Hey 3U7--Please choose one of the following topics on which to post a response, and then comment briefly on someone else's post.
Option 1: Lear claims to be "a man/More sinned against than sinning" (3.2.60-61); doing so, he suggests that the treatment that Goneril and Regan offer him is worse than the treatment he offered them. This would seem in many ways to be the crux of interpreting King Lear. Please ponder Lear's claim in the context of the reading that seems to be embedded in either Shakespeare's play text, the Masterpiece Theatre presentation starring Ian Holm, or in Susanna Hamnet's play, Nearly Lear.
Option 2: The cosmic and human cruelty that characterizes the world of King Lear was somewhat mitigated by the comedy offered by Susanna Hamnet in her Nearly Lear. During our question period she explained her approach as being motivated by a desire to offer the audience an emotional break from the "horror" of the play. Did you find this approach to be effective? Is it consistent with Shakespeare's own project?
Option 3: Susanna Hamnet left off her interpretation of King Lear with a video presentation of Lear and Cordelia in younger, happier days. She explained this as an attempt to transcend the tragedy of Shakespeare's conclusion with a simple, spiritual truth. Do you think it was an effective strategy? Did it make you think about King Lear differently?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I want to comment on the comedy used in Ms. Hamnet's Nearly Lear (option 2).
ReplyDeleteI believe Ms. Hamnet wanted to adapt the original King Lear and make it more accessible to today's audience. Most people today do not appreciate Shakespeare's plays because they find them dull. The tragedy in King Lear (which some have said is Shakespeare's worst) adds to this effect, making the play difficult to watch for most people in the modern audience.
In order to make King Lear more intersting and engaging, Ms. Hamnet has added many aspects to her interpretation; for example, she goes into the audience to spray them with water in order to illustrate how wet the weather was during the storm in Act 3 Scene 2. She also adds in comedic lines and actions throughout the play (as shown above) to keep the audience entertained and laughing. As long as the audience is engaged in Nearly Lear, they will be able to take more from the story of King Lear.
What Susanna Hamnet did so well was bring the play to a level that high school students could relate to. Yes, the cosmic and human cruelty was what characterized King Lear as one of Shakespeare's greatest plays, and Ms. Hamnet's almost satirical adaptation kept enough motifs that it did not digress too much from that main theme.
ReplyDeleteHer use of humour was extremely effective in engaging a group of high school students, and though her adaptation was probably last of Shakespeare's intent, it was perhaps a much more interesting exploration than an adaptation like the Masterpiece Theatre.
It absolutely offered the audience an "emotional break" from the "horror" of the play as she presented various characters in an exaggeratedly comedic manner. While it may not have been the most textbook-bound interpretation, Ms. Hamnet succeeded in simplifying the plot while keeping enough tragic elements to make the production credible.
#3
ReplyDeleteI think the "attempt to transcend the tragedy" was to remind the audience of the universal understanding of love, and that there was such a significance before the beginning of Shakespear's King Lear.
Personally, when the video started playing I was totally confused for a few seconds, and still a tad bit unsure if that was really Lear and Cordelia, as it was such a change from the LACK of the portrayal of love in the film. Once I understood however, I thought the video was a nice ending to the play because of its thought-provoking nature, despite my preliminary uncertainties.
It definitely made my think about the story differently. I have always been caught up in the villans' dark motives and the development of the kingdon's strife that I never really stopped to ponder aboout the past of Lear and Cordelia. It made me put King Lear into a new perspective, where the story began to make more sense to me than it had before.
In Shakespeare's play text, the relationship between Cordelia and Lear is not very strong. It does not seem like Cordelia was the favourite. As a result, I did not feel very sympathetic towards Cordelia when Lear disinherited his daughter as it seemed like all daughters treated him the same way. However, Susanna Hamnett's persistent efforts to show this love to the audience made me think differently.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the video at the end of Susanna Hamnett’s performance emphasized the tragic theme of the play. The happy memory of Cordelia and Lear reminded the audience of the cruelty of the gods and the other two daughters towards them.
When the movie began playing, for a second I thought it was a glimpse into the happy afterlife, which I was hoping to see throughout the play. However, when I realized that it was just a video from the past, I was a bit disappointed. This addition to the play text by Susanna Hamnett was consistent with the Shakespeare story where the audience is let down constantly when a happy end is expected.
I agree with both Danny and Shelly's points as they both point out valid arguments which i was thinking about.
