the original text.
I would like to comment on the portrayal of King Lear in this adaptation of the play. It seems to me that while Lear is played at the play's beginning as a monarch whose power borders on godly in most other performances, the Lear we see in this presentation is extremely human; he is conspicuously flawed, and his short-comings often leave him susceptible to making poor decisions that precipitate his downfall.
ReplyDeleteBy choosing an actor of shorter stature to play the role of King Lear, the director produces a visual contrast between a viewer's previously established mental image of the king as someone tall and physically powerful (even in his old age), and the "real" king, who is no taller than the fool. This casting decision was likely made to humanize and degrade Lear's character, and to show that his eventual demise was a result of the weakness of his human nature.
What seemed very unusual for me was the emptiness of the set in this adaptation. It really contrasts with our common perceptions of the rich decorations that are associated with kingdoms and seems to imply that the splendour and the ‘spoils’ of Lear’s kingdom have already been forfeited.
ReplyDeleteWhat also stood out for me was when Lear beckons Oswald after his impudent remark. When Oswald boldly stands face to face with Lear, the height difference is notable with a furious Lear looking into the eyes of a disdainful Oswald. This is a possible analogy to the fact that the relinquishing of power and control give rise to being rubbed against by members of a lower social hierarchy. With respect to Isabel’s previous comment about the humanization of Lear’s persona in this adaptation, it casts Lear as a man who effectively degrades his role in the cosmos with his abdication and renders him a childless human, unable to control the resulting fallout of nature.
Another action that caught my eye was Goneril’s reaction after Lear’s remark and her husband’s departure, in which she furiously pulled the white cloth off the table. The covered furniture, which seemed to provide the demeanour of mourning and the predicted death of Lear’s power, now provides a more sinister perspective of the future actions of Goneril and Regan, with the renewal of power but in a distorted monarchy.
Although I’m not sure if this was intentional, Kent brilliantly fooled the nobility with a disguise of a mere wig. Furthermore, Edmund’s introspective reflection of his poor condition drastically contrasts with the praise received by Gloucester and Kent, who perceive him a learned individual. This further implies the choice of the characters to remain ignorant and self-centred in their affairs, while the ‘gears’ of fate and fortune slowly begin to shift with the opportunists, such as Edmund. Edmund’s dark, moody personality is further emphasized by his black clothing with the unusual quality of camouflaging him in the dark hallways.
I agree with Vithu and his perspective on the expert use of symbolism, both in abiotic and biotic instances.
ReplyDeleteIn the scenes that we watched today in class what I found particularly interesting was how quick Lear's way of speaking changed.
ReplyDeleteFor example at first Lear was speaking with Gonreil and states that she is his daughter and seems to be quite hurt by her betrayal. However very quickly his tone changes and he begins insulting her. As the scene goes on in the end with the many flashes of lightning and thunder Lear concludes that he shall weep because of the way that his daughters have betrayed him but he will in turn destroy them.
Also just as note, I was thinking the way the director portrays everything, such as the sets and costumes were quite different from the way that imagined it to be.
I want to comment on the portrayal of the fool in the movie. The director has made the character of the fool look like the character of King Lear in terms of appearance, since both men have similar hairstyles and beards, and both wear dull-coloured clothing (Lear's black and the fool's blue-grey). However, the fool speaks with an accent native to the poor parts of London, rather than King Lear's rich British accent. This is done to show that although Lear was born into a royal family, he has still acted foolishly in terms of dividing his kingdom. This depiction of the comparison between the jestor and his fool enhances the comparison evident in the dialogue of the play, especially when the fool repeatedly tells Lear that he would be a wonderful fool. The screenplay in the movie compares and contrasts King Lear and his fool to hilight the nuances in Lear's personality, as described in the play.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Isabel's comment that the portrayal of King Lear in the movie added contrast to the audience's idea of the typical king. This image of King Lear follows the idea of a Shakespearean tragic hero having one character flaw that causes his demise; in this case, his physical flaw is his lack of height, which in turn reflects his character flaw of ego.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found interesting was the similarity in physical stature between Lear and his fool. The fool mirrors Lear's actions and he is the only character who sees Lear eye to eye (literally). I think it can be translated from the physical side to his psychological state. Lear's fool is like a guilty conscience to Lear, he tells him what he's doing is wrong and his daughters don't really love him as much as they say they do. We all have that voice in our head, who tells us what we did wrong and what we should have done. The fool in the movie does a great job of fishing out Lear's doubts of his actions. The similarity in physique can be viewed as Lear's mirror image of himself, and it's not usually a pleasant one.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing I thought was interesting was the way the daughters were portrayed, I found myself feeling sympathy for them, that they had to deal with such a childish, unreasonable king. I think is had to do with the way the lines were spoken and the actors' reactions (especially Goneril crying at Lear's curse). It's interesting to see this interpretation because we discover the daughters are well-rounded, emotional characters, who might have actually loved their dad. They are not as simple as the cold-blooded money-hounds against a defenseless Lear that we first perceived them to be.
In Act I, scene i, I thought that the placement of the crown and the map on the table was a form of foreshadowing. King Lear wanted to give the most of his kingdom to Cordelia who was sitting on the opposite end of where the map/crown was. However, the map and the crown were put in between Goneril and Regan. These two would eventually share the kingdom, while Cordelia would receive nothing.
ReplyDeleteAnother instance where the crown has significance is when Lear is asking whether or not France or Burgundy will take Cordelia as their queen. When France is answering, the crown is in frame and so is the torch. However, when Burgundy replies, the candle and Goneril and Albany are in the shot. The fact that the crown and the torch appear when France is answering, symbolizes that France and Cordelia's kingdom will be true and built on love, not on how much property one gets. It seems that all Burgundy wants from a marrige with Cordelia, is property. As well, because Albany and Goneril are behind Burgundy, it is evident that Goneril's professed "love" for Lear was just for a large share of land.
