King Lear (1971)

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Excellent but underrated film

Don't Believe the Hype

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

What's good: Alan Webb's Gloucester and Jack MacGowran's Fool both threaten to steal the picture. Webb is immensely touching in his attempted suicide, but then, I have trouble thinking of a bad Gloucester. Cyril Cusack as Albany and Tom Fleming as Kent should also be praised, and Patrick Magee is creepy as ever as Cornwall.Henning Kristiansen's cinematography is stunning, rendering Jutland in winter the most inhospitable Learscape ever, and this is the same fellow who shot the lush "Babette's Feast" in the same general location! When Lear and friends are outside being battered by the storm, we see the ungrateful villains inside basking in the warmth of a gigantic roaring fireplace. The visual contrast has never been greater. When Poor Tom's cold, he's really cold in real snow, not just clasping himself and shivering on cue.Peter Brook's productions often involve wholesale cuts and rearrangements, plus hefty doses of non-authorial content. Yes, this Lear is cut to the bone, the style owes much to Bergman, Beckett, Brecht, etc.The criminal waste is that Paul Scofield was a major Lear of his generation, and it's gutted here. His magnificent voice is thinned out to a thread, and much of the time the character is distant, veiled and under-energized. His disintegration arouses pity, but no audience involvement. We watch him die from a million miles away, and lose more than we gain with this application of alienation technique.By the same token, Irene Worth's whispered Goneril is not the volcano we want. For example, she is incapable of expressing lust for Edmund, and that's a crucial omission, not in the text, but in the performance. Two fine actors are caught at considerably less than their best, giving the director what he wanted.The energy level all around is a bit low, which kills much of what remains of Shakespeare's language, but what really hurts is the leaden pace. Considering half the play is missing, we start slowly, and after Gloucester hits the beach, grind to a complete halt. Entropy is total. Even with the text gutted and filleted, the last half hour of the film feels longer than many complete plays.For DVD versions with complete texts, don't overlook Jonathan Miller's neurologically-informed production for the BBC with Michael Hordern and Brenda Blethyn. The more mainstream, star-studded Olivier video is an automatic choice for many.However, another abbreviated version directed by Peter Brook features perhaps the best reading of Shakespeare's Lear of them all, from Orson Welles. This 90-minute condensation from the early days of live television also features Alan Badel, Beatrice Straight and Micheal MacLiammoir. First you must get past the resourceful but limited visuals, two cameras in a single studio running the whole play live without a break. The reward is that no one, no one does Lear's poetry more clearly, simply, powerfully and beautifully than Orson Welles.

"King Lear" is not one of my favourite Shakespeare plays (sacrilege indeed!) but I must say I find this film version immensely impressive and the best film version of Shakespeare I have seen.The key to this is the direction of Peter Brook. Unquestionably this is an "arty" avant-garde production that has echoes of Bergman and Beckett as other reviewers have noted. For me this works extremely well. The choice of a barren Danish landscape in winter, the use of black and white, and unusual decision to eschew music all contribute to a very dark and bleak atmosphere. The director keeps viewers on their toes and presents a despairing tragedy.There is nothing theatrical about this - quite rightly as this is a film version. The performances are restrained and measured. The acting is very strong - Patrick Magee particularly stands out as a very menacing Cornwall while Susan Engel and Irene Worth are fine as the manipulative elder sisters.My only real reservation is that the climax of the film is rather rushed, with the numerous deaths needing a little more reflection. The suicide of Goneril is though extremely powerful. Lear's death is always poignant but the direction of it doesn't work completely.Opinions are very mixed on this film but I certainly think it deserves attention. It would especially appeal to followers of Bergman and anyone who is struck by a dark tale.

