Compare and contrast at least two versions of King Lear
I.i linked below. Each clip varies in terms of
length; however, pay particular attention to the portrayal of Lear and his
reaction to both Cordelia and to Kent.
Two versions also include Regan and Goneril’s conversation at the end of
the scene. Comment on the staging and
editing of the scene as well.
Trinity Theater https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy7e6O4bbkM
Olivier Production https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aprnQoOqWwY
Ian McKellen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrTUW8iz7Gc
(picks up after Cordelia speaks…watch for Lear’s reaction).
Post is due Friday 3/11.
The first video I watched was the Olivier Production video. The first few things that I noticed were that the costumes were good, but the music at the beginning was extremely irritating in my opinion. I thought it was weird how at the beginning all of the men laid down on the floor in front of King Lear. I also did not expect King Lear to look the way he did. He doesn’t look like a man of power. I think the casting was fairly done, the people do not look as I would have expected them to. I feel like the acting was kind of awkward, I just think it’s over all poorly executed as a whole play. Kent is also a lot older than I had envisioned him to be, I thought he was a young man.
ReplyDeleteThe second video I chose to watch was the Ian McKellen one. Right away I think they did a better job with casting the characters. I think that Cordelia looks more like what I had imagined than she did in the other one. I think King Lear looks, and definitely sounds more powerful than King Lear in the other play. I think the acting is also better overall. I think that King Lear’s outfit in this scene is better, but Cordelia’s dress looks like a wedding dress. Lear also seems older in this one, which makes sense, because it is his age that makes him go mad. Kent also fits the role better than the Kent in the other play. All of these character’s have more passion and the acting is much better executed. France and Burgundy do not look like what I had expected, but I guess I didn’t have a very clear image in mind before.
Overall, I prefer the second video that I watched over the first. I think that the acting and the costumes were better. I also feel like the second one was better filmed and the sound was more clear. I think the set fit the scene more as well. The set in the first resembled a dungeon in a way, but the set in the first seems like a room in a a very nice house, or castle. The actors in the second put more emotion into their acting which I think effected my opinion.
I watched the Trinity Theater production first and I thought overall it was well done. I like the use of the round stage where Lear is set upstage center for the entirety of the scene. Visually, the audience can automatically see the "hierarchy" between the characters with Lear being at the apex. I liked the choice to have Cordelia stand off of the stage and out of the circle (metaphoric). I have performed Shakespeare before, and can empathize with the actors. It is difficult to understand Shakespearean text, and essential to know what you are saying (what everything means) to be able to portray emotion correctly. I think the actors in Trinity Theater understand what they are saying on a deeper level- a crucial factor in the success of the performance. Some acting choices were weird, but I think the stage itself added another layer that really helped acting choices and made status more clear throughout the scene. This is a well done, low budget performance.
ReplyDeleteI also watched the Ian McKellen performance. I liked this production as well, but it is clear it had a higher budget than Trinity. The work put in to the set, props and costuming is very much appreciated. Similar to Trinity, I feel as if these actors definitely took the time to develop an understanding for both their characters as well as their dialogue. This Lear seems angrier than the Lear in Trinity, but I found it interesting at Cordelia's reaction in this production. She seems to smile right at the beginning as if she is happy that she is being disowned, like she is being freed from something. The interaction was much less climactic than Trinities interpretation.
Due to production values I am partial to the Ian McKellan version. The visual effect was able to put me more into the world of the play than Trinity's version (costume's, set, etc.- all attributed to a higher budget.). However, I do believe that Trinity's staging choices were phenomenal. The staging added to the confrontation between Lear and Cordelia, and physically separated Cordelia from the rest, as if she was exiled from the circle.
I watched the Trinity Theater video first. The intro music and graphics were very long and animated so I assumed the play would be similar, which it was not. The presentation was almost barren and all the characters were shown at the same time, with Lear of course in the middle. The props along with the staging and were very plain and made impressions of emptiness. It seemed that the director might have intended to stage the play this way to follow the motif of “nothing”.
ReplyDeleteThe staging was much different in the second video I watched, the Ian McKellen version. The atmosphere was definitely a lot more dark, but it also had a lot of detail and abundance to it. The characters were not all show at the same time in this version, which created a focus on the specific characters performing at that moment.