It is interesting to note the use of natural phenomena in this production of King Lear. His most important speeches as well as emotive outburts are punctuated by peals of thunder and flashes of light. This usage of pathic fallacy enahnces the audiences connection with Lear as a character,given the duality of messages received. Nature is a cosmic force, and so is (some would say was) Lear himself; thus it is natural to see them act in tandem. The rage he feels, and its intensity is augmented by the visual of the storm. Likewise his subsequent bowing down and crazed rant are also deeply meaningful. Lear has given his literal all,leaving behind a man of much smoke and little substance (in terms of power). He is like the flickering flame of the many toches that dot the set, with the sole exception of having much too burned through his wick.
ReplyDeleteTo add to Vithu's comment about the symbolism of fire, it can also represent something other than anger and power. Fire can also represent passion as evident in the scene with France and Burgundy.
ReplyDeleteAs Lear announced that Cordelia no longer had a dowry, it was clear that Burgundy no longer was interested in Cordelia. France however was more passionate than Burgundy in that he didn't care about the dowry and was likely to accept Cordelia anyways.
When the camera faced Burgundy, there was a candle in front of him; and when the camera faced France there was a torch beside him. This interesting contrast showed the feelings they had for Cordelia. Since Burgundy seemed uninterested he was represented by a candle, whereas France was very passionate and thus was represented by a torch. France's emotions were further exemplified when he and Cordelia were holding hands, the torch burning above their hands symbolized their love and passion for each other.
I would like to point out the fact that in the film adaptation of King Lear, the set of production is always very dark and shadowy. This shows the viewers the dark and unhappy lives of characters such as Lear and Gloucester. The dimmed lighting creates the feeling of uneasiness for the viewers, as dark rooms mean danger and uncertainty – there could always be people hiding in the room or listening behind the walls. The uses of colours are very suggestive in this film. In one scene, the covers of the tables and chairs are all dark red, which foreshadows the many deaths that are to come in the play, as the colour red represents blood. Another interesting use of colour was seen when we first meet Edgar, we see him wearing a white shirt, which clearly contrasts to the black outfit of Edmund, who was also on stage at the time. Since the colour white usually represents goodness and black is associated with wickedness and mystery, viewers immediately see Edgar as the kindhearted brother to Edmund’s villainous ways.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Joanna's comment, I would like to add that by choosing a man that appears to be a contemporary of King Lear to play the part of the jester, the director is using the resemblance of their appearances to imply a similarity in their nature; they are both, in in different senses of the word,"old fools".
ReplyDeleteThe obvious likeness of their behaviour--only Lear and the fool ever stand up on the table-- also attempts to establish Lear's naivety and inclination towards vagary.
Like Abdullah, I also find the choice of actor for the role King Lear very interesting, but I disagree that the height of the actor shows “how much influence and power he has despite his short height”. I believe that the director chose a shorter actor because he wanted to enhance the idea of Lear being a very vulnerable old man instead of a powerful king. This causes viewer to sympathize Lear when he does fall victim to the evil plots of his daughters and Edmund.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Abdullah when he says that “Lear is no different than that fool”, because there is an interesting parallel between the fool and king Lear himself, as they both look very much alike. There is a difference between them though, because the so called fool seems more conscious about Lear’s fall in power than the king himself, which shows that Lear is, ironically, more foolish than his fool.
I tried to add points that weren’t mentioned in the beginning, which was difficult since everyone’s ideas were all very descriptive and covered many aspects.
ReplyDeleteIn Act II of the play, I liked how the adaptation represented Lear’s knights as they barged into Goneril’s castle. In the play, Goneril described the knights as “riotous” prior to Lear’s entrance, and that’s exactly how it was acted out. I remember Lear’s knights filling the corridor, similar to a pack of bulls running across a narrow road. They then took up all the seats in the room while laughing and shouting at each other. In the end one actually feels that a riot just can into the room, exactly like how Goneril described.
In the play, the colour of Goneril’s also changed. In the beginning of the play, Goneril, along with the other two daughters, were wearing robes of similar colour (greyish blue). However, in Act II, Goneril was wearing a red shirt. I think the red shirt can represent power. Since Lear gave his power to the two daughters, the red shirt indicates that Goneril was now the one who gained power. Red can also represent anger in this act, since she was constantly mad at Lear for barging into her castle.
As I was reading through some of the comments I realized that the dullness of the sets has been mentioned more than once. Whether or not this is done intentionally by the director I am not too sure but, I agree that the simplicity could have been brought so the audience would pay more attention to the words being said. However, I do believe that livelier sets would've made the story a lot more interesting.
ReplyDeleteFor example, no matter what seen took place, nothing changed. Whereas while reading the book I had imagined each room to be different, I felt that the settings(props and colours)should have changed according to the scene.
Also, in one of Lear's lines he mentions that a man is supposed to be "simple and plain", the superficial things like power and money are just add-ons. It could be possible that they director may have been trying to portray this through the plainness of the sets.
Ok, first of all, I don't know if it's just me but my interpretation while reading the book is very different from the movie. First of all, in the book, i had a feeling that the daughters were more evil and that Lear was the one being "bullied", in the movie however, it seemed like it was the other way around. I imagined the fool as a dirty thin man dressed in rags, not a chubby old fellow that looks like Santa Claus! I imagined the setting to be more complicated and a bit less gloomy than as portrayed in the movie. King Lear in my imagination was thinner and taller, perhaps a bit younger too than portrayed in the movie. Edgar is what really suprised me. I always imagined him as nicely dressed, combed hair, and older looking than Edmund but in the movie, it seemed as though Edmund was older than Edgar.
ReplyDeleteEven though the movie was quite different from what I interpreted the play to be, I still like it. I think the directer chose a short man to play Lear because it makes Lear seem desperate. Well, that's my feeling at least. When i watch the movie, I see a short man dominated by all the taller people around him. It seems as though his world is collapsing and swallowing him up already. Also, when he yells and climbs onto the table, it makes him seem even more desperate.
I really liked the fool. He reminds me of Santa Claus :) And i noticed that Lear seems to listen to the fool. There was a scene that really stood out for me. Lear was mad and yelling just about 5 seconds ago, but when talking to the fool, he seemed calmed and he was talking quietly, which is rare. It seemed as though he was looking in a mirror and talking to himself. It's like as if the fool is his conscience. Like AbdullahSTB said, the directer wanted to portray the fool as being being similar with the king. I agree with that, but at the same time, it seems like the fool is the opposite of King Lear as well. It as if the fool is his conscience, the smart one, the jolly one, the carefree one. In one scene, the fool was sitting on the table lecturing Lear. I get a feeling that the fool is King Lear but without all the faults and troubles of Lear.