ReplyDeleteMs. Hamnet was very successful in condensing the play into a one-woman play in a way that is still appealing to high-school students. This can be seen in her comedic breaks which helped to engage the audience in the play. However, this did not take away from the integrity of the play, as all the plays motifs and themes were still present in her interpretation of the play. However, her decision to leave out the Gloucester subplot was a wise one, as this subplot is almost its own play, and its inclusion would have made the play much too complex and long for a one-woman production. Her interaction with the audience made this play much more memorable and made the tragedy of the play stick out even more as when she drenched her self with the water we could relate to how wet Lear must have felt. Moments like these made this play interesting from begging to end.
The very last video during the play helped bring a human interface to King Lear, it allowed us to see King Lear and Cordelia as just an innocent father and daughter. Overall, it added much much more emotion to the play.
Susanna Hamnet suceeded in trying to transcend the tragedy with her simple conclusion. It contrasted with the gloomy deaths by presenting the happier times of Cordelia and Lear.
ReplyDeleteHowever the jump from live presentation to video made for an awkward transition. Similar to Justin, I was a caught a bit off-guard by the switch; confused and not really knowing what to make of it.
Ms. Hamnet also explained that she tried to stay as true to the text as possible when she wrote the script. Perhaps the ending could have stayed true to a traditional single narrator ending, rather than a change in media.
I think that she could've continued with her role of the fool and presented the end with a nostalgic story. She could've also pranced around happily, giving the end a lighter and more optimistic tone
I have to say that I enjoyed watching Susanna Hamnet's play more than watching the adaptation by the Masterpiece Theatre. I think the comedic twists that she added through out the play did play a role towards making her adaptation more interesting and entertaining, since this is shown mostly in high schools. Her way of interacting with the audience is really interesting, talking to us individually, and squirting water at us to set the setting of the scene.
ReplyDeleteAlthough her approach created an emotional break and grabbed our attention during the play, I don't think it is a great interpretation for the tragedy of King Lear. It was a great pleasure for us high school students to watch, but I don't think it will be pleasurable to older audiences, especially the part where she squirted water. In my opinion, the goal of her comedic approach could be her trying to make the students pay attention and have fun while watching the play.
I agree with Shelly and Danny's comments about the use of satire by Susanna Hamnett. It is an adaptation that is simple and interesting, which results in the appreciation of the play by a wide variety of individuals. Additionally, Ms. Hamnett's efforts to bring the play to life by engaging the audience in the story (ex. spraying students with water) kept the audience focused and allowed for a better understanding of the play.
ReplyDeleteMs. Hamnet’s performance of King Lear was a very intriguing adaptation of the original text. Her use of the video presentation of Lear and Cordelia placed emphasis on their relationship: it is essentially one between a father and a daughter. However, throughout the text, the reader loses their belief of this fact due to the dominant cruel themes presented. When I read the text, I interpreted Lear and Cordelia’s relationship as one of a King and his servant. The caring nature of a father is not shown through Lear’s behaviour or his actions. Lear’s attitude towards Cordelia at the end of the play however, does show an attempt to establish a familial relationship with real emotion. Thus, the absence of a fatherly figure could have been motivating to bring about this element in King Lear.
ReplyDeleteThe transcending of the tragedy’s conclusion did express the truth, as it reminded us the essence of this relationship. Had Lear listened to Cordelia at the beginning of the play, Lear would have had a clearer conscience. Furthermore, his struggle to maintain sanity could have been avoided. The play presents a loss of hope, as it is unclear whether Lear is at complete peace when he dies. However, by showing this video, Ms. Hamnet suggests that not all hope is lost. She shows the relationship as one that will be remembered for its innocence. Simplicity was not something I found when reading the text, especially among the characters and their relations with each other. After watching the video, I now think of Lear’s relationship with Cordelia as being the most simple because all other relationships in the play were either ruined by another relationship or destroyed within them. When Lear and Cordelia died, they were somewhat at peace with each other. The video was an effective strategy to point this fact out. The most important relationship in the play was the one that persevered spiritually.
I enjoyed the play that Susanna Hamnet performed but I believe that the play was not effective in portraying the gravity of the play. In effect, this neutralized certain emotions that identify the play as a tragedy. For example, Ms. Hamnet had to directly tell the audience that the play was a tragedy. If the morose feelings of the play were kept, this statement would have been unnecessary.
ReplyDeleteAlso, due to a lack of time and actors, it was difficult to delineate a fine image of each character; therefore, many characters were simplified. This may be effective in capturing the attention of teenagers but it missed many important complications that make King Lear a tragedy. For example, it is difficult to have any feelings for the death of a character that did not have many distinct personalities.
