Compare and contrast the two productions of King Lear linked below. If we have watched the Ian McKellen version in class before you post, you can compare one of the two below to that version. Please post by Thursday, March 24th.
“Trinity Theatre Company's production of "King Lear", directed by Francesca Gilpin and starring Michael Elliot in the title role”.
Act II.i-iii https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdTxneyRHsU
Act 2 Scenes 1 to 4 of Shakespeare at Traquair's performance of King Lear, in the grounds of Traquair House, near Innerleithen.
ReplyDeleteIn the first play, the stage was very plain and the costumes were not what I had imagined they should be. I was honestly really bored with this play. Some of the acting was not that bad but I didn’t think the play was done well overall. There were limited props and costumers didn’t really make sense. No one looked or sounded the part, which I think ultimately changes my opinion of the play because it doesn't make sense. It seems like it was a very low-budget production,
In the second play, the costumes made a little more sense but they still looked very cheap and fake. I also find it weird how the play is outside. The acting was a little boring, as I thought the emotion was really fake. The woman in the purple dress (Regan I’m assuming) has a horrible costume. She looks like she should be in Star Wars. I thin these plays both had very low-budgets which effected them negatively. The sets are too plain and the costumes and acting are not executed well.
I was really disappointed by the first production of King Lear. When the scene first opened, I was a little surprise by the set design— or lack thereof— but I figured that the purpose of this was to really let the actors portrayal of the characters stand out. Unfortunately, this was not the case. I was incredibly underwhelmed by the actors portrayal of Edmund. From the reading, I pictured him as a much stronger character, he knew what he wanted and he would stop at nothing to get this, but in this production I did not see that. I also think that the actor and actress who played King Lear and his daughter were able to accurately portray the power struggle that took place in scene 4 of the play. I also thought that the costume design was bad as well, I wasn't sure if this was supposed to be a modern interpretation of King Lear, but the costumes did not seem to be from the correct period. The costumes also did not represent the clothes of a royal family, but rather the clothes of peasants. Overall, I do not think that this production did the play justice.
ReplyDeleteI definitely liked this production of King Lear a lot more than the first production. I thought it was cool that the production took place outside. This added a certain feeling to this production that the other production did not have. I thought that the actors portrayal of Edmund was much more accurate in this production, he appeared to be a lot more vengeful and deceiving. The representation of the power struggle that took place between Lear and his daughter that took place in this production was much more accurate to that of the reading. Although I was not crazy about the costumes in this production, I thought that they more accurately portrayed the time period as well as the clothes of a royal family. I think that this production was much more successful than the first production was.
Regarding the choice of an outdoor performance, let's remember that the Globe was an open-air theater. Here is a quick tour....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u58L6UUkTpU
ReplyDeleteI am torn on my opinion of the first production of King Lear. On one hand, I think the minimalist set allows the audience to focus on the acting rather than the props and staging. However, I do not think that the costumes, acting, or movement around the stage sufficiently used this minimalist setup. I agree with Montana that the production was somewhat boring and I think that it would be significantly less boring with more dynamic lighting and costumes. I both agree and disagree with Owen's opinion of Edmund in the first production. I think that his acting was underwhelming and did not live up to Edmund's character, but I think he was a well cast actor and he looked detestable enough to play the role. Overall, this production left me wanting more and it pales in comparison to the second production.
ReplyDeleteThe costumes and stage movement were drastically superior in the second production of King Lear. I really enjoyed the outdoor venue and I thought that it allowed for more liberty in the actors' movement while staying true to Shakespeare's roots. I also appreciated that the actors moved around and the background changed at times creating a more dynamic experience for the audience. The actors were also easier to tell apart in this production and I empathized more with them, particularly Lear who seemed tormented and emotional.
