Sam Mendez wonderful production of King Lear in a militarized state. (The fool and Kent converse.)
Note from Mr C:
Our Principal, Mr Don Gardner, shared his memories and insights of many performances of 'King Lear' recalled from his frequent visits to Stratford over the last few decades.
These special classes for HL1 and HL2 presented students with an excellent opportunity to deepen their own understanding of the text and prepare for a 3 hour viewing of the play.
Our HL students have posted their responses to those classes and our visit to the NCPA to attend the screening of Simon Russell Beale's powerful performance in a National Theatre UK Production directed by Sam Mendez. I am posting Mira Tiwari's reflection here to share with teachers and students and our wider audience for this blog. It's a remarkable piece of writing which conveys so much about the play and conveys it all with a strong personal response to Mr Gardner's teaching and the play as performance. It was emailed to me for inclusion in the comments section but I think it deserves a special place here in the main body of the post. Well done Mira! Indeed congratulations to all students who have posted here meaningful and personal responses to this great play. My thanks to Mr Gardner, who inspires us all with his love of Shakespeare and whose vision led to our special assembly to mark the 450th anniversary of Shakespeare's birthday in April 2014
Comment from MIRA TIWARI.
During a recent English class Mr. Gardner suddenly burst out
“King Lear!” and proceeded to ask us, wide-eyed and wholeheartedly, “Can you imagine some
people live their whole lives without ever experiencing King Lear?”
At the time, we all exchanged looks and giggles, well aware
of Mr. Gardner’s appreciation of the play and of Shakespeare but unable to
place so much life-changing importance on the little book. Now, a few
weeks later, I have paused to think what my life would be like without King
Lear and I realise (or rather, am beginning to realise) the effect such a play
can have.
Reading the play and studying it in class already made me
enjoy it – the characters’ developments, the connections with people I know,
the snide little insults, the poignant monologues and the passages of touching
description. But a play has the feature (both an advantage and a disadvantage)
or lacking much explicit description. If novels lend themselves to the reader’s
imagination, plays rely on it almost exclusively. Personally, my imagination is
incapable of conjuring up too much at one time; either I am picturing Goneril’s
face and King Lear’s reaction, or the stage directions and the movements of the
background characters, but rarely, if ever, both at the same time. In addition,
Shakespeare’s language is not the most accessible, especially for beginners,
and the often strange use of punctuation can make it even more difficult to
decipher who is being addressed, when, and where some phrases end and others
begin. Watching the National Theatre’s production of King Lear helped with all
of these problems: it clarified the situations, it strengthened the characters,
it emphasised the language and it brought the play to life.
Certain things surprised me, perhaps above all Act I Scene I
– ironic, because this is the scene we studied the most. I didn't anticipate
such a cold, distant setup onstage, dictatorial with the microphones and tall
chairs. I imagined something slightly more active, with a certain amount of
familial closeness. But perhaps this was just a preconception created by the
cover of our copy of King Lear, which shows a bright painting of Lear holding
Cordelia in his arms. I came later to realise that Sam Mendes’ interpretation
was actually rather appropriate, because it was this militarism and strictness
that helped enable Goneril and Regan to orchestrate Lear’s eventual
downfall.
Regan’s character also surprised me, even though Mr. Gardner
had already told us about her sensual and playful portrayal. At first it seemed
incongruous in Act I Scene I, coupled with an unexpected playfulness from Lear
too. But as the play progressed I understood the relationship Sam Mendes had
created, one of Regan being “Daddy’s girl” insofar as it benefited her, leaving
Lear with a false sense of security and daughterly love. Regan essentially had
Lear wrapped around her finger, which served to emphasise Goneril’s
comparatively ‘real’ interactions and Cordelia’s almost idyllic but initially
under-appreciated relationship with her father. Goneril was so accurate in her
expressions and speeches that she made me at times sympathetic with her,
understanding of the chaos taking over her home. Edmund was extremely powerful,
sweeping the audience up in his monologues and pulling them, if only
momentarily, on to his side. He captured the manipulation and the eloquent
monologues, such that I went from being engrossed in his latest plan to being
moved by his speech about astrology. I agree with what Sam Mendes said about
Simon Russell Beale being better suited to acting a kinder part, as I
particularly enjoyed the later part of the play, when King Lear gets
increasingly madder. Beale really managed to bring out the most delicate
nuances, from a little gasp caught in his throat, to a fearful daze in his
eyes, to the compulsive rubbing of his knee, to whispered words, sometimes of
worry and at other times of reassurance. He took the audience into Lear’s mind
and transformed himself entirely into a devastated, hopeful, neglected, loved,
conscious, mad and desperate father and King.
Before watching the play I didn’t have much of an
understanding of Kent and the Fool, but seeing them as real people instantly
changed that, making them two of my favourites. Things like accent, dances and
facial expressions made them rather enjoyable and I think they helped tie the
play together through their moving, intimate bond with Lear. Similarly,
Edgar/poor Tom was vibrantly acted, highlighting and giving him the
significance his character deserves and making the ending all the more
effective. I finally understand what people mean when they say “Shakespeare is
modern.” because so many of the lines of the play have resonated with me,
especially after watching it. I find myself connecting real personalities,
relating it to movies, books and TOK. And, whether I’m studying logarithms in
maths or DNA in biology, I can’t even read the word ‘base’ anymore without
replaying “With base? with baseness? bastardy? base, base?” in my head. Posted by Mira Tiwari.
SIMON RUSSELL BEALE conveyed the majesty and the tragedy of Lear's downfall.
STUDENT REFLECTIONS ON THE PERFORMANCE SHOULD BE POSTED HERE BY TUESDAY JUNE 3RD. 300 - 400 WORDS MINIMUM PLEASE.
William Shakespeare is a renowned writer right from the 16th century. His plays, sonnets and writings are eternal and prevalent through the ages. One such play that depicts themes and emotions that continue to be an integral part of our society is King Lear. King Lear is a play that portrays power, pride and betrayal. It is a play that highlights the repercussions of lust, passion, pride, and ego.
ReplyDeleteVarious productions and performances have been held to capture the mere essence of ‘King Lear’ and out of all these productions one that struck out was the production of ‘King Lear’ by the National Theatre in London.
On 30th May, the screening of this production was held at NCPA, which was welcomed by a packed theatre. With much excitement and intrigue the play commenced at 6.30 pm.
What makes ‘King Lear’ a significant and brilliant play is the character of ‘King Lear’ himself. Simon Russell Beale embodied this vibrant and powerful character. The role of King Lear isn’t an easy or simple task however Simon Beale managed to represent it brilliantly; right from Act 1, Scene 1, where his anger gradually had to increase to the final scene where the grief of Cordelia’s death was too much to handle, he delivered it beautifully. A particular scene that stood out from the rest was the scene where King Lear was out in the storm – Simon represented the agony, insanity, and sheer misery in the most graceful yet impactful way possible. In addition to this, he also exhibited King Lear’s emotions through the scenes accurately and coinciding with the rest of the play.
