if there's anyone that can go through this and give me some feedback i would be reaaaaally grateful! feel free to be extremely harsh, i wont be offended cause i know i'm not great at english!
King Lear
Throughout the centuries there have been many attempts at adaptations and interpretations of William Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of King Lear. With differing contexts the interpretations bring out different aspects of Lear to suit their intended audiences.
Examples of these are two dramatic, and much talked about, interpretations of King Lear, Nahum Tate’s 1680’s re-write and Peter Brook’s 1970’s film version.
Brook’s film was heavily influenced by a critical essay written in his period by Jan Kott 1, who saw King Lear as a ‘Tragedy of the Grotesque’. The 70’s were just recovering from the Vietnam war, and people were not afraid to speak out. Pop art was becoming very provocative and outlandish; people were using the shock value to bring messages and ideas to their audiences. Brook’s interpretation emphasized the nihilism (or pessimistic destruction) seen in early acts of the play, developed further by the distortion of the ending removing any sense of justice or renewal.
The scene of Gloucester’s blinding (Act III.vii)2 epitomizes the cruelty and destruction in the film. Gloucester’s blinding represents how (both audience and characters) in seeing are blind, but in blindness may see. Seeing however offers only tragedy as the truth brings anguish, pain and remorse. The inhumanity of this torture is shown as we see Gloucester tied to a chair. Cornwall reclines as he questions the bound Gloucester. The daggers and tongs are then seen before the screen turns black, momentarily blinding the audience. Gloucester cries out in agony. The camera, blurry, slowly comes in to focus on the bloody face of Gloucester. We see the self-satisfaction of Cornwall, which is cut short by the servant who attacks to invoke some sense of justice. Regan cries out at the punishment of Gloucester. Both Cornwall and his servant die, Regan stands terrified. The scene is set in a kitchen, with hanging meat. Brook’s choice of scenery suggests a connection between butchery and inhumanity. The scene is dark and cynical, yet Brook allows the audience to sympathize with Regan as she cries out against the extent of Gloucester’s punishment.
Tate also took a bold step, in re-writing Shakespeare’s King Lear to better suit his specific audience. Adapted at the time of King Charles II’s Restoration to the throne, not only did Tate’s re-write accommodate his audience but was also sensitive to the political issues of his time. His ‘happy ending’ adaptation ran for a succession of 150 years in theatres. Tate’s play changed the atmosphere of King Lear entirely, introducing themes of restoration, which were not present in Shakespeare’s play.
It is in the final scene of Tate’s version of the play in which the influences of society and politics at the time are most evident. Tate brings in poetic justice by including the marriage of Edgar and Cordelia. He puts Shakespeare’s language into poetry that his audience understands and changes the characters to give clear, believable motives for their actions. He also removes the use of humor that Shakespeare applied to give relief from the tragic events, since Tate had changed the tragedy to include a happy ending.
In the Final scene the action is held throughout. Lear and Cordelia are imprisoned in a cell and fear death “O Gods! a suddain Gloom o'er-whelms me, and the Image Of Death o'er-spreads the Place”2 [Cordelia]. Soldiers enter to kill both Lear and Cordelia but Lear Snatches a Partizan, and strikes down two of them; the rest quit Cordelia, and turn upon him. Albany and Edgar victoriously rescue them. Lear is given the opportunity for a “second birth of empire”3.
His self-discovery is complete, and realizing his age, he offers the kingdom to Cordelia; who is to marry Edgar. Lear, Kent and Gloucester are now able to retire and “gently pass our short reserves of Time In calm Reflections on our Fortunes past” [440] 3
In Tate’s play, Shakespeare’s themes (revolving around the tragedies of human life) are replaced with themes of restoration: love conquering all, the good receiving rewards, the bad being punished. These themes mimicked his societies’ feelings and reinforced the Restoration of their King.