Overall with the first performance I was very disappointed. It started off with the poor camera quality and lighting but this conclusion was also influenced by the lack of setting. I agree with many of the previous posts in which I thought that it was weird that the characters of Edmund and Edgar were extremely underwhelming. I also think that it was detrimental that even though good could have come from the poor setting, the production still remained boring. However, I really enjoyed the portrayal of the fool. I always thought that the character of the fool was really interesting mainly because of the irony in the character but I thought that the actor did a great job with the understanding that his words contradict the expectations of the other characters towards the fool. Also, I really liked the scene with Lear and his daughters and thought that it was a good portrayal of how I pictured their reactions while reading. This scene was helpful in such a way you could visually see how the characters react to one another instead of just interpreting the words that they say.
ReplyDeleteLike Jack said, I really liked the outdoor setting of the play. I thought that the outdoors added more realisticness into the play instead of just a stage. The acting between Edmund and Edgar was also much better than the previous performance so it was easier to understand the complications between them. I also thought that this permanence did a better job with scene IV when showing the struggles between Lear and his daughters. I thought that it was much more successful in portraying Lear's semi-niceness towards Regan and the contradiction between his attitudes towards Regan and Goneril. This contradiction is really important to capture because it shows the King's values as well as the daughters. Overall, this performance was much better than the previous.
Personally, I did not enjoy either of these videos too much. I found both sets to be highly ineffective. In the Trinity production, the circular stage is too boring and basic and the lack of props makes it even less entertaining. In the Traquair version, the outdoor setting is highly distracting and also seemingly unrealistic.
ReplyDeleteThe lighting in the Trinity production made it more challenging to see what was occurring on stage. I found that the natural lighting in the other version was easier on the eyes. The artificial and colored lighting in the Trinity version also detracts from the play in a way. What I really disliked about the Traquair version, however was the panning of the camera. Whoever filmed this video did not do an adequate job of capturing the shot, because many of the views are obstructed by the members of the audience. I assume that this would not be so much of an issue if I were watching this live, but it certainly is in the video, because it takes the viewer out of the scene and is distracting.
Concerning the actors, I think that the Trinity performers were more effective in their roles than the Traquair actors. They brought more energy to each scene. On the other hand, the costume selection in the Traquair production was much better than that in the Trinity version- which I thought were too bland.
Overall, I enjoyed the Traquair production more than the Trinity production.
After watching both interpretations I have concluded that I enjoyed Traquirs production a lot more than Trinity's production. In the production done by Trinity I felt as though it was missing something. The acting was okay at best and the props were non-existent for the most part. I think they were trying to be minimalistic with the costumes which had a negative impact for me while watching. I felt as though it was more of a narrated reading of King Leer more than a play. I wasn't entirely convinced of the roles they were portraying. Although they had good projection it didn't feel as though they were being loud for the purpose of the play. It felt as though they were being loud just for the sake of being loud. I found the Traquair production to be much more emotional and convincing in their roles. I found the costumes to be much more intricate in the second production and overall a much better performance with more emotion and connection to the actual play.
ReplyDeleteThe first video was not what I was expecting. I did not enjoy watching that at all. For starters the stage set up was pretty boring. I think if they wanted it to be simplistic then the acting really needed to stand out and it just didn't. It made it boring, and the fact that there was no furniture to fill the room it created a weird echo and made it awkward to sit through. Like I said in my other post, it seems to me like the budget was pretty low for this video. If they were to at least make the acting better and had gotten better people to act out the parts, it would make up for the lack of production but it just didn't work out at all in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteThen I watched the Traquair's performance of King Lear. Overall I think this video was much better, and helped me to understand what was actually going on. For starters the production was much better, which I was already happy about, and the it seemed as if they had people that were better suited for the roles of the characters. I personally wasn't bothered by the fact that it was an outdoor stage, I think it just added another element to the play. Even though it wasn't as organic and authentic to how most people would picture the play to be acted out, I think it worked in a strange way. Even though the production stepped up compared to the other video, the acting was still a little weird, and the costumes still needed a little bit of an improvement.
Overall both of these videos were okay. I wasn't totally blown away when I finished watching the videos, but I didn't think they were too bad either.