Another aspect of the play that was particularly striking and impactful were the characters of Goneril and Regan played by Kate Fleetwood and Anna Maxwell Martin. Goneril and Regan are vile, manipulative, and shrewd and these characteristics were perfectly depicted by Kate and Anna. Act 1, Scene 2 was the scene where they plotted and schemed against their father and mutually agreed on overpowering his decision. In this production the crafty and cunning endeavors were shown by their expressions and delivery of speech.
Lastly, the most predominant and impressive part of the play was the modern outlook and modern touch that was there in the costumes; from Lear in a suit to Cordelia in a dress; it managed to integrate it beautifully with Shakespearean era. The fact that the costumes were modern also illustrated the significance of these emotions and themes in today’s times.
All in all, the screening of ‘King Lear’ was entertaining and interesting. To study a play and watch a depiction of it helps in understanding the text further and this screening definitely did that. ‘King Lear’ portrayed by the National Theatre in London managed to entertain not a few but more than 35 teenagers on a Friday night, which makes the excellence of this play self explanatory.
- Mahima Dhoot
I was really interested to see how the screening of King Lear would be set in a modern context, especially due to the modern costume. I think that not only did it allow the modernity of the play to become more accessible to the audience, but also allowed some subtleties of the characters to really come through.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, the relationships amongst the characters all seemed so much more nuanced- I was interested to see the relationship between Regan and Lear, which in the play would not be as significant, but the screening put it into a completely different context. When Regan professes her love for her father, the satisfied smirk on Lear’s face was so subtle and quick that one would have missed it. It was a smile of confirmation; Lear knew that Regan had a soft spot for him, or atleast, behaved as she did, and his smirk was the approval of her words. Their relationship is seen in a different context as well: in the play, one cannot discern the real emotions that pass amongst Lear, Goneril and Regan, while Cordelia’s relationship with Lear is evident enough. However, I liked the playful twist in their relationship; it creates another nuance in Regan’s character; in the screening, she becomes Daddy’s girl, who sits on her father’s lap and who is patted on the rear in approval. This is further cemented by the fact that she is the only one who got up and walked over to him while declaring her love. This perhaps, explains why Lear, in Act One Scene Four, claims so easily that “I have another daughter”, after Goneril humiliates him. His playful, and perhaps childish relationship with Regan creates for Lear a trust in her, and the confidence that Regan can honor him the way that Goneril, though respected as she is the eldest, did not, and could not, since she is obviously not Lear’s favorite.
I enjoyed watching the relationship between the Fool and Lear as well: while Lear constantly humors the Fool’s jibes, he also, in the screening, seems to have formed a deep attachment to the Fool. His interactions with the Fool seem as though perhaps Lear feels that he can only depend on the Fool- a man who puts his ego and pride aside, and makes a literal fool out of himself to gently chide a headstrong and egotistic King. This juxtaposition of characters further enhances their relationship. The Fool is perhaps the only one, apart from Cordelia and Kent to an extent, to allow Lear his flaws and follies, and still accept them without judgment. The Fool does pass judgment, however, but does so in his own way, without ever making the King feel alone. The two seem to have a deep bond- one that was especially characterized by a touching scene in the screening, when the two embrace, the Fool patting Lear’s head as though Lear were a child, and the Fool his parent. Even the tragic scene when Lear bludgeons the Fool to death in the Mock Trial of Goneril and Regan is extremely painful- Lear’s miserable shock when he realizes that the Fool is dead is almost too sad to watch. One pities Lear especially in that particular scene.
Finally, I found that Edmund, Kent, the Fool and Regan were perhaps my favorite characters in the screening- their subtlety pulled the entire play together. The perfect, simpering-sweet, yet shrewd character of Regan, the eloquence and madness of Edmund, the heartwarming portrayal of the Fool and the burly, yet benevolent Kent were all beautifully nuanced characters. They are all characters that would perhaps be overlooked in lieu of Cordelia, Lear or Gloucester, but are in a way, the facilitators of some of the most significant aspects of the play.
KING LEAR PERFORMANCE
ReplyDelete-Anandita Goenka.
I really enjoyed the King Lear play performance at the NCPA.The costumes,stage directions, and the characters played by the actors,particularly King Lear by Simon Russell Beale were brilliant.I was pleasantly surprised at the wardrobe of the ensemble,since I did not expect it to be so modern.The ladies (Reagen and Cordelia) wore knee length dresses ,while the men wore formal suits.Since it was a Shakespearen play,I had expected that the characters would be dressed in traditional archaic clothing, like the women would be wearing long and heavy gowns.The actors were dressed in such a contemporary manner,it felt as though the play was set in present day time.I believe the purpose of the attire style,was to convey the message, that some scenarios in the play, are highly relevant even today i.e.they yet occur.For instance, some parents are like Lear, and prefer/love one of their child more than the other,or one brother(like Edmund) conspires against the other,to acquire more land/money/property.The characters’ modern dressing style and their traditional Shakespearean dialect was a contrasting element,which I found very interesting.This element skilfully maintained the balance in the play i.e. not making it too traditional or too modern.In addition,this balance made the play more appealing and relatable for the younger generations.
I particularly liked the performance of the actress who played Reagen. Her character was played in such a manner that it exuded confidence and a strong sense of sexuality.The actress wore a black lace dress which amplified her sensual characteristics.I found it interesting ,when Reagen used her sexuality to ‘mentally seduce’ some characters.She used this sensual power to manipulate characters so that she would benefit.For instance,she would ‘tease’ Lear, hoping that he would give her more land,than her two sisters.Also she managed to manipulate Oswald(Gonoreil’s most loyal servant) into giving her a vital letter, by flirting with him.
After watching the play,I thought Simon was perfect as King Lear’s counterpart.He managed to play the part exceptionally,and matched up to Lear’s description as being a ‘foolish fond old man.’ At several instances in the play,Lear showed his ‘folly’.In the scene when Cordelia proclaimed her love for Lear,by simply stating ‘nothing’,Lear was infuriated and acted out in a rather foolish manner. By acting overenthusiastic,eccentric and a little wacky,Russell Beale managed to do justice to Lear’s foolish character.Moreover,when he was hit by bouts of madness,the audience realised that he was a victim of old age.Also,when Cordelia died and Lear was in tears, he fabricated the idea that he was a ‘fond’ old man,and even the audience felt sympathy towards him.