The set and costumes were very eery. The whole simplicity of it was extremely eery. The walls were red, the tables were covered in black or white clothes with dust on it. There was sometimes nothing but a table in the room, and everyone was dressed in dark coloured medieval capes, and the daughters were wearing gloomy coloured and conservative clothes. It almost seemed like the whole play is a funeral.. The use of torches was also interesting. It made the room much darker and reder, like blood. It may serve as a foreshadow that a lot of people will die. And like a lot of people had commented, the positioning of the torches was interesting.
When Lear cursed Goneril, she kept touching her neck, and she had a disgusted and horrified expression. When i was reading the book, I kept imagining her as a cocky woman who stood strong and tall. But in the movie, it seemed as though Lear was choking her with his curses.
Like I said, Edgar was a big suprise. He seems like an artist, a poet. Notice how he came onto the set with a book (It would be funny if it was a Shakespeare book.) Anyways, I thought his hair and white artistic outfit was interesting. I think it fits his personality because in scene3 act 4, his speeches were very poetic. Ok everyone's speeches were poetic since it's Shakespeare but, Edgars even more so.
The knights acted as monkeys... which was unexpected since when someone say nights, you think nobel men dressed in heavy duty armor. And again, this makes it seem as though Lear is the one bullying his daughters. Maybe this way, later on in the movie his redemption would be more meaningful. Also Kent seemed scared of Lear almost when in the book, it seemed that Kent was a braver man.
Some things I wasn't sure about is that why do some scenes have black tableclothes covering the furniture while others have white clothes?
Also, why do all the old men look alike?!
Justin expressed many interesting ideas. For one thing, I actually didn't notice the circles of dust. And also, the fact that the director used white table clothe in the scene with the knights is quite interesting. I don't really understand why the director did that though =/ Maybe to contrast between good and dark?
ReplyDeleteI would like to point out that in the movie, the portrayal of king Lear in respect to the knights, brings his stature down, as he is willing to deal with such animals. During the scene where his knights enter his daughter's house, they make many animal like grunts and other sounds including a monkey I believe.
ReplyDeleteA few minutes later in the movie, we see Lear drop a coin purse into a knight's hand, almost as if he was bribing him to listen to him. A knight should be loyal to a king without having to be bribed, and by showing this small action, it shows that Lear isn't as respected and noble as a King should be.
I also believe that the number of knights he has at hand at any given time is ridiculous. 100 knights is a massive drain on resources and just shows his insecurity. If King Lear was really that powerful then he wouldn't need to worry. (He also takes what the fool is saying seriously, more seriously than his daughter although the fool is openly insulting him)
I agree with Isabel's analysis of the personality of King Lear which is provided in the play, his actions are lower than a king should go and this is just emphasized through the casting of a shorter man to play the role. The shorter man chosen is "low" in more than one way, ways which a king should not be.
I think the setting of Masterpiece Theatre adaption of King Lear is the most interesting of all. Because King Lear by Shakespeare was originally a novel, there was almost no instruction for settings. Most of the time, the setting of the scene is left to the imagination of the readers. In this film, the setting was of a dark crimson color with dim light. The room where most of the action took place was very dark; there was no window nor any lighting fixtures (or candles). There was no natural sunlight shining into the room, and the room was solely illuminated by only fire from the torches. This design creates an overall suppressing feeling, like the walls are closing in on the characters. When I was watching the film, I thought the setting reminded me of a mysterious dungeon instead of a prosperous dining hall (which was what I had in mind when I was reading the book). This allusion made the characters seem more uncivilized especially when they were arguing with each other. I got the feeling that when they were yelling at each other they were all “locked” in the dark crimson room and they had to sacrifice each other in order to get out. I think the director organized the setting this way, which contrasts the setting in the minds of the readers, to inspire the audience to think about the book in a different perspective.
ReplyDeleteOther than the design of the setting, the color of the setting was interesting too. At the beginning of the play, the attires of the characters were of very neutral colors such as grey or black. However, as Gonerial started to show her “greedy” side by scolding at King Lear’s knights, her outfit was red. I thought this implied that the color red represents corruptness and evil, and the walls of the room have been foreshadowing with its dark red color even at the beginning of the play when everyone was declaring their love for King Lear.
There were some really interesting interpretations of characters in the movie, particularly of Goneril, Lear's eldest daughter.
ReplyDeleteIn the first few scenes of the movie, we are introduced to the 2 oldest daughters of Lear; Regan and Goneril. It was made quite obvious to the audience that the 2 sisters were plotting to acquire Lear's land and power by any means possible. From the fierce competing statements of who loved Lear most, we could conclude that the 2 sisters were heartless, cunning, witty and could lie through their teeth pretty well.
However, Referring to ACT I, Scene IV of movie, we see a different side to the sisters.
At first when Lear yells at Goneril, she turns away from Lear in an attempt to ignore him. From this, we see the height difference between Goneril (tall) and Lear (short), which could signify in a way that Goneril has the upper hand (no pun intended!) in this whole plot. It also reminds me of a small child whining to a parent about something. I thought that the parallelism between Lear and a small child (resembling physically and emotionally) shows Lear's immaturity, which is a major flaw that would ultimately lead to his demise.
However, as Lear started cursing Goneril, it was quite astonishing to see Goneril, one whom we would all assume is strong-willed and cunning woman, break down like she did, crying like a little child. It was quite interesting to see how the character was portrayed. Perhaps the director wanted to show a more humanized and caring side to a typical villain-type character. By making Goneril susceptible and vulnerable to Lear's curse might instill the impression that Goneril, deep down inside, really does love her father and that she still cares for him. Or perhaps the director simply wanted the audience to sympathize with her, even though she is considered a villain.
This interestingly also ties back to Lear, as it shows that even if he did give away his land, title, money and power, he still has an authority as a fatherly figure upon his daughter. We often see Lear be manipulated many times through the course of the play and we conceive him as a fool (parallelism to the ACTUAL fool). However, we do not realize that he is still a father, and by nature parents will always have some sort of authority or hand in their children's lives.