I really didn't like the first version. The set was too plain, and the acting wasn't really good enough to make up for that. I felt like this version just seemed to drag on and on. It really bothered me that the costumes seemed to be modernized (like the leather jackets). Also, it was too difficult to determine who anyone was playing. At some parts, the acting was decent, but for the most point it was just boring.
ReplyDeleteThe second version was a little better in my opinion. I agree with Montana that the costumes look really tacky and cheap. I think the fact that the play seemed more casual made it more interesting. The actors moved around a lot, while in the first version everything was really static. While reading, I kind of pictured Edmund as a more deceitful character, but in this play, he was just really whiny. Also, all the fight scenes were really awkward and unnatural. There were other parts where the acting was just too over the top for me.
Overall, I didn't really like either play, but the second one was easier to watch.
The first production takes the idea of "Nothing" to a new level. Perhaps they did this on purpose to highlight the idea of "nothing," and if that is the case they did a great job!
ReplyDeleteThe production wasn't able to keep my attention and I found it boring. I am much more interested in a production that uses all elements to the fullest potential (elaborate costumes, sets, props etc.) Similar to the first post, you can still tell that there is a small budget. They are trying though, so I'll give them a little credit.
I think the second video is definitely better, and the acting is more believable. When portraying another character the main objective is to give your character the dignity of being real and I believe this company does a better job of that than Trinity. The actor playing Edmund did a pretty good job of "being" the Edmund we read about.
The second performance had the advantage of playing outdoors, giving the actors and audience more versatility when it comes to acting choices and audience experience. I think the Lear in this production did a better job portraying the relationship between himself and each daughter than the other Lear. There seemed to be a greater contrast between each relationship, which I really liked.
I preferred the second one to the first overall.
The simplicity and overall just unaestheticly pleasing made the first play particularly hard to watch. I kept thinking either about how bad it was or something else not related to Lear. Nothing seemed to grasp my attention but nothing comes from nothing so maybe I was so focused on video that I didn't even realize it. Also I had a hard time believing and caring what was going on in the film which is instrumental and the beauty of Shakespeare's plays especially Lear we get to see his characters grow and develop
DeleteThe second one wasn't much better everything was poorly made and i really just disagree with the directors whole vision of the scene and characters. For this reason I found this scene to be more annoying. Nothing was the way I would have done it.
The first thing I noticed about the Trinity Production was the circular stage and blue lighting. This was an interesting scene to set, but I do not think the actors utilized it to its fullest potential. The lack of props and casual costume choice made me question whether they had a low budget or if they were trying to get the audience to focus more on the lines and acting without getting distracted. I was not convinced by the acting and found it difficult to distinguish characters because none of them reflected distinct personalities. The fact that the scenery was the same throughout the entire act was a little boring. I also noticed that it would be extremely difficult to understand what is going on in the production if the audience did not have a solid understanding of what events occurred in the actual play. For example, it would be hard to follow what was going on in the scene where Edgar is in the hut if you were not already exposed to this. The confrontation between Kent and Oswald was verbally dramatic and convincing but the physical motions and acting were not. Lastly, I noted that the fool was played by a woman which is not what I had pictured, but it added an interesting effect.
ReplyDeleteI found the second production more interesting. The outdoor setting was captivating and the overall scene was more realistic and convincing. I also appreciated the costumes in this play. It was a lot easier to distinguish the characters not only because of the brighter lighting and contrasting costumes, but also because each presented and obvious personality. I found the interaction and blending with the audience interesting, but somewhat distracting. Overall, I felt the second production was easier to follow.
For some reason these productions seemed to drag on, but that could just be the way the play was written. In the first production, the lighting was especially dark and I initially thought it could have been due to the darkness behind Edmund’s scheme. However, the second part to this production of Act II was over-exposed, even though the plotline certainly did not brighten. The costumes in this production were more casual and almost mainstream. I think this was not helpful to the depiction of the play as there was nothing else really mainstream about it.
ReplyDeleteIn the first production, the way Lear holds Regan as he tries to get her on his side shows his delusion and unawareness to Regan’s deceit, especially after he just uncovered Goneril’s. Something I noted in this version was Regan can’t really stand up on her own, which may be a reason why authority in Britain soon fails.