King Lear is a powerful play with characters that bring to light the various human emotions. Cordelia represents simplicity whereas Goneril and Regan symbolize greed and deceit. The play helped put in perspective the way things actually took place and to visually imagine the scene. The modern perspective on Shakespeare’s play is a stark contrast to something that one would expect out of a performance of King Lear. The play as a whole is wonderfully directed with a tide of emotions in every scene. The storm scene when King Lear is out on the heath was interesting to watch as it was beautifully constructed with the help of both visual and aural mediums. At the end of every scene there was a loud sound that was indicative of the end of the scene. This sound was such that it gave a feeling of suspense at the closing of each scene. The plucking out of Gloucester’s eyes was strategically created. It made the audience feel the gruesomeness of the act taking place without actually witnessing the brutality. The modern approach with all the men in suits and women in dresses was a little disappointing as it does not give the audience the full Shakespearean experience. The opulence of the court and the Court’s clothing, the motley of the fool and the royal gowns were all crucial elements that were lacking in this production. Less modern attire would have made the play more enjoyable. The modern twist of Regan’s flirtatious relationship with her father is in fact a nice surprise. The exit of the fool from the play is startling. Although at the same time it is brilliant as it brings out Lear’s madness and his anger. It is what shows the audience that Lear is starting to loose control over both his mind and body. Every scene of the play has been intricately thought through. The details that this production brings out are what made it a magnificent experience.
ReplyDeleteThe play was very different from what I expected it to be – I was somewhat surprised by the modern-day setting of the play, especially in the in first scene in the courtroom where there were tables, chairs, and even microphones! Personally, I would have preferred if the play was not set in such a modern age; I always relate the plays as having an old-fashioned, sixteenth century kind of setting.
ReplyDeleteI was also surprised by Lear’s dramatic overturning of furniture, when Cordelia refused to give into his plea for flattery. While reading the play I had imagined that Lear would display his anger by raising his voice and through harsh words, I had never imagined him to show his rage so outwardly, through destructive gestures. Thus watching the play gave me new insights about the characters. Visually seeing it, instead of simply reading it, was also helpful because it put everything into context.
Lear was put in the predicament due to his own actions and unwise decision to dissolve his kingdom, further exacerbated by his rash decision to disown Cordelia. Despite this, I found that Lear still managed to elicit sympathy from the audience due to his pitiable and desperate situation when he is, to his surprise, rejected by both his daughters and forced to brave the storm half-naked. In the blink of an eye, the audience can see how tables turn so quickly, as Lear faces the transformation from being the revered King, to a poor, old, rejected man. Simon Russell Beale, with his short, stubby mien, interpreted King Lear’s role fantastically. He displayed the symptoms of slight dementia with his waddle-like walk, his twitchy hand movements, and erratic behavior. Through the dialogue in which Lear would have sudden revelations of his folly, the audience was subject to Lear’s journey to self-knowledge and introspection, revealing how humans can actually change and evolve.
I particularly enjoyed the part when Regan and Cornwall taunt Gloucester and pluck his eyes out. Though extremely gruesome, it was a really powerful scene and it revealed how man can have absolutely no sympathy. Through the play, Regan’s sexual innuendos also became apparent, from the way she would behave with her father, to the way she dressed and carried herself around. I also enjoyed the Dover cliff incident, where poor Tom wittily pretends to be a random man on the beach and fools Gloucester into thinking that his attempt to commit suicide was interrupted because he was carried down to earth by angels.
I loved Edmund’s character too. His soliloquy, when he made it obvious that he was planning the downfall of his brother, gave insight into his cunning and plotting mind, and also gave rise to a lot of intrigue and expectation. I understood the value of soliloquys through this play, as a method for the audience to be privy to the inner-most thoughts of the character and for the character to communicate directly with the audience. Soliloquys break the ‘fourth wall’, and even try and elicit sympathy from cruel-minded characters.
Overall, I really enjoyed the play. However, having been to Stratford and having watched a live performance of Julius Caesar by the RSC, I found that, naturally, the film-version was not as gripping as a live performance would have been. Still, I feel like it was worth the long hours because it gave me a clearer, more holistic picture of the play, and helped to further my understanding of the characters and the events that unfold in the play.
‘King Lear’ by William Shakespeare is a play that focuses on the themes of betrayal, justice, madness and authority. It is one of Shakespeare’s tragedies. I was fortunate to watch the play of King Lear that was performed at the National Theatre in London. The play was enacted brilliantly. As we had knowledge about the play, it made it enjoyable to follow as we could match up to the Shakespearian tongue that was spoken with ease by the actors.
ReplyDeleteThe famous Simon Russell Beale played King Lear. In my opinion, he was simply fantastic. He was full of energy and did not lose my attention even once. From the very start of the play, when he asks his daughters to tell him how much they love him, the modernization of the court scene was portrayed brilliantly. I liked the fact that his back was facing the audience; I thought it could symbolize power. The transition of his character from being the King, and having all the domination and control to becoming a complete wreck could not have been acted out better. The way he showed pride, affection, anger and madness was simply marvelous. I actually felt sympathetic towards Lear at the end of the play, when he is with his daughter Cordelia.
The play in general was modernized. The costumes were not Elizabethan. The daughters could represent any three girls from even this age. I really enjoyed this modernization as it gave a slight twist to the play but still kept the story more intact than ever. All of the actors were brilliant. When Gloucester was getting his eyeballs plucked out, I felt as if it was happening in front of me. The evil and manipulative personalities of Goneril and Regan were depicted perfectly by the talented actresses.
As I have seen Titus Andronicus at Stratford, I knew how good the production was going to be. But somehow, as always, Shakespeare’s performances tend to exceed ones expectations.
At first, I was skeptical whether this three and a half hour rendition of King Lear would do justice to my Friday evening, and when I thought about the modern adaptation this play would have, different ideas skimmed my mind, but none came close to the way this version of King Lear was staged. Not only was it worth all three hours, but also helped me understand the play at a more detailed level by helping us visualize the plot.
ReplyDeleteKing Lear is one of Shakespeare’s most sought out plays, with a vast range of emotions displayed through all the characters. And this range was clearly reflected in the play we saw on Friday. I thought Russel Beale played a magnetic king Lear that was able to transform himself from an old tyrant to a helpless beggar to a mourning father with such ease that it felt almost natural. Being a theatre student myself, I am familiar with the difficulties posed to an actor to perform such demanding roles. However, Russel Beale was able to captivate me and help me draw parallels to the text of king Lear we studied in school.
I felt the modernity of the play was rather unique, unlike the picture normally one would paint when we think of any modernized Shakespearean play. The presence of the enormous ensemble of black-clad soldiers gives a menacing atmosphere from the very start of the play. The first scene was particularly most memorable when I think back, in which the identity of each sister was vividly personified. I felt Anna Maxwell-Martin played Regan in a way I would have never imagined Regan’s character to be – a rather mischievous and flirtatious daughter.
