King Lear performance

[lissyl78]

This isn't one of those 'what is the character of King Lear' type questions - I have read the play! I'm doing an essay on performance variations between film and theatre and just wondered if anyone had seen any performances of King Lear, and if so, what aspects (feelings, effects etc) do you think could not have been reproduced on film. Thanks for your help!

Lissy x

[andy hughes]

I think the seenece of Shakespeare's  appeal is his ability to pinpoint the human condition, which has remained the same from then until now. The imediacy of live theatre means that all that emotion can be delivered by atmosphere to the audience, which must, by definition, loose something of its effect through the medium of film.

If Shakespere was writing today, he would probably approach his work differently, and adjust it to the additional media available, but in his day, theatre was what was there, so he excelled in writing for it.

[Hendrix55]

Poking out of eyes is always tricky - I suppose it can be done on film (ref Bunuel) but not sure they would. Difficult on stage too.

I'm not sure if this is exactly what you are thinking of but I know a Japanese director has reproduced Lear - I'm afraid I can't remember the name but may be something on net, and a Japanese theatrical version toured as well. Might make for an interesting comparison.

[rooftrouser]

My thoughts exactly Hendrix, It was Kurosawa's "Ran". I haven't seen it for a while but remember it as a spectacular film and a very moving Lear. I have seen at least two other versions: one theatrical, starring Anthony Quayle, and the other on television with Olivier in the lead role. As it was written to be performed not read, there are not the difficulties encountered when adapting a novel to the screen. Nevertheless if the film is more than just a record of a performance and is taking advantage of the wider visual possibilities of the medium there is a danger that the impact of the language will be submerged. There is also an inevitable loss of immediacy that one experiences in the same room as a person "being" Lear live in front of you. Ultimately though, I would say that the actor and director's interpretation is the most important aspect regardless of medium. Sorry not very specific - it's my poor old memory going...

[lissyl78]

Thanks guys - you're stars.

I haven't seen Lear performed but have seen RSC twice and nothing compares to seeing good Shakespeare on stage. Saying that I have seen a film version of a RSC performance of King Lear with Paul Schofied in title role and it is fantastic. Highly recommended. In fact, last year, members of the RSC voted for their all time favourite performance and he won. Just in case you wanted to know! Thanks again for your help, Lissy x

P.s. Was it Kurosawa who done the famous version of Macbeth, Throne of Blood or something, or am I getting confused?!

[rooftrouser]

Thanks for the Paul Schofield tip Lissy...and you are absolutely right about Kurosawa and Throne of Blood. Perhaps one of these days I will see Shakespeare performed at the Globe as a proper groundling...

[lissyl78]

Me too, I'd love to go to the Globe. Until then, it's just the plays, the DVD's and Stratford on special occasions!

[jno]

couple of Wetern adaptations of Lear: King of Texas and Broken Lance.

[maxi29]

I've seen Lear on stage about 20 times and it rarely fails to me. As others have pointed out, you can't get the emotional attachment with film that you can with the theatre. The horror seems much more real too - I can still remember my 12-year old self wincing when Gloucester's eyes are put out. If you do want to get it on film, then the Peter Brook version with Paul Scofield is well worth watching.
And everyone should get him or herself to the Globe at least once. Even if the productions aren't up to much (and they can be a bit hit and miss) it's always a great experience.