The second production was slightly better, but not by a lot. The birds chirping and the outdoor setting overall sort of reminded me of a play at Disney World. For being outside, the character’s seemed overdressed. Still, the costumes and setting were much better than those of the first production as they are more relevant to the play itself.
I thought Edgar’s “poor Tom” scene was much more vocally dramatic in this version. However, the first version seemed to be more telling, as you could visually see him struggling rather than projecting his struggle with his voice. Another thing I noted was Lear seems more angry in this version as he is screaming and pacing in a more manic kind of way.
One thing I liked about being able to watch both of these productions was the way the dramatic irony in the play was more apparent. The way Edmund’s soliloquy was presented, I was able to actually view the audience as it was told the information that the rest of the character’s remained unaware of. In the first production I felt that I was more of the audience while in the second production I could see the actual audience.
Another similarity in productions is the way Goneril is played. It seems that she looks away from Lear with a look of irritation, and an inability to deal with his rage. But, what she may in fact be doing is letting him make a fool of himself, further securing her plan. Perhaps Goneril and Regan scheme is simply to watch their father spiral into madness.
The Trinity theater production was fairly similar to the previous scenes we watched from the Trinity Production. I think Courtney raised a strong point that this play is hard to follow without having prior knowledge about the play King Lear. The dull setting and stage do not add to the play at all, however, it does emphasize the pure language of Shakespeare’s original play write. I thought the characters of Edmund and Edgar were under exaggerated and left the audience waiting for more. Like most people mentioned, this showing may have had a low budget or was not as popular, so it seems less extravagant.
ReplyDeleteThe Tranquair performance was surprising to me because of the outdoor setting. This setting made me feel like this was a less formal play and resembled more of a casual performance for visitors. Costumes in this play were more elaborate and appealing. The acting was also more visual which made it easier to understand what was happening throughout the scenes. Lear’s stubborn and tormented personality was evident in this play’s portrayal of him. The movements of the characters and the dynamic acting on the stage were more successful in capturing Shakespeare’s original story.
Like most people, I was really disappointed in Trinity’s production of King Lear. I thought the staging was just unimpressive in every way. It had no backdrop, scenery or details that would normally add to the overall effect and draw in the audience. I also thought the lighting was much too dark. I noticed some people commented above that they thought the lack of staging both added and subtracted from to the play, but I think it only subtracted. There was just nothing to make the play seem realistic or put the audience in that time period. It left too much to the imagination that I am not sure all viewers would have been able to comprehend without reading the play themselves. I was not too impressed with the acting either. Though it wasn’t bad, the characters just did not seem too convincing and they were not how I expected them to be when I was reading the play. The costumes were pretty unimpressive as well. Specifically, I thought Edmund’s was way too modern for the time period. Overall, the production was just not engaging.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed Traquail’s production of King Lear much more. The first thing I noticed about it was that it was outside. Surprisingly, I actually liked this setting because, though it was unexpected, it added a greater sense of reality that some of the other plays that we have seen were lacking. I was definitely distracted by the filming though, because the audience was right in front of the characters. I did not love the costumes; they seemed quite amateur. Reagan’s costume specifically was really not that of a princess; I just thought it was weird. Character wise, I think they were portrayed well. I was specifically impressed by Edgar and Edmund. Edgar was convincingly naive and Edmund came off as truly cunning, angry and manipulative. I thought the Fool’s portrayal was honestly quite bizarre, but I did sort of like it for some reason. It helped me understand more of the character that the Fool is because I truly did not have any image of idea of him in my head.
I agree with my peers on the opinion of the Trinity production. While some portrayals are relatively positive, such as Lear's, others are not, particularly Edmund. Edmund did not seem cunning at all and thus fell flat for me. Edgar and Oswald, as well as Kent in the first video (he gets somewhat better),also suffer from the problem (although in Oswald's case it may be characterizing him). Similar to my previous post and others' observations, the set is plain, making these issue more obvious. More importantly, the direction seems confused again with the clothes and certain positioning (such as in Lea'rs conversation with Goneril and Regan, where Oswald and Kent stand next to each other for some reason). The portrayals were not completely bad, again with Lear being the best, but still nothing too fantastic (understanding though that some of the monologues and insults are difficult to deliver). The biggest issue for me is that the actors do not exaggerate enough, which I feel is necessary for this type of minimalist performance.