The characters were definitely similar, considering they had the same lines. But there were still variations in the way each of the characters were played between the Ian McKellen and Trinity Theater versions. Cordelia is wearing a white dress in both videos, which could be a depiction of her purity. During Lear’s discussion with the two suitors, Cordelia is on her knees begging and almost crying to Lear, while in the McKellen video Cordelia is more collected and assertive towards her father.
In the Trinity video, Goneril and Regan reminded me of the wicked step-sisters in Cinderella, especially in the way they fought with Cordelia. They often looked down when being reproached in attempts to act like they were unaware of their deceptiveness. When Lear throws the crown on the ground they both go to grab it. Similarly, when they are the only two characters left on stage besides Lear’s throne, they both seem to take turns sitting in it with a smug look on their faces. Their discussion on Lear’s authority and sanity seemed to be rooted in jealousy and their father’s previous favoring of Cordelia. In the McKellen video, Goneril is much kinder to Cordelia, though it may of course be fake. Goneril seems to have the more dominate voice between her and Regan, and stops Regan from expressing her anger along with initiating the discussion on problems with Lear. The sisters believe Lear is not a good authority and definitely seem more sinister about doing something about Lear in this version.
Of course a huge part of both these versions is King Lear himself. Lear is portrayed as an old, shaky, unsettling man in both videos as in the play itself. In the Trinity version, though Lear’s reaction to Cordelia is notably mad, it’s more so distraught and disappointed. In his argument with Kent, Lear seems to be contemplating what Kent is saying but can't accept it so he just yells at him in rage. Lear demeans Kent and Cordelia in an attempt to redeem confidence and power. The McKellen version displays a more emotional, exhausted Lear. After he erupts at Cordelia, he can barely breathe, demonstrating the emotion that had just been ripped out of him. Kent is persistent in his explanation to Lear, which seems to make Lear feel inferior and result in Lear hitting Kent. Lear is much more aggressive and emotional in this version, a good demonstration of his lack of control.
I think that Lizzie did a really great job summarizing these videos and there relation to the text and other versions of the play. Something I found that also stood out to me that Lizzie pointed out was the relation between Goneril and Regan and the step sisters from Cinderella. Goneril and Regan are prime examples of the evil that power brings out in people. And even with Leer we see this sort of "madness" or you could say decent into darkness once he loses his power. I think by watching each one of these scenes it really helped me connect more with the text. I was having a hard time finding common ground with King Leer until I saw it acted out. I think by watching these I've realized that Shakespeare isn't as distant and far off into the past as I once thought he was.
DeleteI chose to watch the Oliver Production and the Ian Mckellen version of the scene. Both versions displayed subtle colors and similar attire. The king was white haired and white bearded in both which I found effective because he is supposed to be elderly and on the verge of madness. The first version shows the process in which each daughter professes or does not profess her love for their father while the Mckellen version focuses more on the aftermath and the overall situation with the Duke of Burgundy and the Prince of France. In the Oliver Production, Lear banishes Cordelia aggressively, but also shows emotion when he sheds tears in the middle of his request to exile her. The Ian Mckellen version shows less emotion in regards to the close relationship that Lear felt he had with Cordelia. It displays the more insane side of him which is depicted when he waves the crown in her face in order to tease her. I thought these were two very interesting ways of approaching the situation. One shows the betrayal that Lear had felt and the other displays the fact that he is on the cusp of going insane.
ReplyDeleteI also noticed that Cordelia’s hair is down in the Oliver Production and it is tied up in the Ian Mckellen version. She is also dressed in very different attire in both scenes. In the first, she is wearing a conservative robe-like dress and in the second she is wearing a more revealing and tight dress. I wonder what each director was thinking when they assigned these costumes. In the Mckellen version, Goneril and Regan are dressed similarly to each other in bland robes which I think serves to contrast the separate personalities between Cordelia and those of her sisters.
Next, I observed the placement of Lear’s crown in each production. In the Oliver Production, he was initially wearing it until he took it off when discussing the separation of power. In the Mckellen version, the crown is not visible until he pulls it out of a drawer. I also noticed that he is seated in a large and high throne in the Oliver Production. The other scene shows him seated at a large table surrounded by many people. The throne may serve to depict his position of authority before he relinquishes his power and the table symbolizes that he is just like everybody else after he separates his power.
