Despite a mixed reception, there was more than enough to persuade me to see this film version of 'King Lear'. That the play itself is one of Shakespeare's best, regardless of one's feelings of the titular character in the first act the play does contain a lot of emotional impact, iconic characters and scenes and some of the best dialogue he ever wrote. The cast are an immensely talented one, with Paul Scofield especially always an actor that had the ability to make anything he was in better. That it was directed by Peter Brook.
Although there will be people who disagree, to me there isn't a "bad" available version of 'King Lear' and the best versions (such as the 70s Russian film) are brilliant. Even the weaker versions, which left me conflicted if anything, have a good deal to recommend. This film is one of the lesser adaptations, with, like the version with Antony Hopkins, a lot to like but also some serious reservations. It is a laudable attempt at a mammoth play, with the cast (though more the men than the women) being one of the better aspects overall but that it's heavily cut is an undoing as well as that it tries to do too much.
Shall start with the good things. The best aspect is Scofield's insightful and intensely moving Lear, and other standouts are Jack McGowran's refreshingly sinister Fool (a character that can be annoying, but McGowran gives one of the best interpretations of the role of any available version of the play in my view), Patrick Magee's creepy Cornwall and Alan Webb's poignant Gloucester. Was not as keen on the ladies overall, but coming off best easily is Susan Engel's venomous and chillingly manipulative Regan.
Did like the suitably darkly foreboding costumes and sets a lot and the film is scored hauntingly. Shakespeare's dialogue wrenches the gut and is both beautiful and uncompromising, then again this aspect is consistently wonderful in every play of his regardless of the story (that quality overall is a lot more variable). Brook's direction does do very well at most of the character interactions, all the male roles are directed vividly and there are some gripping dramatic moments, such as one of the most moving interpretations of Gloucester's death scene seen in any version of 'King Lear'.
There are shortcomings sadly however. At too many points, Brook's direction comes over as too eccentric and has too much of a showing off feel visually. Despite loving the sets and costumes, the photography and editing generally are too stylised and the worst of it amateurish. The camerawork tends to be too frantic and the abruptness of the closeups and editing disorientated rather than fascinated.
Adaptation-wise, this 'King Lear' is heavily cut, so there is a jumpy feel to the dialogue and structure that can affect the coherence of the already complex drama and motivations. Doing so while also having some dull stretches. The female roles are not near as interesting as the male ones, only Engel registers. Irene Worth has her unsettling moments as Goneril but generally is too soft spoken. Faring worst is Annelise Gabold's very bland Cordelia, whose role felt somehow underwritten here.
Concluding, some great things but also some not so good. 6/10.
Although there will be people who disagree, to me there isn't a "bad" available version of 'King Lear' and the best versions (such as the 70s Russian film) are brilliant. Even the weaker versions, which left me conflicted if anything, have a good deal to recommend. This film is one of the lesser adaptations, with, like the version with Antony Hopkins, a lot to like but also some serious reservations. It is a laudable attempt at a mammoth play, with the cast (though more the men than the women) being one of the better aspects overall but that it's heavily cut is an undoing as well as that it tries to do too much.
Shall start with the good things. The best aspect is Scofield's insightful and intensely moving Lear, and other standouts are Jack McGowran's refreshingly sinister Fool (a character that can be annoying, but McGowran gives one of the best interpretations of the role of any available version of the play in my view), Patrick Magee's creepy Cornwall and Alan Webb's poignant Gloucester. Was not as keen on the ladies overall, but coming off best easily is Susan Engel's venomous and chillingly manipulative Regan.
Did like the suitably darkly foreboding costumes and sets a lot and the film is scored hauntingly. Shakespeare's dialogue wrenches the gut and is both beautiful and uncompromising, then again this aspect is consistently wonderful in every play of his regardless of the story (that quality overall is a lot more variable). Brook's direction does do very well at most of the character interactions, all the male roles are directed vividly and there are some gripping dramatic moments, such as one of the most moving interpretations of Gloucester's death scene seen in any version of 'King Lear'.
There are shortcomings sadly however. At too many points, Brook's direction comes over as too eccentric and has too much of a showing off feel visually. Despite loving the sets and costumes, the photography and editing generally are too stylised and the worst of it amateurish. The camerawork tends to be too frantic and the abruptness of the closeups and editing disorientated rather than fascinated.
Adaptation-wise, this 'King Lear' is heavily cut, so there is a jumpy feel to the dialogue and structure that can affect the coherence of the already complex drama and motivations. Doing so while also having some dull stretches. The female roles are not near as interesting as the male ones, only Engel registers. Irene Worth has her unsettling moments as Goneril but generally is too soft spoken. Faring worst is Annelise Gabold's very bland Cordelia, whose role felt somehow underwritten here.
Concluding, some great things but also some not so good. 6/10.