This was a great scene that can be left to many interpretations. :)
An interesting point that I would like to comment on is the portrayal of a very important character in the film adaptation of King Lear, the fool. The fool appears to be the wisest person in the room. He follows King Lear everywhere and gives him very important advice. Usually, fools are the only people who are allowed to say anything they want to the King.
ReplyDeleteThe fool appears to be almost as old as Lear himself. The director’s decision to portray the fool in this way produces a visual contrast between what you might have pictured him to look like and what you see in this adaptation. In my opinion, the decision to portray the fool as a very old man makes him seem wiser as opposed to if he were just a young man. In the film, there is not much age difference between Lear and the fool. Ironically, King Lear refers to the fool as his "boy" and the fool calls Lear a "nuncle" as in an uncle. This director’s interpretation of the play allowed the viewers to see a different and interesting side to the fool’s character.
I would like to comment on the nude scene in the film adaptation of King Lear. The two characters in the film adaptation that "bare all" are Edgar and King Lear.
ReplyDeleteCould it be that the characters who literally "bear all" are also doing that in character? After all, Edgar is displaying hinself as bait to his bastard brother Edmund, while King Lear curses and calls all cosmos to show his mental breakdown; showing himself as bait to his daughters, Goneril and Reagan.
Obviously that is not the only purpose of the nude scene. It is known that Medieval Art depicted people in conservative clothing looking sick to show the idea that life was "torture". Yet, Renaissance art depicts naked people to show the idea that life is about "freedom". King Lear is supposedly a combines the ideas of the Renaissance and the Medieval times in a medieval play, so could it be also that Edgar and King Lear portray the fact that they desire freedom from the torture?
In the movie King Lear, the colour red has a very strong, not if overwhelming presence. It continuously comes into the viewer’s sight, through the settings, costumes of the characters and even in the form of bloodshed. The dominant red colour represented various things with its different usage. For example, the redness of the wall can signify life (and its blood), foreshadowing the deaths and blood spills that is bound to occur later on in the play. The colour can also symbolize passion and emotion. These emotions may not only be love, but the anger, hatred of the characters. It can even stand for the hatred that is bestowed upon the character. This representation of red can be seen through Goneril’s change in costume. In the beginning, she clearly had a grey dress on. However, later on in the movie, in the scene where King Lear cursed Goneril, she wore a dress the colour of blood red. This can mean all the emotions that she suffered when King Lear cursed her or the anger that King Lear had with her. It can also be a representation of the curse itself.
ReplyDeleteI was intrigued by Danny's comments on the actors of France and Burgundy. When watching the movie, I was also wondering why they were played by black men since this play was supposed to be set in western Europe, and Shakespeare probably did not intend for the actors to be black. But, Danny's comments gave me an insight to the choice of actors the director made.
ReplyDeleteThe director's portrayal of Lear and his relationships with his daughters somewhat makes me sympathize with his daughter Goneril at times. Lear is this short-tempered old man who really wants to be admired till his demise. Ironically his expectations of other people do not always coincide with his dialogue. For instance, when he realizes that Goneril and Reagan will not allow any knights to reside with him in their respective homes, he shouts angrily "I gave you all!" His body dominates this scene as he opens his arms to gesture that everything his daughters have, all their present riches, was or infact still is his. His intentions are displayed here...that even if he had given his daughters as a namesake that the power is a burden to bear, he had never actually wanted to let it go. Another line that was said during his rant to the heavens would be when Regan had said, "What need one?" and he replied, "Reason not the need" Now his statement is very contradictory to his expectations. He expects everyone to admire and respect him and his authority as a king. However he also implies with that line that authority is sense of allusion; his knights emphasize his authority as a king even if everyone is born the same with the equal amount of freedom. So, that shows that he has no firm stance on his beliefs...he simply wants to be doted upon like a child and look he even behaves like one when he has his tantrums.
ReplyDeleteI would like to comment on the height of Lear. I think that Lear was casted as a shorter man because the director wants to portray the fact that Lear is only powerful because of his position and adornments. At the beginning, when Lear still had some power, he scolded Kent by standing on top of the table, while Kent knelt down to him. This shows the contrast between the powerful king and his humble nobleman. When he is stripped away of his crown, kingdom and all wealth, he is left as a small and insignificant being who seems quite helpless. Compared to his royal subjects, after his downfall, he seems even more ordinary. This generates more pity from the audience because the fall of King Lear is so significantly displayed.
ReplyDeleteDespite his height, Lear uses a booming voice when he curses and rages, even after he loses everything. He also uses many hand gestures when he speaks. I think this is used to highlight the fact that he still thinks very highly of himself, and feels that it is natural for him to scold others for their doings even though he is quite powerless. Also, the loud voice and hand gestures make him stand out from the other characters, even though he is one of the shortest. His speeches are said with a great deal of emotion, which causes the audience to direct their focus to him and feel what he is feeling. If Lear performed quite monotonously, the audience wouldn't be able to connect with him as well and will soon lose interest in the movie.
I agree with "AbdullahSTB" with respect to his comment on Lear's stature. I believe that the director is sending a message across that even though Lear is held in high regard as a King, he still acts like a child from time to time whem he scurries around the rooms he's in. I found that comment quite interesting.
ReplyDeleteI belie that the fact that King Lear was portrayed as a short man, shows how childish he really is. This further enforces the childishness and egotistical Lear that we see in the first act of the play.
ReplyDeleteI also found the symbolism of clothing interesting. Clothing mean power as when Lear sheds his crown, he his not only shedding responsibilty but also any respect or feeling of authority that his daughters hold of him. It can also represent sanity, as it can be seen that Lear is slowly but steady losing peices of clothing up until the point that he truly goes insane and sheds all of his clothing. From that point he gains the respect of others and slowly begins his re-ascent to power. However, tragically this was cut short.
I feel that the omissions from the text created a more entertaining film. As film is meant to be entertaining, the director decided to lose the 'fat' in the play and slim it down to a concise and very streamlined production which was much more entertaining to watch, when comparted to other productions of this play.