The first production of King Lear I watched was the Olivier Production. The setting was dark and gloomy, unlike what I expected it to be. When I read the book, I imagined a fairly bright room, mostly gold, in a palace. King Lear also did not look like what I imagined he would. Again, I expected him to look more royal than this production portrayed him as. Overall, he just looked weaker than what I imagined. It is immediately made obvious that King Lear finds great satisfaction in hearing people profess their love for him, even if it is clearly disingenuous, highlighting his lack of depth as a person. When Cordelia tells him that she loves him no more or less than their bond would require, he is terribly sad because Cordelia was his favorite daughter. In this production, though Lear does show anger, he seems more sad, upset and disappointed in Cordelia’s response than he does angry. He also cannot understand that she is the only one that is “true”, again highlighting his lack of depth. Lear shows more anger in his reaction to Kent. Kent tries to explain that Cordelia and true and does not love him least, but Lear has none of it, yelling at him and even drawing a sword on him. Kent comes off stronger than I would have imagined, but I liked it. He stands up more for himself and Cordelia than I would have given him credit for when I just read the play. Cordelia come off quite nervous and sad-looking, which is exactly how I pictured her to be.
ReplyDeleteThe second production I watched was Ian McKellen’s. The scene is more like what I pictured that the last. It seems more royal and looks more like a room of someone who is wealthy. However, it is dark like that other production was. Though I did not imagine it this way, it makes sense because the darkness foreshadows Lear’s anger. In this clip of the production, we did not see the sisters proclaim their love for Lear, so we did not see his reactions, except to Cordelia’s statements. He is much angrier and louder in his production. I would be more afraid of this King Lear than the King Lear in Olivier’s production. In reaction to both Kent and Cordelia, Lear yells and is clearly disgusted by both of them. Lear even punches Kent, which did not happen in the other production. Cordelia looks completely different in this production that the last. She is more royal looking, dressed in a ball gown, with her hair perfectly done up and lots of jewels. She looks more powerful in this production than the last, but I preferred her portrayal in the Olivier production because in my opinion it makes her seem more innocent and true. Like the other production, Kent seems stronger than I gave him credit for, but again I liked it and I thought it gave him a lot of depth of character.
I watched the two King Lear performances by Trinity Theater and Olivier. The two were very similar regarding Lear's reactions to Cordelia's statement of love however I thought Lear's reaction in Olivier was a bit more interesting and shows a more human side to him than just him being an evil man. In both it is obvious that he loves Cordelia much more than the other two daughters because he enters with her by his side and also gives very loving looks to her. However, in both performances the reactions of Lear were different. In Trinity, he is originally shocked to the point of anger. To me it seemed that he was more concerned with the fact that other people witnessed this altercation rather than the fact that she does not meet his standards. He seems so betrayed by Cordelia but I also noticed that he immediately wanted the other bystanders to forget about the situation and then scattered them. He reacted out of anger to Kent but I think that is because he was so embarrassed. Yet in Olivier, Lear seems more like a caring and loving father when talking to Cordelia. When he first asks her he looks proud while talking to her and looks excited for her answer as well. His sense of shock with her answer though promotes a sense of shock that makes him think that she is just joking. Lear seemed as though he was just laughing off her statement waiting for her to truly confess her love for him but she did not. He seemed extremely confused and his angry response just seemed like a way for him to try to blackmail her into changing her mind about her answer. In regards to the other two sisters and thier evil plan, in Trinity their staging seemed really relaxed and casual because they were talking over wine and the scene seemed less important to them than I thought it would be. It seemed as though they were taking it very lightly.
ReplyDeleteI watched the Olivier production first. I agree with Grace that the set was definitely much darker than I would've thought. It seemed more "dungeon-like" than a castle. Also, I imagine the costumes of the royal family to be more exquisite. I didn't think the casting was great for this production, especially for the daughters. They were way too old. I expected Cordelia to be late teens or early twenties. I also think that the actor who played Lear looked sort of like a cartoon king. It didn't seem very authentic and I couldn't really take anything he said seriously. I think this production did a really good job portraying the daughters groveling to their father. I didn't really like how the camera frame was basically only on one person's face the whole time (usually whoever was speaking). I wasn't really able to see the other people's reactions. The whole scene just seemed to drag along for me. However, it definitely helped me picture the part where Lear banishes Kent, which I had trouble imagining when I read the play. Overall, this version helped make some of the scene clearer, but I liked the Ian McKellen version much better.