In contrast, Brook’s final scene is a scene of desolation. The four abrupt deaths of Edmund, Regan, Gonerill and Cordelia emphasize the feeling of degradation. Each killed abruptly and quickly, falling and pulling down the last shreds of hope. Lear is left alone with the body of Cordelia. The camera looks from Lear to the vast, desolate surroundings and the empty white sky showing their alienation and aloneness. The survivors, Kent, Albany and Edgar stand huddled together. There are no signs of rescue and no hope of regeneration. At Lear’s death, Kent cries out “Vex not his Ghost”(V.iii.316) 2 signifying there is no sense in trying to preserve life in this grotesque and meaningless world. The only possible certainty is, as nihilism suggests, that the nullity of death removes any sense of comfort. We see a close-up of Edgar. The final shot is of Lear as he slowly falls leaving a picture of an empty white sky. Leaving ‘nothing’ [Act I.1, 84] 2. The ending is abrupt.
But the question may be asked: Considering our current time and place, how will our context shape critical interpretations of King Lear? Michael Billington suggested that King Lear ‘accords with our [contemporary] vision of moral chaos’4 .In light of this we need to look at our current situation; the degradation of morality in our society, terrorism and persecution, impending wars, droughts, floods and famines. Does our modern society want a Lear that restores justice and promises hope and happy endings? Or do we require something that shocks us, amazes us and leaves us with a moral that warns and guides about the consequences of our actions?
Our modern audience is more open, and perhaps less naïve than the audiences of Shakespeare and Tate’s time. There is a surmounting popularity of reality T.V. programs, as society thrives off the harsh realities of the world. We are becoming, however, increasingly numb to the effects of tragedies. Directors have to go to the absurd, as Brook has, to leave a distinct message or moral. What message or morals did Shakespeare want to leave us with? There are three important themes that I believe should be essential to any interpretation of King Lear:
1. Human blindness and what it takes to see again
2. Cruelty, making mistakes and the punishment we receive as a consequence
3. That human beings have the capability to drive each other insane through their actions.
Shakespeare’s play ‘The Tragedy of King Lear’ is in it’s own right a brilliant comment on certain aspects of human nature. The fact that so many directors have been able to take the play and adapt it to their current time and place is evidence that the original story is thought provoking and informative. Each variation has it’s own value both in their own time as well as ours, in increasing our understanding and developing new critical interpretations of King Lear.
King Lear
Throughout the centuries there have been many attempts at adaptations and interpretations of William Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of King Lear. With differing contexts the interpretations bring out different aspects of Lear to suit their intended audiences.
Examples of these are two dramatic, and much talked about, interpretations of King Lear, Nahum Tate’s 1680’s re-write and Peter Brook’s 1970’s film version.
Brook’s film was heavily influenced by a critical essay written in his period by Jan Kott 1, who saw King Lear as a ‘Tragedy of the Grotesque’. The 70’s were just recovering from the Vietnam war, and people were not afraid to speak out. Pop art was becoming very provocative and outlandish; people were using the shock value to bring messages and ideas to their audiences. Brook’s interpretation emphasized the nihilism (or pessimistic destruction) seen in early acts of the play, developed further by the distortion of the ending removing any sense of justice or renewal.
The scene of Gloucester’s blinding (Act III.vii)2 epitomizes the cruelty and destruction in the film. Gloucester’s blinding represents how (both audience and characters) in seeing are blind, but in blindness may see. Seeing however offers only tragedy as the truth brings anguish, pain and remorse. The inhumanity of this torture is shown as we see Gloucester tied to a chair. Cornwall reclines as he questions the bound Gloucester. The daggers and tongs are then seen before the screen turns black, momentarily blinding the audience. Gloucester cries out in agony. The camera, blurry, slowly comes in to focus on the bloody face of Gloucester. We see the self-satisfaction of Cornwall, which is cut short by the servant who attacks to invoke some sense of justice. Regan cries out at the punishment of Gloucester. Both Cornwall and his servant die, Regan stands terrified. The scene is set in a kitchen, with hanging meat. Brook’s choice of scenery suggests a connection between butchery and inhumanity. The scene is dark and cynical, yet Brook allows the audience to sympathize with Regan as she cries out against the extent of Gloucester’s punishment.
