King Lear (1984)

Best movie of this year hands down!

Waste of time

So much average

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

After an almost 60 year acting career, this was Laurence Olivier's final performance in a Shakespearean play. Produced by his brother-in- law David Plowright, it is an excellent adaptation of a classic tale of misplaced trust, filial ingratitude, blindness and the folly of mistaking appearances for reality. I think that it may be the saddest and darkest of all Shakespearean tragedies. It has been quite some time since I read it last but I don't think that there are any major omissions from the play.In one of his last major roles and one of his greatest, the 75-year-old Olivier is never less than absolutely compelling, in turn perfectly capturing Lear's vanity, anger, madness and finally humility when he is reunited with Cordelia. He dominates an extremely strong cast which includes Leo McKern, Dorothy Tutin, Diana Rigg, Jeremy Kemp, Robert Lindsay, John Hurt, David Threlfall and Anna Calder-Marshall. It's basically an acting masterclass.The scene in which Gloucester's eyes are plucked out by Cornwall is perhaps the most disturbing scene that I have ever come across any of the Bard's plays. Rather appropriately, however, Gloucester was played by McKern, who did not have a left eye in real life. The same, oddly enough, was true of Olivier's frequent collaborator Esmond Knight who makes a cameo appearance as the old man who helps Gloucester after he is blinded.Overall, this is second only to Kenneth Branagh's version of "Hamlet" as my favourite of the 14 Shakespearean adaptations that I have watched since January. It is brilliantly directed by Michael Elliot and the score adds a great deal to the proceedings while never underwhelming them. I'm delighted that Olivier ended his career as a Shakespearean actor on such a high.

I am quite fond of Shakespeare, and the story of King Lear really compels and moves me. I have to say I was really impressed with this 1983 version of the play. The story still has its emotional impact, I genuinely felt for Lear here, and the dialogue is absolutely wonderful and makes you feel all sorts of different emotions all at once.My only complaint with this King Lear is the music. I do agree it does get melodramatic and over-bearing and it sometimes doesn't fit the scene. Then in some scenes where it is welcome it isn't used at all. In my mind, either have music that enhances the drama or don't use it at all.Aside from that, everything else was superb. I was very taken with the filming, the setting is beautifully evoked as are the costumes and there are some very interesting camera angles and uses of lighting. The direction is strong too, and the performances are top notch. Anna Calder-Marshall, John Hurt, Robert Lindsey, Leo McKern and Colin Blakely all do some really effective work, but it is Laurence Olivier's superb and quite poignant performance in the pivotal role that drives it.Overall, very well done, elevated by the great acting of Olivier and co, and if it hadn't been for the music it would have been note-perfect. 9/10 Bethany Cox

I read 'King Lear' for Advanced Higher English, and thoroughly enjoyed the play. However, I just couldn't bear this film. As a student of Film Studies also, this was really more than I could stand. Poorly acted, confusing, awful music, and terribly produced and created, I was very disappointed, especially as it is such a fantastic play, and there have been wonderful film interpretations of Shakespeare in the past. It's just a shame they couldn't quite do a decent interpretation of this one. Maybe its a call that Baz Luhrmann should call.All in all very disappointing. If you can cope with almost three hours of Olivier as a raving lunatic and everyone else as confusing clones of each other, then go for it. Otherwise, ignore at your peril.

In any production of King Lear, we must see the lion in Lear and his raging battle between his age and failing mind. There must be a constant struggle between the Lear of old and the present Lear. If we don't see the towering Lear we're left with the ill, debilitated, sorrowful Lear, the conflict is gone and we never see his basic nature, which is the cause of decline. What makes him so fascinating and exciting (there is nothing exciting about Olivier's Lear) are his tremendous extremes of temperament. First and foremost he must always be a fighter and never give in to adversity. Olivier's Lear could never have been a towering figure, only a whining, feeble, self pitying grouch. In fact, this is exactly how he saw the role. In an interview at the time, he said, "Lear is an old fart". This, about the greatest, most towering and passionate tragic character ever created. The rest of the cast is also quite bad. Despite Gloucester's ignorance, credulity, and misapplied trust, he must have significant potential worth and the innate ability to learn and understand profound lessons about life. If Gloucester, as here portrayed, is loud, crude, obnoxious and stupid, a catharsis is impossible. Edgar comes across as a demented, weird, dull-witted creep, when in fact he should be an ingenuous, credulous, spoiled, inexperienced man who has a vast yet untapped intelligence, understanding and empathy. Albany is portrayed here as a lethargic, pedestrian slow-thinking dunce with no obvious appeal when he should be a sensitive, ethical and intelligent man. Edmund is played in this version as a weak, boyish, obviously villainous child who lacks the charm, confidence, fearlessness, dominance and supreme ability to dupe others. The quality that makes Edmund so convincing is his ability as with Iago)to lose himself completely in his assumed role. He should never slip out of character when duping Gloucester or the others. This actor, by contrast, indicates his contempt when the others aren't looking, something Edmund would never do. The actress playing Regan is determined to dominate Goneril, although the play calls for quite the opposite relationship. The Fool, although not a bad actor, comes across as analytical, sober and objective, when he should be a creature of nature. Pure instinct. Spontaneous, unpredictable and uncontrollable. The director of this pathetic production obviously had no understanding of this magnificent play. Almost all of his directorial choices are absurd: frequently he makes none at all. there are many examples, but citing them would give away the plot. Suffice it to say that the direction is devoid of nuance, passion and intelligence. The blocking is pedestrian: stilted, simplistic, unimaginative and unmotivated. The actors are given no sense of place or circumstance. Unfortunately, Olivier achieved his vision. This King Lear is indeed an old fart.