ReplyDeleteI watched the Ian McKellen version second, and I was much more pleased withe the casting. Cordelia is much younger, and it seems like she would be more likely to just be getting married than the actress in the first version. Also, Lear's reaction is more dramatic - closer to what I pictured - and Lear seems more like a real king. The first Lear was very whiny. In regards to the filming, I like how the camera flashes around and shows everyone's reactions. This just makes the whole thing seem more authentic and professional. Like the first version, this one also provided a clear portrayal of Kent and Lear's disagreement and Burgandy and France. I also liked how this version showed the sisters' conversation at the end. I had a hard time picturing this interaction, but this production made it much clearer.
I watched the Trinity Theater version and the Ian McKellen version, and chose focused a lot on the portrayal of Lear. Lear is a character who is mad but we never know how he got to be that way or why, so it is up to the actor to decide that for himself. In the TT version, Lear was more angry and raging. He seemed very strong in his physical presence which lead me to believe the actor was playing for a moral corruption. He was a deluded character who became that way due to a power trip or whatever it may be. I thought it was interesting to watch as personally I did not feel that Lear had become so mad due to moral corruption, but do to a much deeper psychological problem. I also did not like the set for this version. Shakespeare sets are typically very minimalist and open, but I thought this was just boring. For a play such as King Lear there is so much opportunity for visual symbolism, and you could have a lot of fun with a show that has such dark context. So I was unimpressed by that aspect.
ReplyDeleteI personally enjoyed Ian McKellen's version much more overall. His portrayal of Lear was much more what I would expect. He was angry and raging but there was a sort of feebleness surrounding his character. I got the sense that underneath it all he was a mentally deteriorating old man, and that that mental deterioration was leading to his corruption as a King. It was a film so they had a lot more liberty with set but still I thought they staged it in an appropriate and accurate set. Costumes in this version were also much more appropriate and I really enjoyed them.
I watched the Trinity Theatre and Olivier versions of King Lear. Both performances, in my opinion, were very interesting and helpful in illustrating some aspects of the play more difficult for me to understand from the reading. I found that the Olivier production in particular was interesting because of its portrayal of King Lear himself. While both plays show him favoring Cordelia, they differ in his specific reactions to her. The Trinity performance displays him in angry shock, upset by the many witnesses to his anger. He immediately reacts to the bystanders to his situation, whereas he addresses the deeper conflict with Cordelia afterwards. In Olivier, however, King Lear is portrayed as a more invested,caring father figure to Cordelia. He does not as seriously accept her answer in this version and his anger and confusion seem more skewed.
ReplyDeleteThe two videos I watched were the first from the Trinity Theater, and also the third cup from Ian McKellen. Trinity theater’s production was set on a circular stage with little to no props. Many of the people stood around the stage if they were not involved in the scene, which emphasized the focus on the language of the play. Lear first appears composed and attentive, and gladly embraces his first two daughter’s flattery. He seems giddy and show appreciation until he his struck with Cordeila’s response. Instantly, Lear snaps and his mood changes as he addresses Cordelia to leave immediately. I thought in this case he resembled the stubbornness of Lear from the text of the play. Cordelia continues to explain herself to Lear, but he does not understand her argument. This Lear is viewed as one-mined and is set on marrying Cordeila off after her surprising outburst.
ReplyDeleteThe Ian McKellen clip differs in many elements. To start, the setting is much more vivid and accurately resembles a palace of the time period. The costumes and characters fit the script of the play, and captures the scenes essence. This King Lear seems more vicious than the previous, and almost acts insane. He yells at his beloved Cordelia and is disarranged by her response. Unlike the other clip, Cordelia barely talks and does not seem in slightest to be independent. She makes one remark in which her father completely disregards. The fear in Cordelia’s eyes is obvious due to her fathers harsh reaction. After referring to her as a “wretch” Lear attempts to just marry Cordelia off. Kent in both scenarios shows extreme compassion towards Cordelia and makes a stronger effort for Lear’s appreciation than Cordelia does.
I watched the Trinity and Olivier Productions.
ReplyDeleteWatching the Trinity Theater production, I think that the portrayals of the speaking characters was generally positive, Lear, Kent, France, and Cordelia in particular. Lear in this case is well cast for the visibly-once-strong-man becoming slightly unstable; he was very abrupt at points, but that fits into his characterization of insanity. Kent and France were generally reasonably positive, though Cordelia seemed a bit more aggressive (maybe just me, but the attempts at her sadness over Lear struck me as this). Goneril and Regan's initial points of flattery falls... flat, but their interaction at the end is engaging The problems were with the background characters who don't really react to the central scene. While this isn't too bad it made the integration of Cordelia's worrisome asides somewhat awkward. Other issues include the fact that the cutting was inconsistent (though this is not what was originally planned and is thus forgivable) and the inconsistent staging/props (simple, but off... modern suit with Lear's outfit? Really? The use of the throne was nice, especially with Goneril and Regan sitting on it at the end). Overall, I will admit that the editing did color my perception of the scene as a whole.