Yunlin's comment about Lear, "stripped away of his crown, kingdom and all wealth", was interesting because it also raises an important issue: Why did he choose to bring about his own downfall by dividing his kingdom? It seems that it must be attributed either to his shortsightedness or a natural, rough and uncultivated love rivalling that of Heathcliff in "Wuthering Heights". In spite of Lear's tantrums, "childish" ravings and all of our previously believed theories, it seems that there are no clearly defined characteristics about him, for we do not know if he raves from the point of view of a honest father who was wronged or an irresponsible monopolist of respect who whines about unfair treatment.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Suseelan's comment on how Goneril snatched the table cloth off after Lear cursed her. I thought her action of just ripping it off the table meant that there would be a new start of the kingdom, but one that would prove to be vicious and filled with ulterior motives.
ReplyDeleteWell, the thing I found most interesting was the height of Lear. As stated in the blog entry, Lear is usually portrayed as a large individual. However, in this adaptation, Lear is a short individual. I think that this helps to emphasize the size difference between Lear and others when Lear jumps onto the table. Prior to this jumping act, he was acting like an amiable fellow. He was also shorter than them, so he seemed like the short fat guy that everyone likes. As soon as he got mad, he jumped up on the table. The shift from small to big is a bigger change than if Lear was already tall. It was a change from the jolly old uncle guy to a cold, cruel king, which is more of a shock to the people than a tall, stern but nice king to a slightly taller and more mean king.
ReplyDeletei agree with suseelan's comment about the emptiness of the palace. It was a fact I noticed as well. Like he said, it is probably a indicator of what is to come, as it is empty and he will soon be powerless (and without comforts)
ReplyDeleteI find Yushu's comment to be particularly enlightening. The colour red is known to incide hurt anger and negative emotion (used to bait both bulls and reproach school children). The contrast between the words uttered at the beginning of the play and the viewer's subconscious is paramount; and the sick scenario that plays out is reminiscent of the movie(s) Saw. Even more ironic is the fact that Saw takes place in a dark dungeon, where the characters must unearth their vilest emotions and kill their fellow prisoners if they are to escape. Perhaps the director wished to play of this possible connotation.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found most intriguing were the awkward similarities between the fool and King Lear. They are both short men with similar facial hair. In fact the only noticeable difference is found in their different dialects. I think this had been made obvious by the director for reasons other than to merely confuse the audience. King Lear is portrayed as such that he could be a fool himself, having more in common than just physical appearance. The way he makes rash decisions and is blind to the truth around him, reflects his role as a different kind of fool in the movie. It is these foolish decisions which cause his inevitable downfall, which even the true fool has seen coming.
ReplyDeleteI think the setting that the film chose for the play and how king lear changed throughout the play was very intersting.
ReplyDeleteFirst, there isn't really alot of different scenes that was shown, the entire play was basically the same few backgrounds over and over again. This kind of symbolizes the cyclicality of the play, and also its similar to the "wheel of fortune" that we studied in grade 10 King Richard III.
And also, at the beginning, LEar seemed to be in charge of everything when he was talking to his daughers at the very beginning of rht play. But later on, when he was in the rain outside making his speech, he seemed very solitary and lonesome.
I find this Richard Eyre production of King Lear quite unique in that it makes you wonder if Goneril is really as rotten as the general public assumes. Without a doubt, we can all agree on the fact that she is not a model daughter. Yet The film does imply, to an extent, that maybe all of this drama originates from the little, old man, Lear.
ReplyDeleteA mere 10 minutes into the film and we already observe Lear as quite a careless and childish character with little or no attributes of a king. The acts of giving up his kingdom (which a king should NEVER do) and dividing his land according to how much each daughter "loves" him are accurate examples of that. His absurdity, however, does not stop there. In the Goneril's house scene, Lear demands to stay at her house along with 100 of his men. I personally see absolutely no reasoning behind his actions. How can a father force such a burdened task onto his own daughter? Goneril was kind enough to offer a spot for him and half of his men. The result? Lear goes mad. Yet he speaks as if he was the victim of mistreatment. He then goes on to mercilessly curse his own daughter making her cry. Considering the events up to this point, can we honestly say that Goneril is an antagonist?
All in all, I think that the film is more geared towards depicting a not so amiable Lear in comparison to the text. In fact, I surprisingly see Lear as the antagonist in the film. Ultimately, I conclude that Goneril is a sensible daughter. And even if she is somewhat malevolent, it is due to cause and effect with the cause being an inconsiderate father.
I must point out that the last part of the comment from Collie pups (Shout out to Joanna H: use your real name!) is very accurate in describing Goneril in the film. She does seem to receive a lot of sympathy from viewers like me. Thumbs up to Joanna!
ReplyDeleteI'd just like to add to James' point about the knights of Lear. The fact that the knights have a greater authority over the king is a stroke of genius. It shows Lear's ultimate flaws. He's unable to keep his power, he wants everyone's respect (because he likes it that way), but he's too self-centred to realize it. The fact that he had to bribe the knight proves this point exactly. Even when he has lost the respect of his knights, he still feels he can control them, without genuinely caring for them.
ReplyDeleterOnI. Luo
ReplyDeleteOne of the most interesting things I found about the movie adaptation was the casting of the Fool. While reading the book, I had assumed that the Fool was a clever and garrulous young man as he referred to Lear as "nuncle" and Lear referred to him as "boy."
The movie belied my assumption - while still clever and garrulous, the movie's Fool was anything but young. In fact, he appears to be approximately the same age as Lear himself. Actually, he actually looks very much like Lear.
The explanation I provided myself with for this symmetry in appearance between Lear and the Fool is that the director wanted to suggest the intellectual similarities between Lear and the Fool through their physical similarities - in other words, the director is implying that Lear, in his current state, has been diminished to nothing more than a fool.
