Protagonists for William Shakespeare's plays run the gamut of age. From teenagers Romeo&Juliet to the ancient King Lear. Shakespeare was an ardent
observer of mankind at all ages.
I've often wondered if Shakespeare got the germ of an idea for Lear when in his lifetime he saw Emperor Charles V who had a lot of Europe and a lot of the new world under his control. Politics of the time dictated he divide his empire and half went to his son who became Philip II of Spain and the other half went to brother Maximilian of Austria. Charles died in a monastery 2 years later.
It might have been better for Lear if he had locked himself up in a monastery and stayed there. But he was a tired old man and he had daughters instead of suns. Two daughters flatter the old guy and they get two halves of the kingdom. The third doesn't play that game and he cuts her off.
Then instead of staying in a monastery, the daughters and their husbands make it real clear to Lear that his advice and counsel aren't needed or wanted. Quite a shock coming from his 'faithless' children.
Peter Brook directed and also augmented Shakespeare's plot with some of his own ideas. More than Bard purists denounced the production, but as I remember they fit into the play structure nicely.
Brook also shot the film on the bleak and craggy shores of the Danish coastline. You can hardly tell this is a color film. But that also fit in well with the bleak and moody atmosphere of the play itself.
One undeniable asset this King Lear has is Paul Scofield in the title role. He is nothing short of superb in the title role and he underplays a lot more than either Laurence Olivier or Orson Welles in the same part. His closeups tell a great deal of the story.
This is not the best King Lear, but for Paul Scofield fans an absolute must.
I've often wondered if Shakespeare got the germ of an idea for Lear when in his lifetime he saw Emperor Charles V who had a lot of Europe and a lot of the new world under his control. Politics of the time dictated he divide his empire and half went to his son who became Philip II of Spain and the other half went to brother Maximilian of Austria. Charles died in a monastery 2 years later.
It might have been better for Lear if he had locked himself up in a monastery and stayed there. But he was a tired old man and he had daughters instead of suns. Two daughters flatter the old guy and they get two halves of the kingdom. The third doesn't play that game and he cuts her off.
Then instead of staying in a monastery, the daughters and their husbands make it real clear to Lear that his advice and counsel aren't needed or wanted. Quite a shock coming from his 'faithless' children.
Peter Brook directed and also augmented Shakespeare's plot with some of his own ideas. More than Bard purists denounced the production, but as I remember they fit into the play structure nicely.
Brook also shot the film on the bleak and craggy shores of the Danish coastline. You can hardly tell this is a color film. But that also fit in well with the bleak and moody atmosphere of the play itself.
One undeniable asset this King Lear has is Paul Scofield in the title role. He is nothing short of superb in the title role and he underplays a lot more than either Laurence Olivier or Orson Welles in the same part. His closeups tell a great deal of the story.
This is not the best King Lear, but for Paul Scofield fans an absolute must.