Despite the divergence between what Shakespeare may have intended (the gravity of the play) and what Susanna Hamnet created and performed (an abridged version with comic relief), they can both be valid. After all, what Susanna Hamnet performed was NOT Shakespeare, but her own work and imagination.
This is in response to the third blog option.
ReplyDeleteThe video montage at the end of "Nearly Lear" was a heart-warming conclusion to a tragic play. It definitely presented a different side of story and contributed greatly to the sympathy the audience has to Lear and Cordelia. In fact, the video montage did not, in my opinion, make us forget about the tragedies in the play, but re-enforced them, adding salt to our wounds. We get a sense of what was, and what could've still been, a happy, merry family. But instead, that has been taken away and we are left with an empty feeling. By revealing the past of Lear's relationship with Cordelia, it makes the conclusion to the play that much more depressing.
That being said, the montage did provide, as Ms. Hamnet said, a sense of hope and relief, that Lear and Cordelia are in a better place. Their relationship seems to have been totally restored and they have learned to appreciate simple life and the beauties of nature. They are far from the evil and suffering of their past lives.
Depending on which way you see it, the montage can bring both tragic and joyous feelings to the audience. It was an interesting way to conclude what was an excellent production.
As a younger audience with an admittedly lower attention span, it is harder for us to be entertained with a play of such unrelenting sorrow and grief such as King Lear. Nearly Lear effectively managed to keep us entertained while at the same time, expressing the main values and themes of the play. There were funny, interactive parts to capture our interest while there were also somber scenes to express a deeper meaning such as the Fool's monologue at the end. At times, it seemed a little over the top and excitable where it should have been somber such as the gory eye gouging of gallant Gloucester. But these scenes were the outliers in a generally well thought out and effective interpretation.
ReplyDeleteAs an entertainment piece, I found it to be quite effective and funny but I do not think that King Lear would have been the best choice out of Shakespeare's plays to make into a comedy due to it's very intense, dark nature. King Lear was meant to be a tragedy of tragic proportions and Shakespeare wrote the play to be very somber and moody (the opposite of a comedy). I thought that King Lear would have served it's purpose perfectly as a tragedy. I did enjoy the presentation as a form of amusement but could not derive the same intensity of feelings as the play.
-Kevin Jeong
I would like to comment on the ending video that Ms. Hamnet showed of Lear and Cordelia in their happier days because it was definitely an interesting way to conclude the play.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was watching the video, I thought that even though Lear and Cordelia had died, they had gone to a better place – a place where they could be together and be happy, just like the in the video. This provided a great change in the way I saw the play’s ending because in the original play text of King Lear, both Lear and Cordelia seemed to have a tragic death because right when they reunited with each other, they got separated again. In Act 5 scene 3, Lear entered holding the dead Cordelia in his arms and this gave me the impression that Lear died a miserable death because he lived to see the how his daughter died because of his misjudgment. I thought that by showing the video of the happy Lear and Cordelia, the play ended on a positive note rather than a gloomy one because we get to see the father and daughter reunite through death.
I completely agree with Shelly when she wrote that Ms. Hamnet’s use of comedy in her adaptation of King Lear makes it more accessible to the modern day audience. Personally, I think that it much more interesting if an actor is interacting with the audience and joking around instead of merely standing there and telling a story. It was especially really fun to watch Ms Hamnet spray the audience with water because it not only caught our attention, it also made her character come to life.
I found Ms.Hamelt's approach effective in its means, because it did offer a comical interpretation of Shakespeare's tagedy King Lear. The first scene, where the three daughters were to publically claim thier love for their father, was turned into a modern reality show, this provided some comical relief from the intensity and stress which was alluded to in the text. I found this production to be genius, both in its performance and interpretation, however I do not think that this was consistant with Shakespeare's vision. As we learned in the documentary about Shakespeare, after the death of his son, (which is presumed to be related to the following),he produced the most horrific yet successful tragedies, then ever before, so I think that he intended this play to be full of disappointments and horror. The modern audience, (us) might have found Ms.Hamlet's work to be brillient and entertaining, it did not portray the themes that Shakespeare intended to.