This adaptation of King Lear is very interesting because it goes against many of my interpretation of the characters when I first read the novel. First of all, I thought that King Lear was a supreme figure, the almighty King of France, because he always spoke of universal power. But here, the director actually portrayed him as childish, unreasonable, and foolish even. When King Lear’s daughters are arguing against him, he simple covers his ears and turns his back to the matter just like a little kid. Also, whenever something upsets him, he would just go up to the offenders’ face and shout out his objectives. Lear also climbed onto the same table that his fool went on, demonstrating a parallel between the two. The movie greatly downgraded a character I thought was noble.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, the villains, King Lear’s daughter, are portrayed more humanlike than my interpretation. In the book, I felt the daughters were Machiavellian creatures because they did anything necessary to ruin their father. When they forced King Lear out of their houses, I felt that their reasoning were only excuses. However, in the movie, the director actually shows King Lear as the unreasonable one by having his 100 knights causing uproar in the mansion. The daughters’ responses were justifiable! Goneril actually showed tears as her father cursed at her, showing the audience that she is still a human being. The villains were upgraded?! Any comments
rOnI. Luo (comment on "Yunlin^0^"'s post)
ReplyDeleteLear is very egocentric, as is expected of a king, and thus has a very loud and booming voice. I think that the director chose to portray Lear as a small man in order to accentuate Lear's perception of himself as larger than life whereas in reality he is quite insignificant in the eyes of those around him.
I feel like that director is trying to get across the fact that not all heroes are the stereotypical types (righteous, mature, smart and all-powerful) and not all villains are completely cold hearted. I even dare to say that maybe it was King Lear’s selfishness and injustice that push his daughters to betray him when they could. This movie gives us an alternative perception to the same storyline, same characters, and the same dialogue.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more with Jacky's comment about the background of the play being plain and simple. This, like Jacky said, definitely puts the focus on the characters' words and actions. And furthermore, it's hard to tell what setting the characters are actually in, because they all look so similar.
ReplyDeleteTo Daniel's first comment about Lear's daughers-I actually found that the portrayal of the relationship between Lear and his daughters almost takes a 180 degree turn through the film. For example, Lear asserts his authority over his daughters in the beginning of the play, but once his daughters received their share of Lear's wealth, they began turning on him. This can be seen through Regan's defiance in front of Lear. As well, Regan's villanous self shows when she and Cornwall rip Gloucestors' eyes out and then, she refuses to help Cornwall even though he's injured. So though the film might have asked sympathy for the daughters at the beginning of the play, this definitely changes in the portrayal of them later on (especially Regan).
A few people mentioned the symbolism of the colour red. I didn't notice this significance, but it's definitely something that fits with the moody, passionate, and sometimes violent tone of the adaptation.
Sanam's comment about "trimming" the fat of the play is also quite interesting. I found that they actualy started cutting more and more lines later on in the play, and even omitting an entire scene at the end of Act IV, which I thought was actually pretty important to the play (Act IV, Scene vii).
Steven's comment about the "wheel of fortune" definitely applies to the adaptation. Since these plays were all written around the same time (Richard III/King Lear), the social beliefs about "nemesis" would have applied to both plays. Both plays definitely reflect this well-here, we can see Lear's downfall, the rise of his daughters, and other events which changes the the fate of the characters (say, Cornwall's death, Gloucetors' eyes etc.)
And finally, the similarities between Lear and the Fool are raised to new heights when Lear enters the foggy scene (Gloucestor's attempted suicide), dressed like the Fool. It was if the two characters became one, and Lear finally understood and accepted what the Fool had been saying all along. This abrupt change in costume signifies the change in Lear's fate and Lear's character.
To Ronnie's point about Goneril being choked by Lear's curses. We saw that in the beginning Lear had embraced Regan by putting his arms around her, making it seem like he had the ability to choke her. It was interesting to see that Goneril is now being choked by Lear.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to add to Isabel's comment on on Lear's short stature:
ReplyDeletePerhaps the director had wanted Lear to be sympathized by the audience. He is flawed, he is naive and he had foolishly brushed Cordelia away. However, as the movie progresses especially where Cordelia and Lear meet again, we see a small and pitiable Lear, finally realizing his mistake and reunites with the daughter who truly loved him. The audience would most likely feel sympathy for a small Lear, as we see a small, old and alone old man. In this way, Lear's short stature provokes a more emotional and sympathetic confrontation towards the end.
I would also like to comment on the set of when Edgar leads Gloucester off the "cliff".
ReplyDeleteAlthough it wasn't an actual cliff, the prevalent color of while made it look like an actual mountain top covered with snow. The white mist surrounding the set also added an air of mystery and of the unknown (like jumping off a cliff, you don't know what awaits you). The white sand on the ground reminded me of snow, which can be paralleled to snow on a high mountain cliff. That was really interesting, even though what Gloucester "jumped" off of wasn't really a cliff. I'm pretty sure for an audience who didn't read the play yet, that scene would've been really dramatic. (Seeing someone jump to their doom, I mean.)
The sense of vision is pondered through the settings of this adaptation of King Lear by Masterpiece Theatre. Settings outside of castles or indoors often takes place in very misty fogs where figures of men were seen vaguely. This symbolizes the fact that unless one is closer to another, one cannot see the true face of the other and only possess the ability to judge by the vague figure. The fog greys the distinction between right and wrong while hiding two-faced characters such as Goneril, Regan and Edmund.
ReplyDeleteI remember once, when Edgar was coming through the fog, the camera stayed still while a vague figure was moving closer and closer towards the camera. At first, I thought that it was Edmund from far away because of the similar body shape that was shared between Edmund and Edgar. However, when he walked close enough to be identified, I realized that it was Edgar. This symbolizes the fact that Gloucester is seeing something similar to what I saw – an allusion.
In believing all these lies, his sense of insecurity was obvious. He was afraid that his sons lusted for his power and possessions and would eventually plot to kill him. Edmund acted only as a trigger to his insecurity. The fog represents a mind that was full of mist that prevented him from seeing the clear truth. He believed in the “vague figure” to be a faithful Edmund, he believed his lies. However, little did he know, Edmund was the traitor and Edgar was the faithful son.
Fog also represents the sense of insecurity and danger because of the fact that you may never be fully prepared for what is coming because when you finally see them coming, it means that they are too close to be prevented. It gives a camouflage to characters such as Edmund, Goneril and Regan.
Like Gloucester, Lear was in a misty situation where the evil acts of his two elder daughters were not under his detection. Only when they started rejecting him and taking away his power did he realize their true figure.