ReplyDeleteThe acting in Traquiar's performance is better in general for more flavor (not sure about the acoustics and video quality, but the people seem to be projecting more than yelling which somewaht happened in the first production). Edmund's portrayal, while not quite the cold blooded and cunning bastard I expected, had some sort of almost sarcastic drawl, a characterization that immediately has more life (regardless of its merits). The sisters are similarly more identifiable as the wicked two they are. This continues with Kent (though I'd also like to see his initial "noble not-yet-banished-subject portrayal). The only person I really don't invest in is Edgar, but even he is more spirited than the trinity counterpart. With regard to the set, overall the costuming is not overly complex but still consistent and the background is more realistic (other than time of day). This is not perfect, however. The outdoor setting, while nice, does equal amounts to add and detract from the scene due to uncontrollable factors. Again, some choices in direction are also dubious, such as Oswald and Kent's confrontation... I did not picture Oswald to actually draw his sword, and by not doing so there probably could have been a much more effective use of the swords. But overall, this was a more enjoyable thing to watch.
The Trinity production was similar to the other scenes we watched with the Trinity production. I thought the staging was very boring. There were not many props or anything that made the play more interesting to watch. Although this is probably how the play was originally produced as, and how it was intended to look. However, to people that do not know the story of King Lear and are not familiar with Shakespeare I think the play would seem dull and hard to follow. Like many other people I agree that Edmunds performance was underwhelming, and he did not seem like the Edmund in the book.
ReplyDeleteThe Traquiar production is much more compelling. I particularly liked the outdoor setting, it was the first thing I noticed when I started the video. Although this play is not how it may have been intended to be produced, I think for modern times it’s a better version. Edmund in this version was more accurate, he was very deceiving, which is how I picture him when reading. Overall, both of the productions are very different. I think the Traquiar version is more exciting, but the Trinity version is more true to how Shakespeare intended it to be.
Like most people brought up, I found the trinity play quite boring and lacking a lot of necessary props to ensure that the audience can follow. It would be very difficult to follow this play without any prior knowledge because there are no props and very little context. Also who they portrayed the fool as in this play was not what envisioned what I read the play so that threw me off a little bit. Overall the play had potential but lacked energy and details.
ReplyDeleteThe second play was a lot better than the first one but still not that impressive. I thought that the acting was kind of awkward but that it was still more lively and enthusiastic that the first play. Also the setting of this play was interesting because it was outdoors and it gave a different perspective to the whole plot. I thought that King Lear did a way better action job in this play than the first one.
Overall didn’t love either play and personally liked reading it better than watching these two specific takes on the play.
I thought that the first performance was really bland and boring. I thought the costuming was lack luster and really took away from the audience's understanding of the play. Without the props it was kind of hard to follow. Like many others said Edmund's performance was disappointing and I thought he lacked the energy that was present in the text.
ReplyDeleteThe second performance was slightly better. This performance was a lot more energetic than the first one. There were more props and better costuming which enhanced the quality of the play overall. This time I thought that the sisters also more closely resembled the wicked persona that was created in the text
At this juncture nearly all of us are in agreement that the first production doesn't hold a candle to the second. The production values, delivery, and overall acting could have been much stronger, and thus detracted from both the audience's enjoyment and understanding of the play.
ReplyDeleteThe second performance had more strength in the delivery, and with this in mind, I think that the pre conceived Shakespearean notions came through much stronger in the second attempt. The tormented and brazen nature of lear, the conniving and cruel nature of his lesser daughters were all much more evident in this production.I thought that the outdoor stage was a nice touch and reminiscent of the Globe theater. All be told, I definitely preferred this version.