All in all, I thought the play was displayed in a very versatile and out-of-the-box style.
The scale allowed all the play’s numerous relationships room to breathe; it is gloomy, but it is still very human.
King Lear reflection
ReplyDeleteKing Lear is one Shakespeare’s most powerful plays. It has been re-enacted hundreds of times all around the world, yet, as we learned from Mr Gardener, every rendition has is different. The National Theatre version that we watched at NCPA paid special attention to the political aspect of the play. What I particularly liked was the fact that the play was set in modern, 21st century era, something very uncommon in Shakespearean plays. Nonetheless, the entire script was the original, which simply laid emphasis on the fact that Shakespeare’s plays are timeless and still relevant today.
Personally, I felt that Simon Russell Beale portrayed the part of King Lear wonderfully. He managed to invoke sympathy in the audience to such an extent, that throughout the play I was thinking “poor old man” and “how could they do this to him”. His powerful portrayal, which incorporated Lear’s every emotion and action to the smallest detail, served to highlight the magnitude of wrongdoing in the other characters. His ability to completely transform from the arrogant, loud Lear at the start to the fumbling, defeated Lear at the end was remarkable- he seemed like a whole new person.
Another interesting element was the portrayal of the two sisters, Goneril and Reagan. While reading the play, I thought of the two of them as one, “the bad guys”. However, in the rendition we watched they couldn’t have been more different. Although both were despicable, Goneril was portrayed as more cold and sinister, while Reagan feisty and seductive. The distinction between the two sisters made small elements in the play come alive. For example, because Reagan very openly displays her love for Lear at the beginning, when she thoughtlessly turns him down, he is taken aback. According to me, this is the point after which he truly begins to go mad.
I always enjoy watching movies after reading books as they help give substance to the penned ideas. After watching the play, the script made more sense and allowed me to visualise every scene vivdly.
King Lear is a play that captures the true essence of human nature and its frequent but inexorable downfalls. The theme of appearance versus reality lingers through out the play, and was clearly represented in Sam Mendes’ direction of King Lear. This performance looks at Shakespeare’s King Lear through a political perspective, which for me shed a whole new light on the play.
ReplyDeleteThe play commences with Lear's division of his kingdom and is not some indolent whim but a huge public ceremony executed by a man who seems to be representative of a military dictator. The modern approach to the play honed my understanding of this political perspective and I was especially captivated by the stage setting during the first scene of the play. Instead of the typically imagined courtroom setting, an entourage of extras assembled in a line at the back of the stage. This dearth of ‘courtiers’ adds to King Lear’s sense of humiliation and indignation when the disobedient Cordelia, played by Olivia Vinall, refuses to play the game set by Lear. Cordelia's refusal to play the game during this performance sounded like a principled protest against a regime based on conformism and flattery and thus, reminded me of a dictatorial regime. The play could easily represent a present day totalitarian state wherein Lear, as the dictator is simply attempting to flatter his ego. Interestingly, I also noticed the length of the pause Cordelia took before replying to Lear with the momentous word ‘nothing’, thus thwarting his will. In order to reinstate his power after the humiliation, Russell Beale's derogatory Lear humiliates Cordelia by forcing her to stand on a chair before she is rescued by the French king. Furthermore, Adrian Scarborough's Fool, who squats downstage serves the role of a prospective onlooker through out this scene, quickly descends towards the solicitous Cordelia before she is banished. Although this scene is filled with epic, it has a magical touch of intricate detail.
The first scene, like all the other scenes in the play, captures the main essence Shakespeare was trying to convey through the use of intricate human detail. The three-hour performance was especially brilliant because of Russell Beale’s interpretation of Lear. A mixture of epic and intimacy runs right through the production and is extremely compelling.
At first, I was not exactly overjoyed when I heard that we would watch yet another re-enactment of King Lear. However, when the play began, I realized that this version was incredibly unique.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, the actors’ costumes were somewhat of an anachronism. I, ofcourse, expected them to be dressed in robes which would suit the Shakespearean era, I was therefore surprised to see them in the clothes of today’s day and age. I believe that this was done to make the play appear more relatable and perhaps less daunting to those who find Shakespeare’s words abstruse.
The acting was phenomenal as well. I truly appreciated Simon Russel Beale’s dedication to his role. We were even shown a short clip which gave us a glipse into the research and practice that went into perfecting his character of Lear. For instance, as Beale believed Lear had a disease, he would constantly twitch and move his hands frantically throughout the play in order to truly get into character. The delivery of his lines was impeccable. Although, I may not have completely understood each and every line that Shakespeare wrote, Beale’s delivery gave me an insight into Lear’s personality and emotions.
My favourite character, after watching the play, was Edgar. This was ofcourse because of Tom Brooke’s amazing depiction of him. It is incredible how each actor, especially Tom Brooke took the words Shakespeare had written down, and made each character their own simply by their expressions, costumes and delivery of lines. I found Edgar to be the most interesting as although he became poor Tom, his always remained loyal to his father, Gloucester, who had treated him horribly. I believed Brooke captured Edgar’s very essence of goodness, while also portraying his intriguing ‘mad’ side.
As the play ended, I found that my perspective on many of the characters had changed all because of the way in which the actors had portrayed them.
Tanisha Avarsekar
ReplyDeleteSam Mendes’s King Lear, was a production so exceptional, that it made the punishing running time of three and a half hours more than worth it. The casting was dead on, and one of the highlights of the production was the firm establishing of the distinctive personalities of all the characters.
The setting of the action in present times, with the help of modern costume, props and set design, made the play more relatable and easy to understand and watch for me. The inclusion of a tall almost Stalin-esque statue of Lear, on the center of the stage, also gave away the tyrannical way in which he ran the state.
The costumes played an integral role in the brilliance of the production for me. Regan’s vampish, character, starkly contrasted against Gonerill’s more austere and aloof personality in the beginning of the play; became very plain to me, because of Regan’s revealing, wardrobe made mostly of lacey and silky texture, and Gonerill’s formal, more mature way of dressing. The colors both of them were clad in on stage were almost always dark and metallic, which reinforced their baseness to me.
Following his madness, Lear’s seen on stage for a while in his white undergarments, and after Cordelia’s discovery of him in white and blue pajamas. I found this usage of white, very symbolic of innocence. Cordelia’s military costume when she returns to Britain to find her father, are a huge contrast from her initial more feminine costume, and to me appeared to show the shifts she makes in her peace-loving personality, in order to help her father.