In conclusion, the manoeuvring of the sense of vision in the outdoor settings presents the audience with a sophisticated environment. Outside the castles, we are introduced to a misty atmosphere that implied the unexpected events that nature brings where Lear turns mad and Edgar disguises as poor Tom. This suggests that the mist could give everyone another identity other than their own.
Throughout the course of the film King Lear the setting and background images are extremely simple and unchanging allowing the characters’ clothing to stand out. For example there are only 4 different backgrounds we have seen through the film as of yet: the red castle floors/walls, the stormy weather outside, a simple shack, and finally outside of the castle without rain. Although I may have missed one or two my point is this directing decision allows for the emphasis on also fairly simple clothing such as dark clothes for evil doers such as Edmond (has darkest clothing out of all characters) and white clothes for the innocent such as Edgar.
ReplyDeleteThe simple background also lets the acting and Shakespeare’s words be expressed in a manner that all the focus is on them distracted by nothing else. For example scenes such as when Lear makes Goneril cry we see the harsh manner of his words clearly or when Reagan decides to gut out Gloucster’s eyes we can see with vivid clarity the cruelty of her actions.
Response to Yushu’s post
ReplyDeleteI agree with the fact that the gloomy settings in the movie create a dark atmosphere.
It was very interesting how she pointed out that “there was no natural sunlight” in the rooms which creates a contrast to the setting outside where they are plenty of natural light. However, we gain some, we loose some. The characters can now be seem in the light, but the mist that surrounds the area does not allow us to see people in distance.
Outside, it is light yet foggy, inside it is clear yet dark. Evil will be present in either forms, dark or indistinct. The contrast implies that no matter where one stands, evil awaits.
Personally, I thought this adaption of King Lear was really interesting due to a number of reasons (set, camera angles, special effects such as the torches, etc) but what really caught my attention was the casting of the characters. My first impression was that the casting of the major characters was rather odd and if anything, whimsical. For example, the director cast a shorter man as King Lear, which I thought unsual because our society generally perceive kings as domineering, powerful, and of course, very grand in physical apperance. As well, the cast for Regan baffled me because due to her physical appearance. From her slim figure to her golden blonde hair, Regan gave me the impression of someone pure and innocent while Goneril, with her darker hair, made of think of her as the greater one of the two evil. However, as the film went on, I realized how the casting actually supported many of the play's ideas and give the audience something to think about. King Lear, for example, is a man with great stature but from the very beginning, we can see that he is a flawed man. He seems to value physical pleasures (praises, enjoying life) much more than the truly important things, such as governing his country and Cordelia's geunine love for him. The cast of Lear as a shorter man, however, can be seen to support this point because although Lear is the monarch of a country, he is far from perfect and his actions are often not the most thoughful. His shorter height shows that he is flawed and not as great/intelligent man as we would think he is. As well, Regan's innocent physical attributes could be seen as disguise of her true character. In the book, Regan is extremely sweet to Lear at the beginning of the play, heaping on praises and flattery. However, as the play progresses on, her character is slowly revealed and the audience realizes that her innocence at the beginning is nothing but a facade. The film, using this idea, gives the viewer an false impression of Regan but we soon realize that this sweetness is nothing but an illusion. Goneril, on the other hand, is given the "darker" features such as deep brown hair but we later realize that she is often heasitant and much of her actions are affected by Regan's whims. The film is telling us that nothing is ever as it seems. King Lear might be a king and his daughters should be loyal to him, as per social conventions but instead, Lear's appearance makes him seem not as great and his daughters, despite their harmless first impressions, are personifications of evil.
ReplyDelete-Heather
I made a mistake in my last comment in saying that the film omitted Act IV Scene VII. Instead, they just mixed the order up with Act V Scene I, which was a significant interpretational difference nonetheless. I found it intersting, because interrupting Cordelia's reunion with Lear with conversations from Kent and Edmund added to the drama that led up to the climatic battle. It was great for theatrical effects, and I think it wouldn't have worked if it was just in the text.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the director's adaption of Shakespeare's enriching work, I found Edmund's character to be very interesting. His evil motives can be somewhat justified by the fact that he was never treated with respect just because he was his father's illegimate son. Now, it's quite unfortunate and maybe showing too much sympathy for him, but I feel that the hypocracy of the people around him is what gave him the motive and aspirations to become an opportunist and grab power from others. PIn a way, he probably came to the conclusion that no one will hand/allow for him to have a powerful title as the Duke of Gloucester, because they think he isn't the rightful heir(even if he is the eldest son incomparison to Edgar). He was never accepted, so he must have felt the only way he would be accepted is if he played the game and manipulated his way to grab the power.
ReplyDeleteHe planted false tales in the minds of his father and brother. He became romantically involved with both Goneril and Regan, and ordered the assasination of Cordelia.
After loosing in a sword combat with Edgar however (ironic brother vs brother situation right there!), he smirks as he says, "The wheel has come full circle." When he says that, one expects him to show some sort of remorse but no, just this ironic statement. Then, as suddenly as that statement, his last minute conversion to good seems all too timely, when he says he wants to save Lear, from his own orders. Now, really what is he playing at? It could be because he trying to weasel god, you know show god that he wasn't all cruel and remorseless but why then and so suddenly?
I think Edmund always needs to play a game and manipulate/worm his way into people/divinities(GOD)because that simply who he had become throughout his life.
I was particularly interested with the decision of the director to have Glouster and his men come in all with torches after Edmund tells Edgar to flee after pretending to fight him. I thought that the flames held high above their heads represented their anger and distress while the dark empty room showed isolation and almost felt like they were going to be engulfed by darkness which represents Edmund (who does not have a torch). Gloucester is a shining beacon in the otherwise bleak world but even his light is weak and cannot last forever. The torches show that.
ReplyDeleteI think Steven's comment about change is particularly interesting because now that I look at the effect of the scenarios and themes, it does seem to get more and more isolated from a dining room with furniture and flames to a misty, white, empty field.
yes, Collie_pups is Joanna...i didn't realize that Collie_pups what the name when i made the account...anyways I would agree with Isabels first comment about Lear's stature. His resemblance to the fool hints that he is quite naive and childish at heart. His weak and fimble stature also foreshadows a quite untimely, tragic death as when the movie continues, he slowly goes crazy and even forgets the names of his daughters. His lack of physical ability will soon lead to his death and his loss of crown
ReplyDeleteYour ideas are fabulous, 3U7, and you've created a rich, intriguing dialogue about the play and the film. Well done!