Tate also took a bold step, in re-writing Shakespeare’s King Lear to better suit his specific audience. Adapted at the time of King Charles II’s Restoration to the throne, not only did Tate’s re-write accommodate his audience but was also sensitive to the political issues of his time. His ‘happy ending’ adaptation ran for a succession of 150 years in theatres. Tate’s play changed the atmosphere of King Lear entirely, introducing themes of restoration, which were not present in Shakespeare’s play.
It is in the final scene of Tate’s version of the play in which the influences of society and politics at the time are most evident. Tate brings in poetic justice by including the marriage of Edgar and Cordelia. He puts Shakespeare’s language into poetry that his audience understands and changes the characters to give clear, believable motives for their actions. He also removes the use of humor that Shakespeare applied to give relief from the tragic events, since Tate had changed the tragedy to include a happy ending.
In the Final scene the action is held throughout. Lear and Cordelia are imprisoned in a cell and fear death “O Gods! a suddain Gloom o'er-whelms me, and the Image Of Death o'er-spreads the Place”2 [Cordelia]. Soldiers enter to kill both Lear and Cordelia but Lear Snatches a Partizan, and strikes down two of them; the rest quit Cordelia, and turn upon him. Albany and Edgar victoriously rescue them. Lear is given the opportunity for a “second birth of empire”3.
His self-discovery is complete, and realizing his age, he offers the kingdom to Cordelia; who is to marry Edgar. Lear, Kent and Gloucester are now able to retire and “gently pass our short reserves of Time In calm Reflections on our Fortunes past” [440] 3
In Tate’s play, Shakespeare’s themes (revolving around the tragedies of human life) are replaced with themes of restoration: love conquering all, the good receiving rewards, the bad being punished. These themes mimicked his societies’ feelings and reinforced the Restoration of their King.
In contrast, Brook’s final scene is a scene of desolation. The four abrupt deaths of Edmund, Regan, Gonerill and Cordelia emphasize the feeling of degradation. Each killed abruptly and quickly, falling and pulling down the last shreds of hope. Lear is left alone with the body of Cordelia. The camera looks from Lear to the vast, desolate surroundings and the empty white sky showing their alienation and aloneness. The survivors, Kent, Albany and Edgar stand huddled together. There are no signs of rescue and no hope of regeneration. At Lear’s death, Kent cries out “Vex not his Ghost”(V.iii.316) 2 signifying there is no sense in trying to preserve life in this grotesque and meaningless world. The only possible certainty is, as nihilism suggests, that the nullity of death removes any sense of comfort. We see a close-up of Edgar. The final shot is of Lear as he slowly falls leaving a picture of an empty white sky. Leaving ‘nothing’ [Act I.1, 84] 2. The ending is abrupt.
But the question may be asked: Considering our current time and place, how will our context shape critical interpretations of King Lear? Michael Billington suggested that King Lear ‘accords with our [contemporary] vision of moral chaos’4 .In light of this we need to look at our current situation; the degradation of morality in our society, terrorism and persecution, impending wars, droughts, floods and famines. Does our modern society want a Lear that restores justice and promises hope and happy endings? Or do we require something that shocks us, amazes us and leaves us with a moral that warns and guides about the consequences of our actions?
Our modern audience is more open, and perhaps less naïve than the audiences of Shakespeare and Tate’s time. There is a surmounting popularity of reality T.V. programs, as society thrives off the harsh realities of the world. We are becoming, however, increasingly numb to the effects of tragedies. Directors have to go to the absurd, as Brook has, to leave a distinct message or moral. What message or morals did Shakespeare want to leave us with? There are three important themes that I believe should be essential to any interpretation of King Lear:
1. Human blindness and what it takes to see again
2. Cruelty, making mistakes and the punishment we receive as a consequence
3. That human beings have the capability to drive each other insane through their actions.
Shakespeare’s play ‘The Tragedy of King Lear’ is in it’s own right a brilliant comment on certain aspects of human nature. The fact that so many directors have been able to take the play and adapt it to their current time and place is evidence that the original story is thought provoking and informative. Each variation has it’s own value both in their own time as well as ours, in increasing our understanding and developing new critical interpretations of King Lear.