ReplyDeleteFor a change, I would like to discuss option number 1. From the various viewpoints that we’ve been given, whether it be from the actual play or from adaptations such as the Masterpieces’ theatre version, Lear’s claim of being “a man more sinned against sinning” is quite an important line. Taking the line itself, it means Lear- though a sinner- has been sinned more against than the total amount of sins he has done throughout his life. Taking into account his own sins, you can say that Lear committed the ultimate sin as a King defying his “obligation” to follow the Divine right of a King. He carves up his kingdom thus distancing himself from the status that defines him, which in turn causes the tragedies that ensues within the play.
ReplyDeleteTaking the Masterpiece theatre version, Lear’s claim does not seem reasonable to the viewer, in my personal opinion. When we first see Lear with his daughters, he comes across as somewhat of a disturbing old man- caressing his daughters in a way that one can term as “un-fatherly”, a route taken by the director of a Thousand Acres. Also, when his daughters ask him to cut his retinue of soldiers in half- this demand comes across as reasonable. The soldiers themselves seem to support this demand as they are shown as raucous and display no self control. Also, the treatment that Lear gives to his daughters – in terms of the curses- seems completely over the top. He yells and says he hopes Goneril does not bear any children, a powerful curse by itself and probably doubly powerful coming from a father. Well, this is what I got from the movie, any other viewpoints, maybe from Susanna’s Hamnet’s play, that are different?
Shake's comment about familial relationships got me thinking. She mentions that Lear and Cordelia's relationship is rather unfamilial. I think this is due to our lack of context. We didn't see how their lives were before Act I Scene i, so we're left to postulate based on the actions that we do see.
ReplyDeleteJacky mentioned a word that I think is the perfect sum up of King Lear. "Gravity". Gravity describes the weight of the inter and intra-familial conflicts. Gravity gives meaning to the tragedy that unfolds in the play. Gravity is what I think Shakespeare tried to make audiences feel. And I couldn't agree with Jacky more that Ms. Hamnet's play is the exact opposite. She wants to relieve this Gravity. She wants to lessen its burden.
After reading through all the comments about Suzanna Hamnet's play, I finally saw the significance in her interpretation's title "Nearly Lear". After all those comments, I think it's safe to say that though her interpretation could be considered radical in a Shakesperean sense, it is credible enough to be called "nearly" Lear.
I agree with Kevin Jeong's comment that Ms. Hament's addition of comedy into a tragedy was not consistent with Shakespeare's intented mood of the play. Although the comedy was beneficial to today's audience, it did not adhere to the original play text, and therefore, can be considered as straying too far into the "adaptation" category (like how a movie based on a favourite book usually disappoints).
ReplyDeleteI think Max brings up a good alternative to Susanna's ending. If she were to reprise her role as the fool/storyteller, it would give the conclusion a much brighter tone, rather than the gloomy atmosphere in which the video montage left us. Also, by bringing back the storyteller one last time, it would help tie up some loose ends in the story (like what happened to Gloucester), since it is difficult to tell all the character stories in a one person show. Bringing back the storyteller would end the play in a brighter, more-satisfying manner than the video montage, which caught most of us off-guard.
ReplyDeleteI am commenting on #3:
ReplyDeleteThe video of Lear and Cordelia in younger, happier days to end Ms.Hamnet’s presentation was an effective strategy. Normally, when one views/reads King Lear, they are mostly focused on the villainous actions and dialogues of others. However, this video allowed us to focus more on the underlined tone of love between Cordelia and Lear.
No, the video did not make me think about King Lear differently. The video simply amplifies the love between the father and daughter to the viewers. Also, instead of leaving the viewers (high school students) with sadness about the tragic deaths, Ms.Hamnet simply allows everyone to pause and feel some joy towards something everyone can relate to, which would be the love between a parent and their child.
I agree with “12zero1”, when he/she says that though Ms.Hamnet presentation was entertaining, it took the audience away from King Lear as a tragedy beyond tragic proportions. It was targeted towards a high school audience, in order for them to connect and understand the story. However, personally, I would have liked Ms.Hamnet’s presentation to be more dark and tragic like the original. I felt that the comedy in the presentation limited the audience to fully grasp what a Shakespearean work is supposed to consist of. Yes, it was wonderfully conducted as it was a one-woman show. I also grasped a strong sense of feminism from Ms.Hamnet because she had no problems playing both the male and female roles throughout the play. But, in my opinion, the message relayed to the audience strayed far from the true Shakespearean work of King Lear.
ReplyDeleteOption 2:
ReplyDeleteI understand that by incorporating elements of humour into the the play, Ms.Hamnet intended to offer comedy relief to the audience. I agree that this strategy is indeed effective in keeping the attention of a high school audience; however, I believe that in making the context of King Lear more accessible to a young audience, Ms.Hamnet simultaneously compromised the intensity of the passions originally offered by Shakespeare in his playtext.
