Well,
we just finished watching a movie adaptation of King Lear and I can give it a
good “whoa”. In actuality, I enjoyed the film quite a bit. But my admiration
doesn’t stem from a normal appreciation of cinematography.
While I appreciated everyone’s favorite
grey/ white wizard, I relished the silliness of some aspects of the film. I
observed a good number of notable occurrences. One example is Goneril’s(or
Regan’s, I forget which) hyper sexuality towards Edmound. During many a scene,
she would be arched on her back in a suggestive manner, resembling more of a
succubus or nymphomaniac prostitute than a queen. This was especially hilarious
due to the fact that she was fairly unattractive. I thought we were watching
King Lear, not the soft-core pornographic rendition “King Lear: lonely
housequeens.” On a lighter note, I found Cordelia quite pretty.
There was also a sense of
anachronism throughout the movie. In one instance, the fool(who’s disappearance
was forcibly interpreted by the director), appeared to wear a modern buttoned
shirt. While Lear and his crew trotted round in their Middle Ages pajamas, the
fool dressed like your average car salesman. Another anachronism was the use of
guns. When we read Lear in class I figured, due to the primitive tortures and
SWORD FIGHTS, that the play’s violence revolved around knights on horseback. I
was apparently wrong. Besides every foot soldier armed with a Revolutionary War
musket, our dirty boy Edmound decided to disarm his colt .45 pistol before
dueling his brother. So you, ingenious Edmound, would drop your modernized high
caliber pistol for a rusty rapier? Good for textual accuracy, idiotic under
logical circumstance.
Despite how silly the director
decided to make certain details of the King Lear movie rendition, at least the
key aspects of the plot remained true. Oh, wait… Where in the text does the
fool get executed by a ragtag squad of amateur mercenaries? Nowhere that can be
cited. Where does the text warrant Edgar to look like a bonafide house robber
while killing his brother? Page… none(this however I liked). Where does the text
make Kent such a creep? Every dialogue he participates in. Overall, the movie
attempted to amplify the enjoy-ability of the play. The director, however,
forgot that he was dealing with Shakespeare and thought he had his hands on the next Pirates of the Caribbean. I
give it a thoroughly enjoyed 3.5/5.
I agree with you on a lot of this: I'm pretty sure that the sister being sexual in the least-discrete way possible was Goneril, although I could be wrong. I found it somewhat amusing that she and Regan looked like they were so much older than Cordelia. When reading, I had pictured them older, but they look ancient compared to her! This might have been used to emphasize the differences between Cordelia and her sisters-to say Goneril and Regan were ugly on the inside and on the outside-which would have been a good, if not overdone move by the director.
ReplyDeleteI hated how the director chose to have the fool killed in the film. I find this to be an awful move as Shakespeare himself left it to some kind of interpretation, and with the director's decision to have the fool executed this option of interpretation is slaughtered.
As for what you were saying about guns, I wasn't expecting them to be present in the film either. However, I can't say that the director is completely wrong with this choice. Primitive guns did exist at this time, with use of them in England being noted as early as the 1390s. I highly doubt that they looked like what was used in the film, but the interpretation and use of the prop is arguably legitimate. I have no idea why Edmund would just drop his gun instead of just shooting his brother, aside from the idea that the characters were probably fighting a duel. In a duel, you use the same weapons and are supposed to practice chivalry. So Edmund had no choice but to drop the more useful weapon and use a rapier. ...If it wasn't a formal duel than...Edmund's just stupid.
Right!? This movie is a strange version of the play. It is neither an adaptation nor a modern day retelling. Instead, it holds some middle ground in the way of "Romeo + Juliet" or "Hamlet", the version by the same company as this "King Lear". While being significantly off-putting by the director's changes and choices, the film still is good by the plot.
ReplyDeleteAs a movie, this "King Lear" was fairly good. The acting was competent in terms of the source material and on its own. Personally, I judge the concept of acting as not recognizing actors as themselves or as previous roles. I did not recognize the 7th Doctor, eye-patch lady, or Gandalf/Old Magneto. As for the source, the director's liberties were okay by me. The hyper-sexualization of Goneril and Regan at least has a hint of basis in the play. Ian McKellen did a good job of portraying Lear as how I read him, a pitiful senile old man. I assume anti-Lear people were unhappy.
Then there's the changes. Obviously, the Fool's onscreen murder is first in line. It completely changes the role of the Fool. The scene showed him as a broken man as the soldiers found him, which is very different from the "smartest man in the room" aura he had in the play(Opinion). Also, it verifies the mystery of when Lear says "My poor fool is hanged" at the end. That connection makes the entire character of the Fool a complete, human character. I had read him as a transient, deity-like figure. Speaking of deity-like figures, the casting and characterization of film Edmund furthers the idea that he is literally the devil (A handsome, womanizing sociopath).
Overall, the film is alright. It adapts "King Lear" to the silver screen, but that's about it. The fact that it is on film rather than on stage adds nothing. The 2009 version of Hamlet with David Tennant, made by the same company, achieves something that this film tried and failed to do. "Hamlet" makes use of anachronistic modern things (barefoot tuxedo makes Hamlet seem crazier) and the very fact that film can accomplish visuals that aren't possible on stage. Seriously, watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSsIVxovLKk - this is the true power of film.