An aspect of the book which the play captured, and which I hadn’t thought of before, was the nymphomaniac aspect of Regan’s character. In the production, she appears almost sexually aroused from all the violence around her, especially in the scene where Cornwall pulls out Gloucester’s eyes. The play also hints at a slightly Freudian relationship between Regan and Lear. Especially in the first scene, when he spanks her butt.
Mendes also portrays Lear’s oscillation between rage and frenzy perfectly in the first scene, when he starts upturning the furniture. There is almost s kind off despotic madness in the act, which results from a simple insubordination on Cordelia’s part.
While the direction of the play was phenomenal, I think the remarkable performances by each and every cast member, played a huge role in making this emotionally demanding play, so gripping and moving.
(409 words)
When I was told, that I would be watching yet another production of King Lear I wasn’t ecstatic about it, I would have rather been snacking away on chips and watching a high school soap opera. However after watching this production, I was glad I watched the entire production without falling asleep even for a nano second, so I dint miss any of the brilliant acting.
ReplyDeleteI was quite shocked when I first saw the skimpy costumes in this play and the use of modern technology like microphones (perhaps to boost his ego), I didn’t expect the play to have such a modern setting. However Sam Mendes still had the original script of the play, this reinforced the timelessness of Shakespeare and his plays.
What was most striking about this play for me was the diverse feelings it made me feel in three and a half hours, In the beginning of the play I felt anger at Lear, and sympathy for Cordelia, and hate for the two evil sisters. However later, the anger turned to sympathy, the sympathy to awe and the hate to disgust. As a theatre student I understand how difficult it is to change the feelings of the audience towards the actors and most the actors in this production managed to do so.
Through the actions on stage, I could analyze the state of mind the character would have been in, the overturning of furniture was perhaps a symptom of his mental health. The need for his 100 knights shows us his need for constant approval and reassurance. The deserting of the former King by sneaking off stage through the central aisle suggests how powerless he became after giving up his crown. By actually viewing these actions on stage instead of visualizing them, gave the script context.
The screening helped me distinguish between the characters of Regan and Goneril. While reading the text I imaged them as the two evil stepsisters of Cinderella however after watching the pay I see them as two different characters. In this production Goneril was portrayed to be sinister, cold however elegant and Regan to be seductive and fierce. The costumes of these characters helped convey their varying personalities to the audience, Goneril was always dressed in high necks and pearls and Regan in skimpy lace and low necks.
Watching the screening of the play after reading the text was more enriching for me as I found it easy to follow the storyline of the play. After watching the screening and re-reading the script I could visualize each emotion on every characters on stage. That is when I realized that the play was brilliant enough to leave a mark on me even after leaving the four walls of the NCPA.
King Lear is one of Shakespeare’s most powerful plays. Dealing with issues that are true to human nature, much like many of his other works, it has stood the challenge of time. The intricate and complex relations between the various characters are integral in forming our perception of the play and The National Theatres and Sam Mendes was one that was certainly unexpected for me. Throughout the play, there is the sense that we are not Lear’s only audience. This is huge production with theatrics unmatched by any other performance of this play I have seen (debatable to whether this is a good thing or not). Set in a modern totalitarian government, King Lear portrays an egotistical dictator who is dealing with old age and a deteriorating mental state.
ReplyDeleteSimon Russell Beale was the actor chosen to play Lear. Although he did a very good job in portraying King Lear in Sam Mendez’s version of this play, I feel like nature is against him. The whole concept of Lear is a powerful, dominant old man but standing at a meager 5”6 being only 53 years old I do not feel that he was old enough or dominant enough to play the dominating Lear in the first play of the play. Sir Ian Mckellen standing at an impressive 5”10 and being around 20 years older seemed to be a better fit for this role as witnessed in 2008. This being said there is more to admire than decry in Simon Russell Beale’s performance movingly captures Lear’s terrified intimations of madness. His insanity is often harrowing to watch and his final scenes, dressed in a hospital gown and gradually coming to his senses before the devastating death of Cordelia (a deeply moving Olivia Vinall) are beautifully achieved. The relation between him and the fool is also something complex and special about this play. His fool is someone he laughs at but it is easily perceived that he has a sense of respect and love for his fool more like a friend than a follower.
Regan and Goneril were also distinctly divided into two separate characters, which some directors do not achieve and Edgar’s performance was immaculate. The National Theaters performance was brilliant in its own sense but I feel it lacks when compared to BBC’s or Ian Mckellens version of this titanic masterpiece perceived by Shakespeare.
On Friday May, the 30 th we went to watch a screening of King Lear at the NCPA by Sam Mendes. The play was exceptionally unique and entertaining to watch
ReplyDeleteespecially as the role of King Lear was carried out by Simon Russel Beale. He fits the role perfectly with his large head and stout body that exude a sense of superiority. His acting, which was accentuated by bouts of madness and eccentricity just made him more perfect for the role .
The prevalent themes in the play are betrayal and power which were brought out through this production magnificently.
Another aspect that I found very interesting were the way the costumes were made to fit into the modern context as this made the play more apt for people in today’s day and age. I had originally thought that the characters would dress up to fit into the Shakespearan era but to my surprise the men were dressed in formal suits and the women in knee length dresses. This aspect helped make the play more relatable to me.
In every scene, there was a storm of emotions and it left you with a feeling of suspense and excitement. Reading the book helped form a rough character sketch of the characters in my mind but once I saw the play I began having new opinions and formed a new perspective.
Two scenes we had discussed quite a bit in class were the exile of Cordelia, and the plucking out of Gloucester’s eyes . The way these scenes were encacted in the play was commendable and now they will remain etched in my mind. The way the noble King suddenly has a mood change when his favourite daughter has no words of love to express for him was depicted extremely well and I felt a sense of guilt and rgret as Lear exiled Cordelia. Even the plucking out of Gloucester’s eyes was so gory and the make-up was exceptionally good that it looked realistic .
Originally , I was skeptic about the play as I thought it being displayed on the screen and not performed live would ruin the thrill . It was extremley versatile and gripping and made spending three hours on a Friday night worthwhile.
King Lear, a Shakespearean play that has become reasonably famous in the past century. The idea of seeing the downfall of a King, a person so authoritative and powerful is remarkably strange. Furthermore the universality of the idea of the collapse of an important person is quite recurring. The beauty of the play is that you can connect it to any era. Last Friday, on the 30th of May, we saw a screening of King Lear, which was held at NCPA.
ReplyDeleteThis was a National Theatre Live production and was directed by Sam Mendes, and Simon Russell Beale played the role of Lear. This production was the first of its kind, as the play seemed to be set in the 20th century; it did come of us as a bit unorthodox. My first impression of the modern clothing was how long would I be able to last watching King Lear in a leather jacket. But as time progressed I was captivated by setting and the way in which Lear appeared to be a dictator more than a king.