For example, one of the most memorable comedy reliefs in my view of Nearly Lear was the humourous storm scene when Ms.Hamnet stumbled through the audience spraying water. Part of the reason why this scene was so memorable was because of the great contrast it held with the scene presented in the playtext. This frivolous interaction with the audience encourages the audience to underestimate or dismiss the extremity of Lear's anguish.
Conclusively, although the comedic elements offered in Nearly Lear allows a teenage audience to more easily relate to an otherwise alienated play, they fail to accurately reflect the gravity of the tragedy in King Lear.
This is a response to Ajey's comment regarding Option 1.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your position that Lear's claim that "a man/More sinned against than sinning" is invalid, but I make this my argument not because of Lear's imperfections as a father, but because of his irresponsibility as a King.
In the Order of Being, the King is immediately under the divine. According to Elizabethan beliefs, the King himself is partially divine in the sense that he has been chosen by God to govern the people on earth. The sin that Lear has committed in abdicating his throne, therefore, is a sin against the Gods.
On the other hand, the sins that Lear claims Goneril and Regan have committed is the ungratefulness with which they treat their father, who, according to the Order of Being, is superior to them.
As one moves higher up on the Order of Being, it appears that the sins committed against a superior becomes more severe and irreversible as well. For example, the consequences of a sister mistreating a brother is understandly less severe than those of a high-ranking court power rebelling against a King. Goneril and Regan's sins against their father, therefore, seems petty in comparison to Lear's sin against the Gods.
Perhaps Lear is justified in claiming that he has been sinned against more numerously than he has sinned; he would be wrong, however, to claim that he has sinned to a slighter degree than what has been sinned against him.
King Lear is meant to be one of Shakespeare's greatest tradegies, written with the intent to share the sorrow he felt when his eldest daughter died. And for centuries, it had been remebered and loved for its cruelty. Susanna's interpretation is entertaining, but I felt that it failed to suggest the emotional suffered the Shakespeare inteneted to share. I believe that the original purpose of the play was to horrify the audience without give them time to catch their breath, continuously giving the reader hope and immidiately snapping it away. Thus, present the cruel themes: betrayal, oblivious, and apocalypse in a humourous fashion robbed King Lear of many of its emotional values. The entire play seemed more like a satire of the Lear family's naiveness and selfishness.
ReplyDeleteKing Lear is intended to be one of Shakespeare's greatest tragedies, written in order for Shakespeare to express his sorrow when his lost his eldest daughter. For centuries, it is remembered and loved for its cruelty. Susanna’s interpretation is entertaining, but I felt strayed too much from Shakespeare’s original purpose. I believe that the play is supposed to horrify the audience without giving they time to take a break, continuously giving them hope and immediately crushing it. Thus, by present all of King Lear’s cruel themes: betrayal, oblivious to the truth and apocalypse in a humorous fashion, Nearly Lear has robbed many of the original’s ardent emotional values. The remake felt more like a satire of the Lear family’s naivety and selfishness.
ReplyDeleteWhile I thoroughly enjoyed Ms. Hamnett's presentation, I felt that the video played at the conclusion seemed incongruous with the rest of the play with respect to both mood and message. The play itself is a cheerful, frolicking spin on King Lear, while the video coda steers in a completely different direction. Despite Ms. Hamnett's description of it as a serious essay to "transcend the tragedy" of Lear, the video seemed to conclude with melancholy, a bittersweet reminiscence of happier days and happiness that could not be sustained in life. In this way, the video presentation showed us of the "spiritual peace" that Cordelia and Lear now presumably have in death. However, it also seemed to channel the same sense of loss that the original play focused on, bringing not beyond, but back to the tragedy.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, I did like how the video brought our attention back to the filial relationship between Lear and Cordelia, a pseudo-theme that had mostly been ignored in both King Lear and Nearly Lear, and which all other themes relate back to.
In response to Option 3, I believe Susanna Hamnet made a bold attempt to provide a window into the beauty of Lear and Cordelia’s father-daughter relationship and the truth within it in contrast to tragic reality. However, I felt it unintentionally jarred the smooth performance she had given with a father-daughter moment that seemed alien to the moment of dire tragedy she had worked up to. Personally, it seemed unusual to display two different actors when the audience had been accustomed to seeing Susanna. Perhaps her view of a single spiritual truth would have been understood instantly if she had played the role of Lear herself within the video.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, it certainly removed the limitation on my thoughts of the play by providing a view of Lear and Cordelia with a relationship that could not be soured by the events that had transpired. It was rather effective at eliciting the audience’s pathos for Lear by making us understand the immensity of what had been lost from an impulse of greed. But it also appeared as a request to forgive Lear for his minor transgression by providing a view of his true feelings towards Cordelia in a different form of media. The difference in presentation drew a solid line between the raging Lear within her rendition and the “true” Lear, who was an affectionate father figure.
