Comments | immortalradical: King Lear

immortalradical

King Lear

Jun 23, 2007 13:58

In a conversation with James Shapiro printed in the programme of his RSC production of King Lear, Sir Trevor Nunn (for it is he), says, "This is absolutely central to me, because I find no sense of divine justice [in the text]." For anyone who saw the production, just finished at the Courtyard theatre in Stratford and about to set off on a world ( Read more... )

Comments 9

Our basest beggars are in the poorest things superfluous you know... cellardoor28 June 23 2007, 13:18:46 UTC

I'm a bit disappointed by this. Lear has always been my favourite tragedy, and the thought of seeing Mckellan play it makes me very happy (and I shall still be making every effort to see it when it hits London in November). Unfortunately, I am not surprised that you're underwhelmed as I've yet to see a Trevor Nunn production that hasn't made me want to kick his head in; even when there are glimpses of brilliance involved it seems to be despite him rather than because of him, such as Ben Whishaw's excellent Hamlet who was pretty much the only thing to recommend about that production.

At least Lear doesn't have bloody Imogen bloody Stubbs in it.

Re: Our basest beggars are in the poorest things superfluous you know... immortalradical June 23 2007, 13:27:11 UTC

Yeah, this production really did turn into a bit of a test of endurance. Not necessarily because it's so long - at three and a half hours, certainly it is a victim of each and every actors' ponderous treatment of their lines, but I watch LotR extended editions for fun - but because it is so very reverent. And yet I have no idea what Nunn was trying to say with this production, I haven't got a clue what it is trying to make of the play. A vehicle for Sir Ian, mostly. [1]And Sir Ian is very good in many ways - he tackles the physicality of the part in particular with not a little brilliance. There are moments of heartbreaking poignancy when his Lear looks totally lost, utterly confused. It's a slightly inconsistent performance in the sense that Lear seems capable of whatever McKellen wants to do in a given scene - from shaking hands and weak-kneed legs to jumping about on imaginary traps with flowers in his hair. But there's no doubting his commitment to the part. Unfortunately, he's trapped in a production which makes nothing of that ( ... )

Re: Our basest beggars are in the poorest things superfluous you know... secritcrush June 23 2007, 17:09:44 UTC

ooooo we should go together because I wish to go as well, despite the Ban pan.

Re: Our basest beggars are in the poorest things superfluous you know... cellardoor28 June 23 2007, 22:18:08 UTC

Good plan! I know the despot also wants to go. I wouldn't be surprised if Graham was interested as well. I can guarantee the hoogle wont be.

Thread 5

snowking June 23 2007, 13:55:19 UTC

Shakespeare has packed all life into this troublingly bleak depiction of human society

How many knob gags?

immortalradical June 23 2007, 13:59:07 UTC

I'm not sure, but they were all very stately.

communicator June 23 2007, 16:46:51 UTC

I've got to say it didn't seem long at all to me. It was like a voluptuous bath of speech. If it had a unifying idea I would have said it was that there are no gods. Unfortunately the person who mainly gets that is Edmund, and I thought he and Cordelia were the weakest actors.

immortalradical June 25 2007, 14:09:27 UTC

Hmm. Perhaps this comes down to a matter of taste. If I want the text, I'll just read the text. I don't want to see a production which is simply the page on a stage. So for me it wasn't a lovely wash of speech because the words weren't being spoken so much as intoned. Does that make sense?

And, yes, I'd say 'there are no gods' is a prevalent theme of the play. But it's right there, in the text. What did the production itself do to emphasise it? I'm not sure.

Edmund was just there to be sexy, really, wasn't he? :P