Olivier's Productions immediately has better costumes, though this should no be surprising given its medium (although it still seems to be in the middle of a cave). This also gets rid of issues like the background characters, though this cannot be the main focus. The acting is also solid; the daughters' words to their father is better. The main difference I note is the characterizations of Lear and Kent. Lear's anger is somewhat more subdued; personally, is actually prefer this slightly as Lear shows a greater range (his fatherly affection for Cordelia is seen). Kent also seems slightly more assertive and angrier, which feels more realistic, although it might not be too fitting with the text of the play.
I watched the Trinity and McKellen productions. To be honest, I was not a fan of the trinity play. I was really disappointed with the interaction between Cordelia and King Lear. Cordelia didn't portray that unexplainable love that can not be comprehended by words. When she says nothing, she just sounds wicked sassy. When Lear and Cordelia had an argument, it wasn't portrayed well. Cordelia isn't supposed to raise her voice and show anger toward her father. She's supposed to stay calm and emit genuine love while Lear fails to recognize it and throw a mad fit. With Lear, a crazy man needs crazy body language, but there was none. He was just a dude with a loud, angry voice. Also, Kent was supposed to go on a rant and explain the truth about the daughters' love but he was just cutoff. Regan and Goneril, however, were portrayed well.
ReplyDeleteThe McKellen production was very good. It was a movie so it was a little easier to express the scene to its fullest. Everyone was portrayed as they should have. Cordelia had that "I can't express how much I love you" sort of character while Lear's lack of recognition toward her love was a clear product of his madness. He was absolutely insane. Like when he yelled "nothing" through the hole in the crown.
I like parth watched the trinity and the mckellen productions. Though I will say that I was motivated to watch the mckellen one because I wanted to see magneto in shakespeare. I found mckellen's production of the scene to be much more entertaining and closer to how I would picture not just Lear's lunacy but also the scene itself and the beauty of Cordelia. McKellen's acting was closer to the way I envision Lear because his lunacy is more subtle, detailed and present in every word and motion. The way I picture Lear being crazy is the same way that Heath Ledger portrayed the Joker's madness. However,I do think sometimes he misses the mark and is too concerned with the next line instead of the line he is speaking. Furthermore, I just believed that this scene was real due to the production, clothing and just overall acting in McKellen's scene. The scening and casting is very similar to the way I imagined it. Compared to the Trinity scene I found this scene to depict every character to their near truest form.
DeleteThe Trinity scene was hard to get through for me. I really did not think that Lear was that crazy from this actor. There was just no presence, energy next level acting that I got from Mckellen and made that scene so good. Also the supporting cast of Cordelia, Kent, Burgundy and France was lackluster at best. And I know that it is hard to have great scenery and Shakespeare's original play would be out it but this scene seemed very bland. Really it comes down to the lack of emotion and lunacy from Lear that makes this hard for me to watch. I don't need Lear yelling and shouting about Cordelia but I do need the subtle but cynical expressions from Lear that Mckellen at times has.
I watched the Olivier Production as well as the Ian McKellen video. I was really not impressed by the Olivier production of King Lear.
ReplyDeleteI thought that the casting of the characters was horrendous. I wasn't sure if this was a production put on by of local senior citizen center, but all of the characters, especially Lear’s daughters, Goneril, Regan, and Cordelia, seemed to be much older than I expected. In this version of the play, Cordelia seemed to be very weak, something that I was not particularly into. I also thought that the costumes looked rather cheap and did not accurately portray the wealth of a royal family. One major problem that I had with the production was the portrayal of Lear. As I read the play, I pictured Lear as a very strong, intimidating, and wrathful character, but that is not the feeling I got from this portrayal of Lear. This was especially seen during his reaction to Cordelia’s failure to express her love. At this moment in the video Lear seemed to be upset rather than furious.