I have read altogether too many reviews of this film which bash it all to hell because the reviewer doesn't agree with Brook's reading of KING LEAR. To all such folk I would like to say: We Shakespeare fans should positively glory in the fact that every reader (and a fortiori every director) has his or her own interpretation of all the plays. Given Brook's interpretation, the film is wonderful.This version of Shakespeare's greatest tragedy is not only consistent with itself, which most aren't, it is acted to a hilt. The characters are brilliantly portrayed. The interactions between them appear as the absolute and utter epitome of conflict and love, of the heroic and villainous way people act when confronted with a situation that is calculated to freak a human being out.My favorite characterization is that of the Fool, who utterly steals the show and who becomes almost a Greek chorus. The way he interacts with Lear suggests a metaphysical mood of "We know exactly what's going on here, don't we?" The understanding between these two is too deep to be expressed in normal language; in the conversation around "The reason why the seven stars are only seven" (which would have struck any of the other characters, except maybe Kent, as a demented sequence of non sequiturs) suggests that Lear knows, at least at that moment, how the story will turn out, and that his attitude is one of "what is't to leave betimes? Let be." The Fool is here a prophet of absurdity, a Dark Age cross between a Marx Brother and Lenny Bruce.And I challenge anyone to show me any actors who could do Kent and Gloucester better than those who portrayed them in this film. To say nothing of the wonderful job Scofield does with the title role.Brook's Lear is almost sociopathically unfeeling until disaster begins to overtake him. To be sure, this view of Lear is not mine. But again, Shakespeare's characters are topics inexhaustible, and there is no such thing as a Lear to end all Lears. Whether one agrees with Brook or not, he carries his idiosyncratic reading off brilliantly---just as brilliantly as Laurence Olivier and Ian Holm in their utterly un-Brookish TV versions. I say: Let it ride! Let's have as many defensible and indefensible Lears as possible, and let's have them as utterly contradictory of each other as the 1945 and 1991 film versions of Henry the Fifth are.By the way, I am a recent convert to this position. Before I saw the light, I was (for example) utterly ticked off at Kenneth Branagh's film of HAMLET, because it portrayed the Prince as having had sex with Ophelia way back when, and because its Fortinbras was an uncultured creep who dissed Hamlet by tearing down his father's monument. Wasn't it obvious that the text utterly contradicts both notions? Yep! But Branagh would have every right to say to me, "The hell with you, go make your own film." And so would Brook to his critics.See it, friend. I look forward to our friendly argument.

After seeing Paul Scofield's amazing Oscar-winning performance in 'A Man For All Seasons', I was determined that one day I would see the film version of his interpretation of arguably the most challenging stage role of all, that of Shakespeare's King Lear.I was amazed at what I saw in the first half hour. This would have to be the most poorly, even carelessly, directed and edited film I have ever seen.Cuts would be made at bizarre times when the viewer would feel there was more to come from that scene. The camera often seemed unsure of where the actors were and the photography, clearly downbeat in a failed attempt to get the right mood, was frankly pathetic.This can not be down to incompetent direction as Peter Brook is a highly-respected stage director who, although he hasn't set the movie world alight, definitely has the talent to produce polished work.It is obvious that the film is deliberately amateurish but for what reason?This reminded me a great deal of an Andy Warhol film called 'My Hustler' where at one point the camera pans across a beach to focus on a young hustler but can't find him!! The camera kept searching until the subject was in view.However, Warhol was well-known even praised for his amateurish style.Although the technical quality of Lear improved later, the damage had already been done. When viewers are subjected to film-making as technically poor as this, it is very difficult to maintain concentration. Although there was nothing wrong with the acting (Scofield is excellent) the film itself is boring purely because of the way it is directed.As a result, it is difficult to sit through this film and concentrate hard enough to successfully follow it's story. I have never read the play and I know little more about the story after seeing this film version.However, I'm pleased that I've seen it simply because Paul Scofield is without doubt one of the greatest actors of all time. Unfortunately for film fans, he has appeared in very few movies and so any permanent record of his remarkable talent is well worth seeing regardless of the quality of the final product.