Simon Russell Beale’s acting was justly commendable; especially the part where Lear’s dementia is visible to the audience which was truly captivating. But according to me Simon Russell Beale didn’t exhibit the prowess and the almost fearful vibe that a King is meant to set. Additionally, this could be significantly because of his physical incapacities. However with his diminutive body Simon Russell Beale had an excellent stage presence.
The relationship between Lear and his daughter Regan to a large extent was astounding. They created a moderately sensual atmosphere and it hinted that Lear might have a slightly steamier relationship than an average father and daughter.
Sam Mendes and Simon Russell Beale’s production of King Lear was worth the wait. Every scene throughout the play was filled with an intimate sense of detail. The perfection of the diction and command over the dialogues had me fixated. The classroom discussions conducted came to live through the characters and stage directions. It was interesting to see a transformation in Lear’s character through the play. In the beginning Russell Beale is portrayed as a bullet-headed father who humiliates his daughter to praise him. Lear puts his favorite daughter, Cordelia on a pedestal that adds to detail and shows the audience how high he thinks of her. To add to the pressure and depth of the scene extras are used and lined up at the end of the Japanese style ‘Hanamichi’ or runway. Russell Beale depicts a more unorthodox Lear in The National Theatre Live performance. His portrayal of Lear as a short stern aggressive man proves why he is best for the role. The first scene rotates around the harsh decisions made in a hurry as compared to rational ones.
ReplyDeleteThe stage directions used in the play are brilliant. The stage is used to show the turning wheel of Fortune, as the stage rotates so does Lear’s fortune. Kate Fleetwoods quietly venomous Goneril and Anna Martin’s extrovert and cruel Regan show this through the treatment towards their father. Brutality is also depicted in the play by the acting backed up by the detailed work of the make up artists. In the play like Lear, Gloucester is also tricked by his children and has his eyes forcefully taken out in his own cellar.
Loosing interest in the play was difficult as every scene had a unique factor that had been experimented this was the main reason why the play had my attention gravitated because never had I experienced such a performance which was a perfect amalgamation of human detail and quality.
On the 30th of May, we went to watch a screening of King Lear at the NCPA. It was a National Theatre Live Production that was directed by Sam Mendes. Sam Mendes’ production of the play set it in present times while still using the original script! This suggests that plays like King Lear are ageless and the problems portrayed are still so relevant today. The use of modern costumes, sets and props helped make the play more relatable.
ReplyDeleteSimon Russell Beale’s portrayal of King Lear was spot on. He has all the aspects of a dictator and strides around pompously in the first scene of the play. Yet as his character transforms over the course of the play, so does Russell Beale’s portrayal of Lear. Russell Beale portrayal of senseless Lear waddling about in his underpants during the storm, adds a moment of comedy to this somber play.
This production excels in its portrayal of Reagan and Gonerill. It starkly contrasts each character, which was something I felt that other productions failed at. Gonerill was portrayed as a more formal and detached character. This is exemplified by her more formal almost business looking attire. Reagan was characterised as being more seductive, which was especially evident by her more revealing and silky clothing. Reagan seemed almost to find pleasure during the scene where Gloucester’s eyes are plucked out.
I feel the storm scene was the most interesting to watch. Being one of the hardest scenes to depict to the audience, this production handled it brilliantly. The storm was constructed using visual and aural aid. Here, Russell Beale shone as an actor. He voiced Lear’s agony brilliantly, while using body language in the form of his shuffle-like walk and twitching hand movements to depict Lear’s insanity.
Overall, I really enjoyed the play. The National Theatres production was captivating through most of its three and a half hour run time. Seeing Shakespeare being performed in a modern setting made it more enjoyable than the BBC and Ian McKellen counterparts.
At first I was reluctant to watch the National Theatres live screening of Shakespeare’s King Lear. However ten minutes into the play I was deeply engrossed in the play, attempting to draw a similarity between the old version of Jonathan Miller and this new version presented by Sam Mendes using the original text.
ReplyDeleteLear enacted by Simon Russell Beale was according to me the apt choice for the role. However he lacked the certain force in his voice as compared
Michael Hordern. I was also slightly taken aback looking at the dressing style of the characters in the play. Looking at the Jonathan Miller version it looked more real the way the characters were dressed and added to the authenticity of the play. This modern version was really different and it took a while before I could be concentrating on the play.
I really found the modern stage directions much more captivating than the previous versions of the play I had watched. Probably due to the usage of modern technology. However the improvisations throughout the play were really eye-catching. They made the long play more enjoyable and interesting and kept me engaged till the very end. The usage of some songs was a prime example of the improvisations in the play.
I believe that the fool made an integral contribution to make the play more engaging, compared to the previous version the fool was more boring in comparison to the version we saw. He added more humor the acts making the play accessible to the audience. The play is a tragedy and it was sad to see very little violence, except for the scene where Gloucester has his eyes plucked out. There was very little violence and the death of most of the characters was shown in an amateurish manner.
The play also stressed more on the political aspects like for an instance the presence of Lear’s statue on the stage. It also made an attempt to convey the loyalty of certain characters. For example I was really appealed by Kent, his way of dressing and the tone of his voice made him apt for his role.
After watching this version of King Lear I was really delighted and probably shall find it difficult to watch another interpretation and direction of the same play. There was continuity and coherence amongst the human acting and stage directions.
The National Theater production of King Lear directed by Sam Mendes was exceptional. Simon Russell Beale stared as King Lear. It was obvious that he had researched heavily for the role of King Lear, with the depiction of the Parkinson’s hand and often used silent laugh. The blatant dementia coupled with flashing rage and unfinished sentences with instantaneous decision-making. Simon Russell Beale portrayed the King’s actions to be based upon emotion rather than reason and logic, as both of those qualities seemed to evade the aged Lear. Also he was able to show how with age comes a sort of naive hedonistic attitude, one which a ruler should never posses. The play itself raises the question of governance of a country and whether or not political power should ever be dissolved before ones death. However I felt that Shakespeare subtly raised the question of whether a monarchy itself is the most fitted way to govern a country and I feel that this play further exaggerated on that question. Clearly the decisions Lear (portrayed as a dictator) made were not in the best interests of the country. This was evident in the opening scene, his clothes, cold and firm actions and movements and though process.