I thought that the Ian McKellen production of King Lear was much more successful. I thought that the casting was phenomenal and the actors in the play appeared to look more similar to what I had in mind when I was reading the play. I thought that they actress who played Cordelia in this rendition also had a certain strength to her that I was really drawn to. The costumes and set design of this production seemed much more luxurious and did a better job of capturing the wealth of the royal family. I thought that the portrayal of Lear in this production was also much more successful. His reaction to the talk with his daughters was much more intimidating and I thought more accurately showed his rage and presence as a character in the play.
Overall, I thought that the Ian McKellen production of King Lear was incredibly more successful than the Olivier production.
I also watched the Oliver production and Ian McKellen version. My first thoughts regarding the Oliver production was that it was more "brighter" in the sense of colors for costumes. However, I think that King Lear in the Oliver production seemed more regal than Ian McKellan's King Lear. In the Ian McKellan version, King Lear looks and acts more as a manic and an insane person. Furthermore, there is more play with light and dark in Ian McKellan's version. Cordelia (in Ian McKellan) is dressed in all white, and majority of the light in the scene is cast down on her. On the other hand, Ian McKellan is dressed in dark reds that could represent impulse and passionate emotions. Furthermore, Ian McKellan had less of a presence within the scene. There were multiple people crowded and the only thing that distinguished him from the rest was his red clothing. In addition, the actors look more at King Lear in a pitiful way unlike the Oliver Production one. In the Oliver Production play, people were bowing to King Lear and the only thing on stage with the light cast was King Lear's throne.
ReplyDeleteI watched the Trinity Theatre and Ian McKellen versions of King Lear. They both made me understand the plot of the play better; to see the play being acted out it is easier to understand. The Trinity Theatre was overall less emotional and duller. Lear was angry and seemed to be very stubborn. However, he did not seem as crazy as the play portrays him. The set of the Trinity Theatre production was very boring. It was set on a circular stage and there were not many props. I thought there should be some music played every once in a while to liven it up. The Ian McKellen version was very different from the Trinity production in that way. It had many props, and the actors were dressed up much more. Lear seemed older in this version, and that seemed to make him seem more insane. I thought all the characters were portrayed correctly in the Ian McKellen version. Overall, I enjoyed the Ian McKellen portrayal better, probably because it is a movie.
ReplyDeleteThe first play I watched was Trinity Theater. I thought that the take on this play was interesting especially because of the set up of the play. The stage was round which gave an interesting simplicity to a complicated play, allowing all the characters to be seen at all times. it was also interesting that there were very few props because it made the true emotions of each actor and actress stand out more and have their voices be a lot more important. King Lear seems to have a complete mood change in the middle of the scene when he reacts to Cordelia in a negative manner and lashes out at her. You can clearly tell that his stubbornness is coming through and I think that actor did a good job with. This play also seems pretty modern compared to the others because of the way they are dressed and the little amount of props. One last thing I noticed about this place was that there were both men and woman actor’s and actresses which was not always common in Shakespear’s plays. This was also the case in the second video I watched as well. The Ian McKellen play is set up very differently because there are way more props and the characters are more dressed up. The actor’s also look different and are different ages in this play. It seems as though Cordelia does not have as much of a “voice” in this play because she barley speaks when King Lear lashes out at her and does not show that much emotion what so ever. I think that this play did a more accurate job at portraying the scene that we read in the book.
ReplyDeleteI watched the Oliver production as well as the McKellen production. I preferred the Mckellen version for a multitude of reasons. First, I thought the production value was significantly better. This includes the costumes, lighting, and stage organization. The lighting in the Oliver version is bizarre and hazy which is good at times because it distracts from the cheesy costumes. Second, I think Lear was cast more effectively in the Mckellen production. I think Ian McKellen (magneto) was able to more successfully capture Lear's madness and the other characters showed the lack of respect for Lear that is evident in the text. I agree with Olinah that LEar seems more regal in the Oliver version, but he is not a regal character and this poise seems to contradict his characteristic madness. In the Oliver version, Lear is on a throne and seems too powerful for his mental state in the text. Third, I really liked the casting decisions for Regan, Goneril, and Cordelia in the McKellen production. I like how Regan and Goneril look very similar while Cordelia stands out and is more striking. This exemplifies and reinforces their character similarities in the play and makes it easy for someone watching the movie to identify and understand the characters.
ReplyDeleteThe first version I watched was the trinity one. I think the actors did an excellent job despite the very simple costumes and set design. I realize the production team probably chose simple costumes and set design so as not to distract from the performances of the actors, but I personally found it a bit bland to look at. (I'm a bit biased because costume design, especially in film, is something I hope to do as a career).