Even if she had not used the video, I believe that we still would have understood the nature of love and its endurance of hardships through Lear and Cordelia’s bond. But we also might have remained more truthful to Shakespeare’s emotionally devastating and unsatisfying end for King Lear.
In response to Kevin Jeong, I agree that it is difficult to take a play of great emotional complexity such as King Lear and give a more comedic rendition. However, I assumed that her choice of comedy for certain scenes such as the land division was justified because she was replaying the events from the viewpoint of the Fool. Given that the Fool is the wisest of the characters, it would be acceptable that he (or she, in this case) would portray Lear being so easily scammed out of his land in the most ridiculous fashion imaginable because the Fool is most aware of Lear’s lapses in reasoning and his foibles.
ReplyDeleteIn response to option #3,
ReplyDeleteI must first praise Ms Hamnet for a job well done. The montage at the end especially, was a surprising addition to the unforgiving tragedy, King Lear. Labeling it effective would be an understatement. However, the ending to me was in no way soothing. I felt that it only augmented the sadness and sorrow we were already carrying at the time.
The ending was, in every way, a paradox to the original play. Lear was healthy as opposed to being insane; Cordelia was carefree as opposed to being burdened with leadership and her father's well-being; the setting was encompassed with warm sunlight as opposed to the bleak darkness. This ending however, was not a possible future that we can wish upon Lear and Cordelia. It was the past. Although it symbolizes happiness, we must take note that it's a happiness of the past that can never be regained.
All in all, this seemingly "happily ever after" ending is cruel. We are presented with a frame of the past suggesting what a future could look like. But sadly, we all know that it will never happen. In the end, Hamnet's montage is fairly effective; but only in spraying salt onto our freshly opened wounds.
In response to Daniel's response,
ReplyDeleteI am quite delighted to see someone on the same wavelength as I am. The part about how the montage "re-enforced" the tragedy was well said. I also like the fact that we even used the same analogy! Furthermore, you pointed out that it can nonetheless be viewed as a happy ending because the montage can represent the alleviation from agony after death. The joyous scene provided may very well be happening in their next life. Great depth!
The video that Ms.Hamnet had shown at the end of her presentation did make me think differently about King Lear. The kind of emotion portrayed there wasn't highlighted as much in the play or text. It gave me a different perspective into Lear and Cordelia's relationship. It was quite an effective strategy because after watching that video, it helps you understand the reason why Lear is overwhelmed with so much grief when Cordelia dies.
ReplyDeleteDaniel’s comment is intriguing because he mentions an alternate way of interpreting the video montage at the end of Ms Hamnet’s performance. Looking back at the performance, my original thoughts were that of hope because a sense of reunion between father and daughter was found. However, after reflecting on the alternate interpretation, I agree with his comment that we get a sense of what could have been a happy relationship. Also, I feel that Ms Hamnet emphasized the cruelty in King Lear because she presented the past relationship between King Lear and Cordelia instead of their future. The video shows a young girl with her younger father; however King Lear died at an old age. The youthfulness presented further emphasizes how far in the past this relationship was peaceful and how short of a time it took to be ruined.
ReplyDeleteI fervently believe that Susanna Hamnet's conclusion not only confused and disoriented the audience, but also served to completely demolish King Lear's character. She spent the entirety of her presentatoin portraying King Lear as an angry, selfish, and ill-tempered monarch only to completely undermine his stature with the home video. Not only was the home video ridiculously sappy and carefree, but it seemed like a gimmick tacked on merely to tie up the plot's ends and provide humour. Sadly, neither objective was accomplished. It would've made much more sense if the video involved a sort of foreshadowing that revealed the anger and wrath lurking in King Lear's heart. A reprimand would've sufficed, or even a wayward glance or rigid expression. Instead of showcasing that ending, she should've abruptly ended the presentation. It would've been much more effective because at least, silence wouldn't have drawn up as many questions as the home video. I honestly feel sorry for whoever was featured in the video because they were a part of such a horrible application.
ReplyDelete- Dashti