ReplyDeleteWhat made this rendition of King Lear extraordinary was how it differentiated itself from other versions and its adaption and interpretation of the original text. This play unlike others emphasized more on the political aspect of King Lear, however Beale’s acting brought in the human elements of the play. From the outward dictator we see in the opening scene to the vulnerable man we see in the final one. What I feel set thing play apart the most was the interpretation of the fool. The “fully licensed” fool seems to be an extension of Lear himself, the rational, reasoning and humane side of Lear lost in the layers of leadership and military ideology. The fool represented the Kings sanity, which explains why the king enabled him to be fully licensed, as the fool told him what he needed to hear, not what he wanted too, unlike all the others surrounding him (except Cordelia of course, whom he loved most in this world). The play also made it seem as if the King was the only one who could fully understand the rambling of the fool. The king infact looked after the fool the most throughout the play, he made sure the fool was fed properly (The king gave his plate of food to the fool at Gonerils palace) and the fool was the fist to go into Poor Tom’s house as per the kings instructions. In addition, in one of the Kings most introspective scenes in which he realizes he is going mad, he turns to the fool for guidance “let me not be mad” as if the fool is the one who could prevent it from happening. A king asking his fool to protect his sanity, the leader of a kingdom places his trust in a fool of the court, it is then we realize that the fool is not just some court jester, but his friend. The fool is the Kings only friend at this point and here the duty and beauty of friendship is shown. The idea that a friend could prevent one from turning insane. The belief and trust that friendship inspires and the confidence that friendship may indeed prove no problem impossible.
Never have I seen acting like that in the scene of the Fool and King post the departure from Goneril’s palace. The king pleading and begging the fool “Oh, let me not be mad” the line loaded with such emotion and delivered with impeccable understanding and passion.
The beauty of this play was that the king beat his beloved fool to death. Simon Russell Beale’s Lear did this unknowingly (the shock and grief when he had realized his fool was dead in the bath tub when Kent was escorting him out of the house). The king murdered his own sanity on account of mistaking the fool for his daughter. In this one action, the whole moral concept, themes and messages of the play are conveyed. This was the beauty of the minor change in events from the text and how it amplified every aspect of the play from the theme of betrayal to how the betrayal lead to the kings eroding sanity.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNational Theatre’s King Lear was staged as a brilliantly interpreted modern version of the traditional perception. The words were Shakespearean but Sam Mendes’s unique take on the setting, as well as each character captivated my attention. I was speechless until the very last moment of the production. On my first reading, King Lear seemed to be a play concentrated on the idea of family-blood relations and paternal love. Instead, witnessing Simon Russell Beale as King Lear and the daughters in the first scene- reminded me of the strong political nature of the story.
ReplyDeleteThe first scene was particularly interesting. As a student of Theatre Arts, not too long ago- I played Regan in our production of Act 1, Scene 1 of King Lear. I would not have pictured the scenes in the same way: the presence of the knights, uniformed men; his entourage delineates the “game” that King Lear has invented and expects his daughters to partake in. The scene stood out, according to me since all the major issues are addressed- Vulnerability, betrayal and insanity. I remarked that the microphones were placed in front of the men; women were generally not expected to speak in court and somewhat suppressed: Gonerill and Regan initially had no power but soon turned the tables on Lear.
The most striking characters, in my opinion were those of Gonerill and Regan. The sisters were similar and unified in some aspects but very distinct nonetheless. Gonerill, cold and unfeeling made me think of a stone pillar; as the eldest she felt some responsibility. At some points in the play- we sympathize with her and understand her complaints against the hundred knights being a nuisance in her palace were not unreasonable. She is clearly treated the worst by their father; her actions are partially justified. Her character unfurls as a result of the lust she experiences for Edmund. Regan, on the other hand, was a flirtatious and manipulative character: more complex than she seems. In this production- Regan has made use of the accessible father-daughter love to portray her relationship with him. Her feisty behavior is a mask that later reveals underlying ambition and cruelty. She finds power in a man’s world by using her sexuality as a tool.
The characters of King Lear and Gloucester executed their roles in an impactful manner. I wouldn’t have imagined their rash decisions any other way. Their moments of immediate judgment, rash decisions and moments of vanity were accurately displayed; the meaning came across to the audiences. Both of them, older characters, had their realization in moments of weakness. Gloucester losing his eyesight and Lear losing his vision simultaneously makes one think about the futility of words and the desire for power. Beale’s character managed to spiral into insanity in an effortless matter of seconds! Cordelia knew her sister’s intentions but did not predict their swift slip into cruelty: she was revealed as naïve and honest. She seems to have been tormented by her sisters for being the favorite daughter.
Lastly, the closing speech amazed me and I keep replaying it my mind several times: “I learnt pity through the sorrows of my life.” This line has summarized all the suffering that we witnessed over the past three hours and made a lasting impression on me.
Sam Mendel’s rendition of “King Lear” overthrew all of my expectations. I went to the NCPA expecting a long-drawn-out play but was instead shown a thrillingly captivating one. This in fact enhanced my liking of the play. This production of King Lear was a modern take on the play, which I found extremely interesting. I was fascinated by how the Elizabethan language fit so perfectly with the modern day set up. The political and personal conflicts were both depicted smoothly.
ReplyDeleteThe cast was incredible. Simon Russell Beale did justice to King Lear’s dynamic character. Though unorthodox, he was a complete impersonation of Lear, as he successfully managed to portray every emotion and thought that Lear seemed to have.
I found that both the first and the last scene were extremely gripping, which is important in any production. One aspect of the play I found intriguing was the portrayal of Regan. In the book, Regan being the middle child consequently isn’t given as much importance as the other two sisters. Her character is strong yet overpowered. However, in the play I found that Regan was presented as an exceedingly bold character, with sexual exuberance, and Anna Maxwell did an amazing job at that. Lear’s relationship to the fool was also interesting as the Fool represents Lear’s only sane part. Hence it is shocking and uncalled for when Lear kills the Fool, an act that doesn’t occur otherwise. This was one of the many instances of the plays radical nature.
The performance was compelling; at no point in the play did I get bored. Each actor had their own creative take on the character they were playing, which was interesting to watch when one has studied the play. Watching the play brought clarity to any doubts I had while reading it. It makes a second reading of the play much easier to follow and visualize.
-Simran Ankolkar
As I walked into the theatre on Friday to watch the modern- day rendition of King Lear, I expected something that would be very similar to what we had studied in class. However, the play was nothing like I expected. The three and a half hours of the play flew by in a breeze; it was interesting and gripping, until the very last word.
ReplyDeleteThe intricate and complex relationships between the characters were depicted in a way that both simplified and amplified their individuality and unique personalities. Anna Maxwell portrayed Regan as a dominating, cunning and cruel woman who used her feminism to her advantage. The Freudian relationship between her and her father is also hinted in many places throughout the play. Goneril is depicted as someone who possesses the trait of petty malevolence; especially in the way she removes King Lear’s slippers from his favourite place. The difference between the sisters, who are at first assumed to be similar because of their common motives, is amplified. Simon Russell Beale is a bold, unorthodox, yet insecure King, who is slowly losing himself to overpowering forces such as greed and the fear of oblivion. In his interview before the second half of the play, Beale drew comparisons between the strange behavior of King Lear and a disease due to old age known as Dementia. The parallels between the effects of this disease and his nature are strikingly evident throughout the play. This introduces a completely new perspective on the play that is both interesting and captivating. The attire of the characters is not similar to anything of the Elizabethan times. It is in fact modern and formal, each character dressed to suit his or her persona. This draws the reader towards them and makes the play more relatable as a whole.