ReplyDeleteI loved the Sir Ian McKellen one . While I do like plays, I just tend to love movies more because there is the opportunity through framing and precise sets to really create a whole new world. With cinematography, you can emphasize different moments by creating extreme close ups, establishing shots, moving shots, and shots that highlight particular characters as they talk. You also can set a mood with lighting more so than on a stage. In film, costumes become more significant simply because you can see them better. A close up shot along the crown in Lear's hands, and then on Cordelia's stricken face conveys the emotion in the action of the transference of power far better, in my opinion, than if I just saw the action straight on from a seat in the audience. Finally, I do think the acting is better in the film version. I'm not an expert at ranking acting skills, and it could just be the effect of the more intimate film medium, but the actors seemed engaged with their reactions and deliverance of lines. I also just like Ian McKellen, so there's bias all over the place.
I first watched the Olivier production and then the Ian McKellen production. I far preferred the McKellen version, because it used a much more sophisticated and realistic set and had a more dynamic shot variety (as Fiona referenced). The set and costume design in Olivier's production left a great deal to be desired. The costumes in Olivier's were too bright and decorative in my opinion, detracting from the actual acting, while the more neutral and bleak colors in McKellen's design matched the dark mood of the scene more appropriately.
ReplyDeleteIn Olivier's set, the throne was clearly the focal point of the entire stage, and besides the rug on the center, there is no other decoration. This minimalistic approach allows the viewer to pay a greater deal of attention to the acting, however I did not even find the acting to be as convincing as it was in McKellen's version.
I felt that the actor that portrayed Lear in McKellen's was more effective in conveying the madness and late age of Lear through his projection and mannerisms, whereas the Lear in Olivier's version was less believable. Olivier's Lear seemed to be more shouting than actually acting, and his anger was not authentic enough in his facial expressions. I also agree with Jack about the stronger casting in McKellen's take. Cordelia is visibly young and beautiful, and has a softness to her, while the other two sisters are reminiscent of the "evil stepsisters" that appear in many fairytales.
Overall, I much rather preferred McKellen's version to Olivier's version, because it came off as more realistic and authentic to me, and it matched my own perception of the writing better.
The two videos that I decided to watch were the Oliver Production and the Trinity Theater. The first video that I decided to watch was the Oliver Production. To be honest, I didn't really like this video too much. I think the main problem I had with this video was the fact that I didn't really like the people they chose to play the characters. I thought Lear was a bad choice. When I read a book I always paint a picture of how I think the characters should look, and I just don't think it fit too well. Another weird thing about this video was that you could tell that the budget was probably pretty small due to the fact that it was hard to see the scene due to the lighting. Overall the video was okay, but compared to the next video that I watched, it wasn't up to that standard. The next video that I watched was the Trinity Theater. Now I really like this version of the scene a lot. Like a couple of people said, I really liked how the stage was set up. I liked how it was a round stage because I think it was interesting, and made the video stand out against the other videos. I also think it really helped make the acting better because you were able to see every character. Lastly, one of the best things about this video was that it made it easy for me to understand Shakespearian language, which is always a good thing in my eyes.
ReplyDeleteI decided to view the Oliver production and then Sir Ian McKellan version. Watching the Olivier performance first, I was a little disappointed. While the poor production value and presentation are not the most crippling aspects to the show, the casting was a major problem that I was unable to overlook. Casting can be everything in small, underfunded productions such as this one. I felt that the interpretations and personality that the actors brought to the characters was too personalized and distant from the characters that Shakespeare created, especially with Lear.
ReplyDeleteMcKellan's version, I found, had much stronger casting, including the legend himself. Lear is portrayed as a much more powerful and royal figure, and respectively susceptible to madness. His physical outburst of violence, his wrath, create a much more powerful and convincing performance. All in all, I would say that Gandalf makes the best Lear. There can only be one true king (Lear), and one true ring to rule them all.
I decided to view the Oliver production and then Sir Ian McKellan version. Watching the Olivier performance first, I was a little disappointed. While the poor production value and presentation are not the most crippling aspects to the show, the casting was a major problem that I was unable to overlook. Casting can be everything in small, underfunded productions such as this one. I felt that the interpretations and personality that the actors brought to the characters was too personalized and distant from the characters that Shakespeare created, especially with Lear.
