King Lear (1984)

Me and my English Lit class watched this as part of our course and everyone thought it was fantastic, but me. It was an enjoyable film to watch, Sir Olivier gives a stunning performance as King Lear as does Dinana Rigg as Regan. But the whole programme seemed too much like a stage production for my liking. The storm in the middle of the programme is supposed to be the most dramatic sequences in the story, however when you are expected to believe that he is in the middle of a storm when not even a leaf moves, the sequence becomes almost laughable. On the other hand, there are some very powerful sequences such as the one where Glouester is blinded. If you take away all the bad scenery, you are left with great performances from everyone. This really made the programme worth watching, well that and the presents of Diana Rigg who is a legend!

This version of Lear was made for television, and it shows. The scale is small, the sets cheap, the action cramped. However, Olivier's acting is something to be remembered. Lear comes across very convincingly as a pathetic, deteriorating, crumbling old man, weak and defenseless in spite of an unseen past of terrible power and - presumably - ferocious cruelty. Kurosawa's Japanese adaptation plays much more on the terrible past of Lear as counterpoint to the present weakness and madness, this English version leaves the lost power and cruelty only as a hazy background. If this is a defect of Olivier's acting, or whether it faithfully reflects his views on the character, I do not know. But I think Olivier did exactly what he wanted to do, focus on the old Lear, his weakness and his fading away, as a symbol of human nature in general, and of his own advanced age in particular. In the final scenes Lear appears shaven off his beard, showing the naked face of a very ancient man, not the face of an actor at all. There must be a reflection of Olivier's own becoming old and brittle and approaching death, on the deterioration and dying of Lear. And there is the weakest glimmer of hope, both for the character and for the actor, as dying Lear recovers lost love in the midst of destruction.Of the rest of the cast, the best characters in my opinion are Goneril and Regan, perhaps a little overplayed but very convincingly so, as the hard hearted, scheming sisters. The fool and poor Tom somehow are not quite convincing. Gloucester is moving but a little dumb. Kent is handsome and masculine. Cordelia is pretty. But no question, this is Lord Olivier's show.The score has justly been criticized as noisy and intrusive. Staging is not always clear enough for comprehension of the plot.All in all, this movie is well worth seeing. Perhaps there are better interpretations of Lear, perhaps more adjusted to Shakespeare's vision; however, this version has enough merit so as to stand by itself. And Olivier remains the quintessential Shakespearean actor of all times.

In any production of King Lear, we must see the lion in Lear and his raging battle between his age and failing mind. There must be a constant struggle between the Lear of old and the present Lear. If we don't see the towering Lear we're left with the ill, debilitated, sorrowful Lear, the conflict is gone and we never see his basic nature, which is the cause of decline. What makes him so fascinating and exciting (there is nothing exciting about Olivier's Lear) are his tremendous extremes of temperament. First and foremost he must always be a fighter and never give in to adversity. Olivier's Lear could never have been a towering figure, only a whining, feeble, self pitying grouch. In fact, this is exactly how he saw the role. In an interview at the time, he said, "Lear is an old fart". This, about the greatest, most towering and passionate tragic character ever created. The rest of the cast is also quite bad. Despite Gloucester's ignorance, credulity, and misapplied trust, he must have significant potential worth and the innate ability to learn and understand profound lessons about life. If Gloucester, as here portrayed, is loud, crude, obnoxious and stupid, a catharsis is impossible. Edgar comes across as a demented, weird, dull-witted creep, when in fact he should be an ingenuous, credulous, spoiled, inexperienced man who has a vast yet untapped intelligence, understanding and empathy. Albany is portrayed here as a lethargic, pedestrian slow-thinking dunce with no obvious appeal when he should be a sensitive, ethical and intelligent man. Edmund is played in this version as a weak, boyish, obviously villainous child who lacks the charm, confidence, fearlessness, dominance and supreme ability to dupe others. The quality that makes Edmund so convincing is his ability as with Iago)to lose himself completely in his assumed role. He should never slip out of character when duping Gloucester or the others. This actor, by contrast, indicates his contempt when the others aren't looking, something Edmund would never do. The actress playing Regan is determined to dominate Goneril, although the play calls for quite the opposite relationship. The Fool, although not a bad actor, comes across as analytical, sober and objective, when he should be a creature of nature. Pure instinct. Spontaneous, unpredictable and uncontrollable. The director of this pathetic production obviously had no understanding of this magnificent play. Almost all of his directorial choices are absurd: frequently he makes none at all. there are many examples, but citing them would give away the plot. Suffice it to say that the direction is devoid of nuance, passion and intelligence. The blocking is pedestrian: stilted, simplistic, unimaginative and unmotivated. The actors are given no sense of place or circumstance. Unfortunately, Olivier achieved his vision. This King Lear is indeed an old fart.

I credit this production with turning me on to Shakespeare, unfortunately at the end of my highschool career and not at the beginning. The performances are superb. Particularly memorable are Olivier and Diana Rigg. This production made the characters come to life for me in ways that previous Shakespeare productions on screen or stage had not.