I personally did not like either of the performances very much. If I had to pick one version I preferred it would be the second version. The staging was very boring and even though minimalist sets are popular choices with Shakespeare it would have been nice to see some of a set. The acting was okay. This play has so much energy and I thought for the most part the performances were flat and the stakes were not high enough.
ReplyDeleteThe second version was not much better but it was better. I liked that it was set outside. The building it was in front of did add something to the production. I also appreciated the acting in this version a little bit more but I still thought their could have been more energy.
I personally did not like either of the performances very much. If I had to pick one version I preferred it would be the second version. The staging was very boring and even though minimalist sets are popular choices with Shakespeare it would have been nice to see some of a set. The acting was okay. This play has so much energy and I thought for the most part the performances were flat and the stakes were not high enough.
ReplyDeleteThe second version was not much better but it was better. I liked that it was set outside. The building it was in front of did add something to the production. I also appreciated the acting in this version a little bit more but I still thought their could have been more energy.
I agree with the dominant opinion that the second performance is much better than the first. In terms of clarity it provided a better display of the storyline through its better acting, use of props, and energy on stage. The actors better portrayed the characters, especially the sisters, making it more true to the text, whereas the first production was more confusing and poor delivery of the story.
ReplyDeleteThere's not much more I can say that hasn't already been said, the Trinity play was boring and would have been very hard to follow if I didn't know what the play was about already. The second play also hurt my ears but not as much as the first. Although, more enthusiastic, it was no "unabridged shakespeare company" production that you should us in class last week:)
ReplyDeleteUnlike popular opinion, I didn't think the Trinity play was that boring. It was a little elongated but it wasn't bad. I, however, didn't like the depiction of Edmund. Edmund is supposed to be schemy and a rat, but not whiny like he was when he cut himself in the arm. He was supposed to pretend to be a loyal hero, not pretend to be a whiny boy who got a booboo from his brother.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I didn't dislike the trinity play, I still found Traquair's play to be superior. The costumes and acting were much more engaging. I feel like the outdoor setting allowed this version to have more motion and better lighting, making it more interesting.
Unlike popular opinion, I didn't think the Trinity play was that boring. It was a little elongated but it wasn't bad. I, however, didn't like the depiction of Edmund. Edmund is supposed to be schemy and a rat, but not whiny like he was when he cut himself in the arm. He was supposed to pretend to be a loyal hero, not pretend to be a whiny boy who got a booboo from his brother.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I didn't dislike the trinity play, I still found Traquair's play to be superior. The costumes and acting were much more engaging. I feel like the outdoor setting allowed this version to have more motion and better lighting, making it more interesting.
As many people, including myself, have mentioned, in this blog post and the last, the first play did not do a good job of portraying King Lear through either the acting or the production. Though an empty stage could allow the the acting, rather than the accessories of a play, to shine through, the acting was lackluster and mechanical, and just made the empty play seem even more devoid. Honestly, it felt as though the actors were more focused upon getting their lines right and nailing the iambic pentameter than on actually acting. Also, Edmund is shown as in a leather jacket and wearing an insolent demeanor, and I think that is just too crude, with no attempt at subtlety. I would imagine Edmund to appear innocent and in every way a good son, but with repressed, hidden anger and ambition. Having his costume look like the “bad guy” seems like a total cop-out in my opinion. In fact, all of the costumes were weird, a mixture between Shakespearean and modern.
ReplyDeleteThe second version was a vast improvement. Though the crowd of people standing around was slightly distracting, the acting was more serious. This interpretation of Edmund, on the other hand, seemed too nice at first, and a direct contrast to that in the first play, but as I continued to watch I realized that it matched my idea of who Edmund was better. Edmund seems normal and innocent, but is ruthless. Overall, this version was much more engaging and I felt more into the play while watching it. I felt as though all the actors were cast well, portrayed their characters well, and the costumes were also much more realistic and made more sense. Though the “stage” was also somewhat empty, it had a few necessary props and the acting was good enough to carry it through despite all that, which I think is the sign of a good play.