ReplyDeleteMcKellan's version, I found, had much stronger casting, including the legend himself. Lear is portrayed as a much more powerful and royal figure, and respectively susceptible to madness. His physical outburst of violence, his wrath, create a much more powerful and convincing performance. All in all, I would say that Gandalf makes the best Lear. There can only be one true king (Lear), and one true ring to rule them all.
I watched Trinity Theater first and I thought what was most interesting was primarily, the set up of the play. The simplicity of the round stage seemed to act as a camouflage for the actual intense complication of the play. What the play lacked in props it made up for in the acting of each actor. King Lear's shift in mood when he reacted to Cordelia's response to his inquiries was completely realistic in the context of the play. And this play, compared to the others especially, seemed to be the most modernized. The Ian McKellen play was different to the first in the way of the character's physical appearance, they had more elaborate costumes and more props to work with. Another thing was that compared to the book and other play, it seemed like Cordelia wasn't as strongly portrayed, she barely responses when her father lashes out at her. She also didn't show as much emotion as I would think appropriate, but come to think of it, that might be more accurate to the play.
ReplyDeleteI watched Trinity Theater first and I thought what was most interesting was primarily, the set up of the play. The simplicity of the round stage seemed to act as a camouflage for the actual intense complication of the play. What the play lacked in props it made up for in the acting of each actor. King Lear's shift in mood when he reacted to Cordelia's response to his inquiries was completely realistic in the context of the play. And this play, compared to the others especially, seemed to be the most modernized. The Ian McKellen play was different to the first in the way of the character's physical appearance, they had more elaborate costumes and more props to work with. Another thing was that compared to the book and other play, it seemed like Cordelia wasn't as strongly portrayed, she barely responses when her father lashes out at her. She also didn't show as much emotion as I would think appropriate, but come to think of it, that might be more accurate to the play.
ReplyDeleteI watched the Trinity theater version first, and I agree with Lizzie that from the beginning the stage seems completely empty and devoid of props and set. Though this could have been, as she said, an attempt to convey the theme of “nothingness” and to make the play only about the characters and the story, it also meant that the actors would have to carry a large burden of the play. Their performances are more essential than ever to bring across to the audience the play and its themes. However, I did not feel that the actors had strong enough performances to draw the audience into the play. It could have been the effect of the poor audio quality, but the actor who played King Lear seemed to be speaking in monotones and merely reciting lines. And because of this, the empty stage seemed awkward and ungainly. On the other hand, the actresses playing Regan and Goneril did a good job of conveying the shallowness of the two sisters. Lear seems to be interpreted as somewhat of a benign, naive, and somewhat childish old man, and even when he is supposed to be angry with Cordelia he is not very aggressive.. I particularly disliked the part in which Cordelia says that she has “Nothing” to say to Lear of her love for him. Though this production attempted to show Cordelia as being innocent and pure through her white costume and tone of voice, she seemed too rushed and loud when she declared that she loved Lear “no more nor less” than she needed to, and I felt that Cordelia was more hesitant, loving, and desperate when she spoke those words.
ReplyDeleteI also watched the Ian McKellen version, and I much preferred it to the Trinity production. The actors’ performances were much more emotional and captivating, and in particular Ian McKellen was able to shoulder most of the scene. Unlike in the Trinity version, King Lear is portrayed by McKellen as more confused, aggressive, and insane. Cordelia is portrayed in a slightly confusing manner, as she is both innocent and intelligent, purehearted and vindictive. However, I think that this is in keeping with Cordelia’s portrayal in the play, and the actress is also more emotional. This version is overall much more dark and profound, and the more detailed costumes and set add, rather than detract, from the messages of the play.
The two performances that I decided to watch were the Trinity production and the Oliver production. In the Trinity production I felt like the actors did fantastic job. They were really energetic and did a good job of portraying the characters. However the set and costuming was a bit bland. From the audience's perspective it was hard to become fully emerged into the play when the set and costumes were so simple. This was probably a conscious decision by the producer so that the audience focused more on the acting than anything else but I don't really agree with it. I think a key part of the experience of watching a play is the visual aspect of it, otherwise you might as well just read it. But overall it was a decent production.
ReplyDeleteIn the Oliver version however I thought the acting wasn't as strong as the Trinity production. It wasn't as energetic and I felt it was overall subpar. I also thought some of the choices for casting were a little bit weird and that really detracted from the play itself.