King Lear (Great Performances)

Ian McKellan totters into a circle of light and raises his palsied hands to command his court into prostrate submission. McKellan's Lear has a despot's easy authority that effortlessly requires obedience. Aged, infirm and bright-eyed, Lear enjoys humiliating those who doubtless wish him dead so that they may inherit. McKellan's Lear is a sly-suave tyrant - reminiscent of Olivier. There are other fine Lears - the brutally hostile Ian Holm (the boss from hell), James Earl Jones' as a cranky African tribal chief, or Orson Welles' nightmare fury. All are excellent. Welles, Olivier, and McKellan are more cinematic whereas Jones and Holm are filmed versions of stage productions. Welles and Holm provide a strong dose of Sturm und Drang melodrama - the volume is turned up so high, it is hard to tell when catharsis hits. Olivier and McKellan are beautifully acted and nuanced. Jones has an amazing voice and his presence overwhelms the cast - except perhaps Raul Julia's wonderful plotting, evil Edmund.

Of the directors, Trevor Nunn is the best and most experienced interpreter of Shakespeare to cinema. He is faithful to the text, (cuts are logical and keep the action moving) but with contemporary Hollywood fit and finish. It helps that Nunn takes care of details that Shakespeare neglects. For example, he shows us exactly how Goneril poisons Regan. When Lear complains that "my poor fool is hang'd," - it refers to an earlier scene where the Fool is actually strung up.

The part of Lear demands a strong actor who can easily dominate a production. Only Olivier and Nunn balance the King with a strong supporting cast. Appearing opposite Olivier are John Hurt as the brilliantly sarcastic Fool, Leo McKern (Rumpole of the Bailey) as a pompously lecherous Glouster, and Diana Rigg as the blindingly beautiful Regan.

Trevor Nunn's outstanding cast boasts Romola Gerai as a sensual Cordelia - upswept hair, wearing a strapless, white satin, wedding gown, and a simple gold chain necklace, that accents her flawless profile, neck, shoulders, and decolletage. Nunn's inspiration for Cordelia is a mystery, but to me she looks like Sargent's sensational painting of Madame X, with the black dress changed to white. She speaks from the heart, clear-eyed, like a child, rejecting Lear's incestuous demand that his daughters love only him - and pays a price for her honesty. Sylvester McCoy's amazing performance as the bitter fool -who alone speaks truth to power without punishment - rivals John Hurt's. Where Hurt practices wicked satire as a sport, McCoy is a disappointed romantic, his cynicism mixed with sadness.

Once again, Trevor Nunn has created an excellent film version of Shakespeare. If only more of his works were available for north american viewers.

I had the privilege of seeing this production performed live in LA. It was an incredible experience slightly marred by the fact that the concert hall was clearly a larger space than these actors were used to filling with their voices, and for those of us stuck under the balcony, it was not always possible to hear everything over the ambient noises around us. So I was thrilled when I heard that they were taking the production into the studio to trap it for posterity, and I immediately bought the (region free) Blu-Ray edition from the UK.

I don't regret the purchase, but I was somewhat disappointed. Outdoor scenes are all filmed against a blue screen that poorly simulates sky, giving all the outdoor scenes a certain cheese factor. On a stage we suspend our disbelief - the lighting changes and we believe we are now out of doors, but on a screen we expect a little more realism.

Likewise, I found the sets of the stage performance more effective as well. They had a grandeur - and later in the play, a decay - that was really missing from the sets used in the studio. I understand that the studio was aiming for more realism, so you wouldn't have the same backdrop for a whole act when the scenes shift and so on. But they didn't manage to replace the missing set with anything more effective dramatically.

Furthermore, the cinematography was very heavy handed in terms of constantly flashing from one actor's face to another to make sure no reaction is missed. It was at times very jarring. On a stage, one of the interesting dynamics is that each audience member can choose where to focus attention, and so each person walks away with a different experience. Here in an attempt to capture the richness of each scene, the camera tried to show everything, and the result wasn't pleasant. O.K. The camera didn't show EVERYTHING. The infamous scene were Lear strips down is trimmed by the frame of the camera for modesty. So if such things as male nudity bother you, this is a production you can watch with your kids.

But if you get over the cheese factor of the camera work and sets, this is still Trevor Nunn, Ian McKellan and the Royal Shakespeare Company doing their thing. You'll hear Shakespeare's words interpreted and performed with great skill.

This is a superb but ultimately disappointing production of Shakespeare's greatest play. How can it be both? It is superb for several reasons. Ian McKellen is one of the great Shakespearean actors of his generation, and he here delivers a masterful Lear, moving and credible and utterly faithful to the character in the text; if there are a few too many of the familiar McKellen mannerisms, who's to complain--they work as well here as elsewhere. The rest of the acting is at a very high level indeed; there is not a single performance I would fault, and I couldn't say that of any other video "Lear". The dialog has been intelligently edited, and clearly and audibly recorded; for once in a production of Lear there are no "What did he just say?" moments, not even with the Fool's dialog. Logic and clarity are equally evidenced in Trevor Nunn's direction. A small example: in this production, the disappearance of the Fool midway through the play is explained dramatically, as we witness his hanging by forces pursuing Lear, something not in the stage directions and only vaguely supported by the text. It's dramatically satisfying; we need not ask "What happened to him?" Another example: the poisoning of Regan by Goneril occurs on stage, and is thereby made genuinely horrifying instead of being a bit of off-stage melodrama. The initial displeasing of Lear by Cordelia and his instant, irrevocable rage, which are hard to make credible in performance because of the compressed stage-time, are easier to believe in here; they come off as (perhaps) some good-natured teasing gone horribly awry (though I'm not sure that's what was intended, and if so that it is faithful to the text). So why is the production nevertheless disappointing? When a great actor takes on a great character of Shakespeare, we want to come away with something new and great--some new understanding, some new emotion, some new experience of the play which will change forever our relationship to the text. Here, alas, there is nothing new. No new sense of Lear as an individual, as in the Olivier video, or of his relation to his daughters, as in Ian Holm's version. Just a very straightforward, highly competent rendition. Superb, but disappointing.

› Go to Amazon.com to see all 13 reviews  3.9 out of 5 stars