ReplyDeleteAt the beginning of Act 3 scene 6 we see Lear, Kent, Edgar and the fool sheltered in a shed around the fire. Lear regrets his previous decision of empowering his daughters Goneril and Regan. He also curses them for abandoning him and holds a trial for his disloyal daughters.
ReplyDeleteSomething that seemed very odd was when Lear tried to touch the burning fire that they were all sitting around. He retreats his finger instantly yet he goes back to touch it again. Lear repeats this action for a long period of time. Some of the posts above commented about the stage directions and how Lear seemed to be holding a ball of fire in his hand in the first scene. One of the interpretations of the director’s motive was to capture Lear’s ‘god like’ nature and power at that particular time in the play. However that very first scene contrasts greatly from scene 6 of act 3. Previously Lear was shown to have control over power (with the fire ball in his hand) and now we see a more vulnerable Lear who is powerless (and cannot tame the fire).
In response to Yujing’s comment about the setting of the cliff scene: I thought the scene really brought the effects of a real cliff to life with the white ‘snow’ and the mist casted everywhere. The set was rather flat with nothing else in sight. Of course being on the edge of the cliff of a tall mountain, we would not expect to see anything in the horizon. As well the violent winds added to the realness of a cliff.
While reading the book, I imagined the settings of the play to be much richer than what was presented in the adaptation. I think this is because the book is mostly focused on dialogue and the people rather than the settings of the play and the director must have chosen to keep modifications of the original piece to a minimum. Not many lines are dedicated to describing the scenes where the story takes place.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as others mentioned, it is possible that the dull presentation of the setting and the simplicity of the scenes are used to emphasize the actions and the words of the characters. With respect to Jacky's comment on the rigidity of the setting and the resulting implication that the characters felt "boxed in", I completely agree. I think the rigid walls that were seen in most of the scenes imply the imprisonment of the characters in the consequences of their own actions preventing them from escaping from the devastation that awaits them at the end of the tragedy.
Throughout the film, the interpretations of Masterpiece Theatre adaption of King Lear are noticeably impressive and exceptionally interesting.
ReplyDeleteNear the end of the movie, I was surprised to see the ironic expressions of Edmund and Edgar after Edmund looses the sword battle to his brother. When reading the play, I imagined the injured Edmund to be very weak, scared of dying and even crying for mercy for his wrong-doings.
However, in the film, their emotions were quite different; Edmund appeared to be the opposite, as he was grinning while saying to Edgar "The wheel is come full circle. I am here." He didn’t show any remorse or grief as he grinned and smirked, while Edgar was frightened and crying hysterically.
The director’s interpretations of the play give us a different perspective and further enhance our understanding of Shakespeare's original play.
In response to Emily’s post, I agree on how we can easily have illusions when fog is used in different settings. The misty fog is an important aspect in partially concealing the dangers and threats in the distance that you are unprepared for since it’s difficult to differentiate between whether harm or no harm is present.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Aaina's post, I agree, the set was rather dull and failed to portray the complex and creative settings which were alluded to in the book. In Shakespear's time, the audience were expected to use thier imaginations, however this was a movie, which should have illustrated the setting with more clarity.
ReplyDeleteFire is used cleverly in this adaptation of the play to represent various emotions and situations. One of the most interesting things that fire symbolizes is power, as mentioned by Harry. In the beginning of the play, there is an illusion of Lear "holding" the fire. This shows that Lear is superior to others around him. However, later in the play, he is unable to even touch the fire, which represents his loss of power. Additionally, Edgar seems to be holding Lear's hand and helping him touch the fire, which shows the support Lear has from others in regaining his status as a king.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the many people who commented on the emptiness of the set. It is expected that each room would be lavishly decorated, especially considering that a king's palace is being shown. Nevertheless, this allowed for the audience to focus on the story, instead of being distracted by props.
The casting of the fool as an old man rather than an individual younger than Lear (as the fool calls Lear "uncle") is a bit confusing. I find Daniel's explanation of this quite interesting. The similarity of the fool to Lear in height and age proved to be very helpful as this caused Lear to accept the fool's comments and criticism on different issues and reflect upon his actions. Lear did not like Kent's opinion on the disinheritance of Cordelia. However, similar comments by the fool were accepted.
In regards to Suseelan's comment, I had different thoughts about the white sheet taken off the table by Goneril. I thought of it as a sign of the "gloves coming off", metaphorically.
ReplyDeleteAs for Derek's comment about the thunder, I agree. After all, when Lear evokes the cosmos all chaos arises- thus adding the thunder and lightning helps portray that idea.
I found Leon's and Jash's opinions about the casting of the Fool very interesting. Just like them, I have always imagined the fool to be somewhat naive and kind of "out-of-it". However, by casting the fool as a caucasion old male who resembles Lear greatly in appearance, the director draws the parallel between these characters and intrigue the audience to think more about who really is the fool in the play.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Suseelan that the emptiness in the play did seem a bit unusual.
ReplyDeleteI think the director was trying to emphasis the symbolic meanings during the play. For example, the torches played a great role in displaying the anger between the characters in the first scene. With more props and objects in the play, i think the audience would be distracted and would not be able to easily catch the imagery the director was trying to show.
I think that the choice to cast a short King Lear was a very interesting one. His short stature makes him seem less intimidating and his actions seem rather silly in comparison to the taller or larger people beside him who exude a more grave tone in their actions. He is shorter or roughly the same height as his daughters so maybe this signifies some kind of equality between them. Also the fact that he's bald and small reminds me of a baby or a small child. His casting might have been to point out the similarities between a newborn and someone old who is about to die. It emphasizes the fact that when one dies, one is not able to bring things such as money or power with them and instead, leave the world in the same state as when they arrived. Also since he is shorter, he is closer to the ground and therefore nature, which is a key theme in the book
ReplyDelete