King Lear (1971)
King Lear, old and tired, divides his kingdom among his daughters, giving great importance to their protestations of love for him. When Cordelia, youngest and most honest, refuses to idly flatter the old man in return for favor, he banishes her and turns for support to his remaining daughters. But Goneril and Regan have no love for him and instead plot to take all his power from him. In a parallel, Lear's loyal courtier Gloucester favors his illegitimate son Edmund after being told lies about his faithful son Edgar. Madness and tragedy befall both ill-starred fathers.
Watch Trailer
Cast
Reviews
The Age of Commercialism
Boring
In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.
Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.
King Lear is a very complex and powerful tragedy, and therefore adapting it is difficult. Peter Brook's 1971 film, shot in black and white, actually does a great job and summons up most of the titanic power of its source material. This has been a divisive film, and I can partially see why. With its drained, melancholy black and white cinematography, gloomy line delivery, subtle camera movements and dark, nightmare-like atmosphere, this does not hold back at all in its bleakness, and is not for the faint of heart. This is one highly nihilistic movie, so do not watch this for a good time. Still, King Lear is one of the most depressing plays ever written so perhaps that's appropriate. Despite the liberties it takes with the play (It cuts out much of the dialogue and its unrelenting misery occasionally causes the play's more optimistic, tender moments to lose some of their impact), this is a very good film which urgently needs more attention. Peter Brook's direction is haunting and brutally bleak, yet best of all very subtle and intelligently understated. Paul Scofield is brilliant as Lear, and gives a wonderful and pleasingly quiet performance as the tragic protagonist. Another highlight is the Fool, who is drained of all his normal humour. A miserable film for sure, but a very compelling one with a terrific finale. This is a very worthy adaptation overall and shows just how much of a gut-punch King Lear is.9/10
It was a really good film... but I HATED IT. Objectively, it was a really fantastic and apt adaptation of the play, but subjectively, I would have rather watched paint dry. Set in some desolate, almost dystopian, icy, barren landscape; the production design was brilliant and unique, perfectly capturing the desperation of the play. Unlike so many other filmic Shakespeare adaptations, it actually worked really well as a movie, and made the most of "film" as a medium; making the set and the costumes add to the feel of the play. However... It was dull, boring, tortuously long, depressing.... I couldn't stand it. I'm a Shakespeare fan, and I thought I knew this play, but the adaptation still left me thoroughly confused, primarily because I struggle with faces, and every character looked exactly the same. Overall, I'd say steer very clear unless you are a very dedicated King Lear fan, or a very dedicated Peter Brook fan.
The above reviewer certainly completely missed the point of this production. Perhaps he needs to do some research into King Lear before he berates this particular interpretation. Certainly it's challenging to watch, but that was entirely Brook's intention. He's taken King Lear and emphasised the absurdist elements of the play to draw out its nihilism. It's supposed to be bleak/non-sensical in some parts/incoherent/challenging for an audience to watch. I suggest you understand it before you berate it. If it just didn't tickle your fancy then that's fine. In the post-modern tradition Brook removes and alters significant chunks of the original Shakespeare text. The film is chaotically edited, reinforcing the theme of Order to Chaos within the play. Brook's interpretation is definitely challenging to watch. Absurdist theatre is intended to be confronting for a viewer. It is totally bleak, but keep an open mind as you watch it.
Much reviled at the time of it's release, this heavily cut, Danishco-production horrified critics with it's bleak as possible take on whatsome consider the world's greatest play. Obviously influenced by nortic flicks from Dryer to Bergman,Peter Brook shot this as a midevil horror show; and Pauline Kael calledit his "Night Of The Living Dead." While certainly unfair to the scope of the Bard's vision, thefilm is undeniably facinating; though sometimes tedious too. In the bestparts it comes alive with a vivid wickedness, you can certainly see howLear's daughter's came to hate his guts! So, even if it does mutilate a classic, this film is prettyamazing and highly recommendable. A dark product of it's own time, youwill scarcely see a Lear like this again.