The acting was amazing and the unique way that each personality in the play fit their part perfectly made it an absolute delight to watch. It sharpened my understanding of the text and made me realize how relevant Shakespeare is, even in today’s day and age.
I’ll admit it, when we watched Othello a few months ago I couldn’t stop myself from yawning a couple times. When I heard we were going to watch King Lear on a Friday night, I wasn’t sure whether to be excited or not. But after watching the play, it’s safe to say that it was a Friday well spent. The play provided me with one of the most memorable experiences with Shakespeare I have ever had. The play not only kept me wide awake throughout, but also placed me on the edge of my seat for long parts of it.
ReplyDeleteI found it amazing how the play seemed to be happening in a contemporary world, with characters dressed up in modern attire like suits. It was one of the first times where I was able to understand what the character was saying at a single go. The quality of acting and expression made the production extremely easy for the audience to process and enjoy at the same time. Sam Mendes managed to take a legendary script and develop it into something an audience of all ages could appreciate. Simon Russell Beale’s role brought the play to life for me. His commanding presence on stage coupled with the comedy he brought to the play was vital to the production. It might have seemed odd at first how such a small man in stature could portray a King with the power and authority of Lear, but Beale did more than justice to the role. His enthusiasm was contagious.
The play also brought out the individuals in Goneril and Regan; something that wasn’t as visible when I read the book. Mendes magnified the stark differences in their personalities and they were given a sense of authority and power that made the audience value their role even more.
On the whole, the production gave new light to King Lear for me. It made me associate every scene to the book and gave the script a new life. The modern nature of it was a breath of fresh air, and the evident hard work put into performing the play made it an unforgettable Shakespeare experience for me.
Agasteya Khandelwal
King Lear, one of Shakespeare’s most powerful yet intricate plays, is one that is open to a world of interpretation. Although I was initially skeptical about watching a three-hour long film version of the play rather than the live performance, it indubitably lived up to and perhaps exceeded expectations with the National Theater Live performance we saw at the NCPA.
ReplyDeleteMy first thought upon seeing a rather short, portly Lear in the opening scene of the play was “How can someone who looks like that, expect to be feared and powerful?”. However, as dialogue commenced, I was immediately converted. Simon Russell Beale’s aura and dominating stage presence near exuded power. His devotion to playing Lear, through his extensive research to portray what he believed to be the King’s Lewy Body Dementia, down to the very last mannerism, made the performance nothing less than captivating.
The play was given a completely different flavour than older reenactments by director Sam Mendes, who decided to abandon the ancient setting in favour of a contemporary interpretation. In my opinion, this transformed the play, making it altogether more accessible and relatable, reminding us of the timelessness of Shakespeare. Dressed in military garb, Mendes’ Lear stands as a dictator or army commandant, addressing his heirs as to who will take over after him in probably the most important scene of the play. The setup of the room is reminiscent of a courtroom, with long tables and visible microphones.
Creative choices by director Sam Mendes allowed for an astonishing portrayal of the scene in which Goneril and Regan are put on “trial” and Lear kills the fool. The entire scene takes place in a bathroom, where pots and toilets represent the sisters, and the fool is bludgeoned in an empty bathtub. The plucking out of Gloucester’s eyes brought out an audible wince from every member of the audience, the costume effects brings horrific reality to the incident.
An interesting aspect of the relationships in this modern rendition of King Lear was perhaps the clear differentiation between Goneril and Regan. Prior to the NCPA performance, the sisters had come across as almost a singular entity, indistinguishable, with similar motives and morals. However, Mendes’ interpretation delineated the two: Goneril, the more mature one, yet cold and standoffish; Regan, the manipulative seductress who shares a somewhat Freudian relationship with her father. The character of Regan was a highly interesting one. At the beginning of the play, she seems closest to Lear, loyally taking his side and getting up to praise him and sit in his lap. But just as Lear gives away his power, Regan turns her back on him completely. Her betrayal is shocking and seems to be what broke Lear, turning him insane.
Cordelia, the youngest sister, is played beautifully by Olivia Vinall. Sincere and innocent, Cordelia, even in death inspires so much grief in the broken Lear that he too, dies, evoking great sympathy even from the most hardened of audience members. Lear’s seamless transition from feared powerful ruler to the ‘fond old man’ in the heartbreaking final scene is brilliantly executed by Beale.
Beale’s acting, coupled with Sam Mendes’ direction, resulted in a brilliant execution of the storm scene, in which Lear is stripped, mentally, politically and physically. The tempest in the skies, created through visual and aural projections, seems to reflect the tempest in Lear’s mind.
The complex familial relationships and betrayals are immaculately portrayed in a modern setting, giving a historic play immense resonance, even today. The National Theatre performance provided us with much-needed context to aid in our understanding of King Lear and succeeded in keeping us on the edge of our seats throughout. A riveting interpretation that reinforced the central themes of justice, betrayal, and appearance versus reality, King Lear was definitely a worthy use of my Friday night!
Reading these posts on your blog Mr. C, has changed my perspective about the 11 graders ...and while i have always known they are a smart lot, this puts them at different level altogether! Suitably impressed !
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing!
Thank you to Ms Shagun and again I am so proud of all these students who bring out the best in each other and in their teachers - best wishes to all - Mr C
ReplyDeleteSam Mendes’ production of King Lear was a thrilling one to witness. It was a modern take on King Lear, which was enthralling to watch. All the actors were dressed in modern day attires and the sets were modern too. Simon Russell Beale and the rest of the crew delivered the lines consummately. The opening scene was very powerful and uniquely acted out. I enjoyed watching the actors seated in an orderly fashion. It was very different from the older versions of the productions we had seen. Although Simon Russell Beale looked to be a fairly timid character before the play began, I was taken aback. The perfection with which he delivered his lines and the aura surrounding him completely changed my opinion. His presence on stage had a great impact on the audience. The best part about the play was that the lines were delivered in such a simple yet perfect manner that I was able to understand each word every actor spoke unlike other Shakespeare plays. This kept me engrossed for the entire play because I could understand what was going on in the play without having to figure out the lines spoken over and over again. Furthermore, the storm scene impressed me a lot. The way in which the scene was set up was absolutely marvelous. It appeared so real that I was amazed. Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed the play and it was indeed a Friday evening well spent.
ReplyDelete